Re: Comments on draft charter [Was: Agenda: Verifiable Claims Teleconference - Tuesday, March 8th 2016]

Once we zero in in this "fragility" concept, I like it. Much better!

On Saturday, March 12, 2016, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net> wrote:

> RE: "Identity fragility"
>
> I flagged this a few days ago and got no comments, but on re-reading the
> Charter draft it still stands out for me, and this time I have a suggested
> improvement.
>
> Currently, the Problem Statement includes:
>
> "In existing attribute exchange architectures (like SAML, OpenID Connect,
> Login with SuperProviderX, etc.), users, and their verifiable claims, do
> not independently exist from service providers. This means users can't
> easily change their service provider without losing their digital identity.
> This leads to vendor lock-in, identity fragility, reduced competition in
> the marketplace, and reduced privacy for all stakeholders. "
>
> As this stands, the main direct problem for the credential holder --
> besides privacy -- is 'identity fragility'. I'd suggest that:
> a) that's vague
> b) there are other things happening: IMO the vendor lock-in leads to
> identity duplication, confusion, loss, and inaccuracy.
>
> Perhaps all those things together could be characterised as 'fragility',
> but since the vendor lock-in issue is a major reason why verifiable claims
> are needed, IMO it's best to spell it out. I suggest the last sentence be
> amended to:
>
> "This leads to: vendor lock-in, identity fragility (duplication,
> confusion, loss, and inaccuracy), reduced competition in the marketplace,
> and reduced privacy for all stakeholders."
>
> And of course we could also fight about (I mean discuss) which of those
> four descriptors are accurate, and/or add others.
>
> Steven
>
>
>

-- 

=====
Matt Stone
501-291-1599