- From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:27:03 +0000
- To: "=Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@evernym.com>
- Cc: Pindar Wong <pindar.wong@gmail.com>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Christian Lundkvist <christian.lundkvist@consensys.net>
- Message-ID: <CAM1Sok0yL7+z44x-AVzRBYP3bUiZfLgac_wPAmVUt-sD5Yx-_A@mail.gmail.com>
fwiw; 1. Roger Clarke has done alot of work on the identity subject over the years. http://www.rogerclarke.com/ID/IdModel-1002.html being a constituent of http://www.rogerclarke.com/ID/#IdIS 2. The means in which we construct our 'identity' is as diverse as other parts of our make-up both biologically and environmentally. the technical standards needed to transfer or make notations of our-beings in a form that is increasingly relied upon others; is quite different to the construct in which those standards are used. Its my view that 'human identity' is a (self-)organised arrangement of ACLd systems of records both static and dynamic; and that those systems do not ideally have, any singular point of informatics failure. (meaning - 'one ring to rule them all', no matter its construct) Alot of the work involved in framing that (or contrary) view(s); are beyond the scope of W3C, as the required discussion is about the use of technology more than the definition of new technology - whilst noting, both are of course important. particularly also, the means for interoperability. different groups will have different views, for different reasons. this is in-turn a constituent of the diversity aspect which is an important constituent of digital identity definitions. (noting that others denote 'sameness'). tim.h. On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 at 00:42 =Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com> wrote: > Pindar, > > It would be wonderful if you are able to expose the DID spec at the ICANN > meeting. The world of decentralized identity is going to be living > alongside the world of centralized identity and the world of federated > identity and I personally am of the belief that they can all live > harmoniously. > > Pindar, let us know if you need any supporting materials or slides about > DIDs. > > Best, > > =Drummond > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Pindar Wong <pindar.wong@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Great to see that there’s more traction and awareness! >> >> Technical transitions and architectural pivots can be super tough but I’m >> of the view to try create engagement if they are to be managed elegantly. >> >> So just a heads-up, and though some may consider this legacy, but FWIW >> I’ll be talking a bit about the DID Spec at ICANN60 during the following >> panel: >> >> https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbFe/emerging-identifiers-technology >> >> p. >> >> >> >> On 24 Oct 2017, at 2:59 PM, =Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com> >> wrote: >> >> Folks, >> >> The good news was that there was a TON of interest in the DID spec at Internet >> Identity Workshop <http://www.internetidentityworkshop.com/> #25. I gave >> three complete presentations on it and we had several other related >> sessions. >> >> The bad news (well, not really) is that there was a ton of feedback. >> People are really starting to care deeply about making sure the DID spec, >> as the foundation for a global DPKI (decentralized public key >> infrastructure >> <https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rebooting-the-web-of-trust/blob/master/final-documents/dpki.pdf>), >> is solid as a rock. >> >> On the Friday after IIW I had a long breakfast with Christian Lundkvist >> of uPort where we discussed this and developed a proposal for how to handle *key >> descriptions* and *service descriptions* in a data graph so simple it >> can be serialized unambiguously in any modern format. Yesterday I wrote up this >> proposal in this Google doc >> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1amDNmBqu8uXKeEqdoZ2RMaaxiUlqUKyKoyi8YgGWG6M/edit?usp=sharing> >> (publicly viewable by anyone with the link). >> >> This proposal also includes the recommendation that interoperability at >> the DID layer is so crucial that *every key description* and *every >> service description* should have a corresponding spec (even if fairly >> lightweight). >> >> I have not had a chance to share this with Manu or anyone else yet >> besides Christian (to make sure I got it right) and the Evernym DID team >> (as a sanity check and to get input on how it helps with DKMS support). >> >> We can of course translate this into an actual PR against the current >> draft spec—and we will do that when ready—but it seemed easiest to share it >> in this format first for discussion. >> >> Talk to you tomorrow, >> >> =Drummond >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Timothy Holborn < >> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Found a relevent IETF RFC[4] re: trust anchors[2] >>> >>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 at 18:09 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> very quickly. was looking at the overview[1] and saw the concept "root >>>> of trust <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_anchor>" which >>>> hyperlinks to Trust Anchor[2]. I suggest either defining a new wikipedia >>>> page for the term[3] rather than simply a redirect, or change the term used >>>> in the spec doc. >>>> >>>> more l8r. >>>> >>>> Tim.H. >>>> >>>> [1] https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-spec/#overview >>>> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_anchor >>>> [3] >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Root_of_Trust&action=history >>>> >>>> >>> [4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5914 >>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 at 17:49 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 at 08:20 Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 10/18/2017 01:50 PM, Kim Hamilton Duffy wrote: >>>>>> > Manu -- what are your thoughts? >>>>>> >>>>>> Steven, at this point the only feedback we're looking for is only >>>>>> technical in nature and even then, based on whether the text reflects >>>>>> consensus at Rebooting the Web of Trust 5, which you weren't at. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Is this a RWOT spec? >>>>> >>>>> If so, it should be marked as such. This CG can then make one >>>>> inspired by it, if/as required. >>>>> >>>>> Therein, the spec should be moved to the RWOT repo? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words, the spec isn't ready for your kind of valuable >>>>>> feedback >>>>>> yet... it would largely be a waste of your time to correct the large >>>>>> swaths of the spec text that may be confusing for non-implementers >>>>>> that >>>>>> are buried in the details right now. >>>>>> >>>>>> I expect that we may need your review help in a few months time from >>>>>> now. As always, thanks for offering and we will certainly take you up >>>>>> on >>>>>> it once it becomes a good use of your time. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'll review and have a look; and am not sure of the specifics, whilst >>>>> noting important principles herein. >>>>> >>>>> IMHO: it's important to be inclusive and the W3 IPR framework is not >>>>> unintentionally misaligned in some way that is against the spirit of this >>>>> structure. >>>>> >>>>> I guess. try not to oversimplify imho. might end-up with unintended >>>>> consequences. (technically speaking). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -- manu >>>>>> >>>>>> best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> tim. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 Wednesday, 25 October 2017 22:27:43 UTC