W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > July 2016

Re: Web Payments IG approves Verifiable Claims to proceed to W3C Management

From: Stone, Matt <matt.stone@pearson.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 22:53:25 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+w1=RTkz7Mo2Zf6wWkCQc109xEjsgRc_oAj2_ROnQoNBygRdA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>
Hooray

+1 moving forward!

Need an expansive interpretation of "education"...

-stone

On Monday, July 4, 2016, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:

> Also,
>
> We need a clear definition of 'education'.
> IE:
>
> To Educate W3C related stakeholders about a set of specified methodologies
> that may be used to define a verifiable claims ecosystem for a plurality of
> applications.
>
> arguably stakeholders are any human who depends upon or is influenced by
> web use and the application of related technologies via various business
> systems models.
>
> Perhaps they had a different view of the term 'education'?  therein
> referring back to the prior request outlined here [1]
>
> Tim.H.
> [1]
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2016Jul/0005.html
>
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 at 11:06 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','timothy.holborn@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
>> Is it possible that those providing objection provide a 1 - 2 pager,
>> each, outlining their concerns and understandings more broadly driving
>> their decision making processes and subsequent directions to us.
>>
>> It is important we understand the point of view of these stakeholders in
>> a comprehensive fashion as to ensure we act in a manner supported by what
>> might be considered a reasonable request for due-diligence.
>>
>> This in-turn would empower us to improve what we do for smooth
>> development into the future, including but not exclusive to, any further
>> processing required by said stakeholders and us fully understanding their
>> expectations, beliefs and underlying considerations.
>>
>> I hope this is not too onerous on any party.
>>
>> Again, congratulations and great work...
>>
>> Tim Holborn.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 5 Jul 2016, 3:32 AM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','msporny@digitalbazaar.com');>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> The Web Payments Interest Group met last week at MIT in Boston to
>>> determine if they wanted to proceed with the Verifiable Claims work.
>>> While the minutes of those meetings won't be made public for the next
>>> week or two, W3C Staff noted that we can share the general outcome of
>>> the decision.
>>>
>>> The decision was almost unanimous to progress the Verifiable Claims
>>> proposal to W3C Management. Hooray! Congratulations to everyone involved
>>> as this is a major step forward.
>>>
>>> There were, however, three dissenting positions that we should take very
>>> seriously and discuss in depth over the next few weeks. The telecon for
>>> this week is canceled because many of us are at the Web Payments Working
>>> Group face-to-face meeting in London this week. So, the rest of this
>>> email will attempt to outline general next steps and specific work items
>>> for the group.
>>>
>>> The anticipated next steps at W3C are:
>>>
>>> 1. A modified charter is negotiated with W3C Management and the
>>>    dissenting organizations.
>>> 2. Once we have consensus among all organizations involved, the
>>>    expectation is that the modified charter and proposal will be put
>>>    forward to W3C membership for a vote. The timeline for this is
>>>    unknown at this point.
>>> 3. We will most likely attempt to have a Verifiable Claims
>>>    face-to-face meeting at W3C TPAC 2016, but have not sorted out
>>>    those details yet: https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC/
>>>
>>> We know of the following modification requests to the charter:
>>>
>>> 1. Constrain the charter to Education only.
>>> 2. Demonstrate that the charter is not competitive to JSON Object
>>>    Signing and Encryption Web Tokens (JOSE JWT).
>>> 3. Remove or greatly narrow the overarching problem statement
>>>    about self-sovereign ecosystem and goals from the charter.
>>>
>>> The anticipated next steps for the Verifiable Claims Task Force and
>>> Credentials Community Group are:
>>>
>>> 1. Determine if we want to constrain the charter to Education only.
>>> 2. Update the Data Model and Representations specification to clearly
>>>    demonstrate that this technology is not competitive to JOSE/JWT.
>>> 3. Determine if we want to modify the problem statement and
>>>    charter goals.
>>> 4. Plan our first face-to-face meeting, possibly at W3C TPAC in
>>>    Lisbon at the end of September.
>>>
>>> W3C Staff are currently drafting changes that they think would result in
>>> consensus. Once we have those suggestions in hand, and once we've talked
>>> with the dissenting organizations, we'll be able to have a better idea
>>> about timeline.
>>>
>>> The next Verifiable Claims telecon will be Tuesday, July 12th at 11am
>>> ET. Dial in details can be found here:
>>>
>>> https://w3c.github.io/vctf/#telecons
>>>
>>> -- manu
>>>
>>> --
>>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
>>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>> blog: The Web Browser API Incubation Anti-Pattern
>>> http://manu.sporny.org/2016/browser-api-incubation-antipattern/
>>>
>>>

-- 

=====
Matt Stone
501-291-1599
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2016 04:53:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:30 UTC