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

Re: Feedback requested: VC Architecture Diagram

From: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:52:20 +0100
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <32627a89-96f0-933f-47e2-13d8e939c158@kent.ac.uk>


On 15/06/2016 14:20, Manu Sporny wrote:
> On 06/15/2016 06:09 AM, David Chadwick wrote:
>> One might conclude from this that you think that FIDO will not scale
>> wrt adoption. Is this a fair conclusion?
> 
> No, I think FIDO will be just fine for same-origin use cases.
> 
> The vast majority of our use cases are multi-origin.
> 
> FIDO ensures that the entity that a website is speaking to is the same
> entity that enrolled the security device at a previous point in time.

But if s/he loses his/her smart phone (and keys) then what? Surely this
is the same issue that you previously had with public keys? Why is it
different?

regards

David


> 
> Verifiable Claims ensure that the entity that a website is speaking to
> has a certain set of qualifications that have been vetted by a trusted
> 3rd party. It also ensures that those qualifications can be asserted
> across multiple origins.
> 
> Different technologies for different use cases.
> 
> FIDO and Verifiable Claims are complimentary.
> 
>>> Someone that disagrees is welcome to build an alternate ecosystem
>>> based
>>>> In terms of the arrows, I prefer Dave Crocker's version
>>>
>>> Good to know, thank you. Why? (out of curiosity)
>>
>> I think it more clearly shows the direction of flow of information, 
>> without getting into protocol messages or handshakes.
> 
> Great, thanks. :)
> 
> -- manu
> 
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2016 14:52:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:29 UTC