W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > April 2017

Re: PR for playground

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:10:57 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok3=0LJHa+78Psh8Dp=+5uDSSp_yLqEG1G1VgRMQvuM16A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>, Greg Adamson <g.adamson@ieee.org>
Cc: Pindar Wong <pindar.wong@gmail.com>, Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@blockstream.com>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Tony Arcieri <bascule@gmail.com>
IMHO, it's good to get a bunch of stakeholders in a room, particularly in
areas pertaining to values / ethics, to ensure (amongst other things)
things don't get "captured" in a manner that precludes use/business cases.

IEEE membership is rather substantive.  ISOC / IETF has a role, as does
W3C, and likely Alps others.

HbbTV is a good past example, noting, it didn't start out that simply, and
ETSI had a significant role in the early days.

Tim.

On Tue., 11 Apr. 2017, 1:04 am Adrian Hope-Bailie, <adrian@hopebailie.com>
wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> Thanks, that is useful context. It still seems very premature to me to be
> trying to standardize something as broad as "blockchain" when both the
> governance and technical standards are likely to be vastly different for
> different use cases.
>
> I am happy to be proven wrong, but it seems to me a more pragmatic
> approach would be to allow industry groups to figure out how they might use
> this technology for their own use cases. When we have emerging industry
> specific standards then we can find commonality across industries that may
> be worth calling out, if only for the purpose of being able to all speak a
> common language.
>
> Alternatively, there are specific problem domains that are being
> addressed, either by blockchain solutions or because of a need to solve
> them for blockchain tech to work. A great example of focused early work
> that could lead to standardization is Christopher's work in defining the
> multi-signature problem space:
> https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/ID2020DesignWorkshop/blob/master/draft-documents/smarter-signatures.md
>
> Final question, is there precedent for this kind of standards work? Did
> anyone ever define global standards for "big data" or "cloud", the in-vogue
> tech of the last hype-cycle, that are useful today?
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1 April 2017 at 06:41, Greg Adamson <greg.adamson.engineer@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Adrian,
>
> In my experience the general goal is to address governance, and I think
> the list is far more than 4. For me the negative example is e-commerce
> exchanges. There were something like 10,000 of thee created or proposed by
> 2000, the most visible being Covisint, and every industry, every large
> corporate, had their own proposals. Within a few years 10,000 out of 10,000
> had crashed. What we have instead now are a few large commercial
> organisations (eg Amazon, Alibaba).
>
> Governance is needed particularly when things go wrong, when things need
> to be fixed, and when things need to be updated. Standards are a strong
> governance mechanism. For comparison I look at the Internet, which (and
> this can be debated) has no central point of control, but for which we can
> find around 300 governance organisations around the world.
>
> The views of what will be standardised tend to reflect the views of how
> important blockchain will be to the future of technology. Coming from a
> data comms background I would love to see agreement on a protocol stack,
> but most of the diagrams I see are less linear. In particular I am keen on
> international common approaches, because the hard problems that blockchain
> solves (eg in supply chain) are usually multi-jurisdictional ones. If there
> isn't a standard, it is that much harder to have a global application.
>
> I wear two hats in this area, participating in the Standards Australia
> IT-041, which is the secretariat for the ISO TC307 (meeting next week in
> Sydney), as well as chairing the IEEE SIG. There seems to be good
> cross-initiative cooperation at the moment. My recent background is
> financial services for a large bank (trade, payments, correspondent
> banking), but in a past life I also worked in health informatics, so I am
> involved in some pharma work. For much of my life I have worked in aspects
> of supply chain.
>
> Regards, Greg
> Dr Greg Adamson
> Principal, Digital Risk Innovation
> Chair, IEEE Design for Ethics Ad Hoc
> +61 423 783 527 <+61%20423%20783%20527>
>
> On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Pindar, Greg, Manu,
>
> I think the list of organizations doing "Blockchain Standardization" now
> includes ISO, the IEEE, ISOC and W3C. I am interested to hear from those of
> you involved what the goals of these initiatives are?
>
> What are you trying to standardize?
>
> Adrian
>
> On 31 March 2017 at 03:09, Pindar Wong <pindar.wong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Manu,
>
> FWIW, the Internet Society <http://www.isoc.org> has also formed a
> Blockchain Special Internet Group where I serve as the interim-Chair.
>
> I hope that we can all find a way to move the ball forward together.
>
> Regards,
>
> p.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Greg Adamson <
> greg.adamson.engineer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Manu
>
> IEEE has been developing a SIG on blockchain over the past year which I
> chair, and will be announcing an "Industry Connection" on identity and
> blockchain next Tuesday in Vancouver at our Blockchain Summit. An IC is a
> pre-standards engagement activity.
>
> The blockchain standards / governance space is going to be chaotic and
> fragmented for a while (I am also part of the ISO process as a member of
> the Australian TC), but if you see any pain points that seem to fall into
> IEEE's areas of expertise, point them out and we will see what can be done.
>
> Regards Greg
>
> On 31 Mar. 2017 4:02 pm, "Timothy Holborn" <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 at 10:51 Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
> wrote:
>
> On 03/25/2017 06:55 PM, Tony Arcieri wrote:
> > I would recommend Blockstream's secp256k1 Schnorr signature
> > algorithm, although unfortunately I don't think there are existing
> > standards describing it published through any sort of standards
> > body.
>
>
> Just introducing Greg re: blockchain / IEEE
>
>
> I'll close the loop on this w/ Christopher Allen, who works at
> Blockstream. We'll be collaborating on this and other things at the next
> Rebooting Web of Trust 4 Workshop in Paris at the end of April:
>
> http://www.weboftrust.info/next-event-page.html
>
> > In all of my personal and professional work we are using EdDSA, which
> > is a Schnorr scheme and standardized in RFC 8032.
>
> I've raised an issue to implement this:
>
> https://github.com/digitalbazaar/jsonld-signatures/issues/21
>
> I don't expect it to be done any time soon, as we're heads down on other
> things, but demand for it is rising and as soon as we get an
> implementation in Forge, we can move forward with it in the Linked Data
> Signatures stuff.
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Rebalancing How the Web is Built
> http://manu.sporny.org/2016/rebalancing/
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 10 April 2017 15:11:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:36 UTC