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

Re: Proof of possession

From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 08:01:26 -0700
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <7db8424e-08c4-5a58-fca9-74ba1a969334@sunshine.net>
On 6/15/16 6:53 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
> these things should help people provide proof of 'knowledge' they
> possess.   Doesn't matter where someone comes from - it matters what
> they do.

Good point, but both matter. Academic and other qualifications rely on 
the certified reputation system that you're accurately criticizing as 
not always accurate. But it's accurate sometimes, to some degree. It's 
also useful.

I'm hoping that the Credentials system being developed here will add 
the capability to accrue reputation to the documents themselves that 
you produce -- the work that you do -- via the opinions of the people 
who buy it, -- which is what I think you're describing (or one way 
that can happen).

But 'where someone comes from' also can contain what they did in the 
past, often repeatedly, often under great stress (Medical degree), and 
is also a good indicator to what they might do in the future.

Steven


>
> Tim.h.
>
>
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 at 23:16 Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com
> <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 06/15/2016 06:00 AM, David Chadwick wrote:
>     >> Surely the community college had a data propagation strategy! Not
>     >> all of them do, and even if they do, some of them still let
>     >> students slip through the cracks.
>     >
>     > Point taken, but one would hope that in the intervening period
>     > between getting a qualification and the college going out of
>     > business, the student would have gained some practical skills that
>     > would trump the certificate.
>
>     That is not guaranteed to happen, especially for people of limited
>     economic means. Sometimes a community college degree is all you
>     have to
>     prove that you're capable of doing advanced secretarial work,
>     maintenance work, or other such activities. Given the choice between
>     someone that has a questionable past, and someone that doesn't, all
>     things being more or less equal employers will probably go with
>     the set
>     of people whose background checks panned out.
>
>     > Here is another example. I get a 10 year guarantee for some building
>     > work I have done on my house, and then next year the builder goes
>     > out of business. My guarantee is now worthless. This happens all the
>     > time in the UK unfortunately.
>
>     That's not the issue we were discussing. The issue was "what happens
>     when someone loses their private key"... not "the issuer of the
>     certificate issued a useless piece of paper".
>
>     >> ... and we can avoid all of this by using identifiers that are not
>     >>  cryptographic in nature (e.g. DIDs).
>     >
>     > But one still has to prove possession of the DID. Sure, it can be
>     > shown that the DID was created at some point in the past, but
>
>     A set of one or more public keys under your control that are
>     associated
>     with the DID entry. See "publicKey" in the following for an example:
>
>     https://authorization.io/dids/did:76d0cdb7-9c75-4be5-8e5a-e2d7a35ce907
>
>     > what proves that it was you who created it, and not some imposter
>     > saying that they created it?
>
>     DIDs are first-come, first-serve. Entries are created by signing
>     the DID
>     object (the thing at the URL above). The signature proves you have
>     control of the private key. Claims are tied to the DID, not the key
>     fingerprint. It's a simple, but important distinction.
>
>     -- 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/
>
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2016 15:01:58 UTC

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