- From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:19:39 -0800
- To: msporny@digitalbazaar.com, Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
On 2018-01-30 10:39 AM, msporny@digitalbazaar.com wrote: > Manu Sporny: May want to cover uport blog post > Manu Sporny: If you're writing about the work of the community > ... please share credit for the groups that have been > incubating these ideas > ... IIW, RWOT, W3C, DIF At the above point, in the audio for the group, as I hear it Manu also says: "...it's mostly like, where is large amounts of the work happening...--I think DIF would probably also like to be mentioned, although it's not clear to me, you now, exactly what work's going on there, so maybe someone from DIF can let us know." I managed to repress my internal red flag about the Uport Blog failing to attribute the CCG DID work in the other thread, but apparently Manu feels something the same, so I'm going to come right out with it: 1. The Uport Blog suggested that the DID work existed under the auspices of the DIF. 2. After Manu's complaint and request, the corrected Uport Blog still lists the DID work under DIF heading, though with a mention in another section that the CCG group exists and is also working on DID along with the DIF. https://medium.com/uport/different-approaches-to-ethereum-identity-standards-a09488347c87 3. DIF appears to be primarily a large group of corporations, including Microsoft and IBM. http://identity.foundation/ Red Flag: Is it possible -- and there is history for this, I believe, in other situations, particularly with Microsoft -- that one or more of the companies in the DIF will attempt to use DID for a silo, to preempt the ability of the DID platform to spread into general use? Or even purposely interfere with the DID coding and use, in a way that fouls it up or slows it down, so that it won't compete with something else that they've got going elsewhere? This sounds like a conspiracy theory, granted. But OTOH these things actually have happened in the past, and the Uport blog seems like a pretty large hint that it's at least possible here. So: are there other things in this situation that prevent the possibility of this happening? Steven > Kim Hamilton Duffy: Next week is our first Crypto Tuesday > Kim Hamilton Duffy: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/data-minimization > ... we'll be talking about Selective and Minimal disclosure > Kim Hamilton Duffy: Dv suites: https://w3c-dvcg.github.io/ > ... we'll also be reviewing the digital verification suites > ... we iterate these as needed, and now it time to focus on > them > ... Feb 13 we'll be discussing linked datas capabilities, aka > OCAP > Kim Hamilton Duffy: Linked Data cap: > https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rebooting-the-web-of-trust-fall2017/blob/master/final-documents/lds-ocap.pdf > ... Upcoming events > Manu Sporny: New LDOCAP spec: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/ld-ocap/ > ... Implementers standup ~Feb 19 > Kim Hamilton Duffy: RWOT: https://rwot6.eventbrite.com > ... RWOT VI Mar 6-8 in Santa Barbara > ... that Monday a RWOT Disc Golf Tourney > ... IIW April 3-5 > Kim Hamilton Duffy: Eventbrite for IIW: > https://www.eventbrite.com/e/internet-identity-workshop-iiwxxvi-26-2018a-tickets-39785360083 > ... Post IIW Verifiable Claims Face-to-Face April 5,6 > > Topic: Action Items > > Manu Sporny: DID Spec Harmonization: > https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/pull/41 > Manu Sporny: There is a pull request for DID spec harmonization > ... talked about this on the DID task force call > ... talked about this last week, no objections > ... so unless there are objections here, we'll pull this in > Ryan Grant: There are a couple places in the security section > that needs help. This isn't an objection, but there are places > that need fixing. > Manu Sporny: We'll be doing further PRs > ... so let's pull in those comments as new PR > > ACTION: Ryan Grant to submit Pull Request to update bad links. > > Mike Lodder: On the queue for Drummond > ... On the subject of DID. Great talk with Sam Smith > ... Should be posted tomorrow > ... Final DID spec call this week > Kim Hamilton Duffy: Do we need a final +1? > Manu Sporny: That's a good idea > > PROPOSAL: Merge PR 41 into the main specification based on no > objections, we have achieved consensus on this PR. > > Joe Andrieu: +1 > Kim Hamilton Duffy: +1 > Manu Sporny: +1 > Ted Thibodeau: +1 > Christopher Allen: +1 > Ryan Grant: +1 > > RESOLUTION: Merge PR 41 into the main specification based on no > objections, we have achieved consensus on this PR. > > Christopher Allen: Discounts with paper! > Joe Andrieu: Can I post RWOT details to VCWG? [scribe assist by > Kim Hamilton Duffy] > Manu Sporny: Yes [scribe assist by Kim Hamilton Duffy] > Joe Andrieu: I'll get something out to both email lists > Manu Sporny: Question for Joe > Nate Otto: I'm sure my paper will come in less than a week before > the event. Will purchase my ticket and travel for RWOT in the > next couple days. > ... if someone is writing a paper, do we have to submit that > before buying? > Manu Sporny: Go to https://rwot6.eventbrite.com/ > Joe Andrieu: Not at all. > ... You should be able to buy tickets before the paper. > Joe Andrieu: Almost done with engagement model [scribe assist by > Kim Hamilton Duffy] > Kim Hamilton Duffy: ...Will be released through RWoT but we'll > pull it in here > David Chadwick: Under lifecycle model item... > Joe Andrieu: Would like to review engagement model with ccg > [scribe assist by Kim Hamilton Duffy] > ... did post something 1/17. That was responded too. > ... last week we discussed PRs for the spec > ... so that's my new action item > Manu Sporny: I had problems hearing you... > ... I did see that email > ... PRs are a good way to engage > ... And Manu will work with you to incorporate your feedback > ... Last week's meeting it got documented as feedback on DID > spec... but its not. > ... it's feedback for the data model document > Mike Lodder: I also do not hear every syllable [scribe assist by > Lionel Wolberger] > Christopher Allen: Continued audio problems with DavidC > David Chadwick: I think its something with my microphone. I can > hear you all well > > Topic: CG Process > > Christopher Allen: One of our agenda items is to define what is > the process we are doing with the ccg > ... Some things are already defined by W3C > ... but then, within our own process since our reboot last > summer, > ... we want to document was new in the kinds of things we do > ... if you have thoughts about how we should run things, let us > know > ... Joe and I are working on a draft we'll make available to > the group > > Topic: Data Minimization > > Lionel Wolberger: Data Minimization Paper > ... there has been progress > ... fine tuning last draft > ... moving forward > Christopher Allen: Next week we'll touch on the paper > ... that's Crypto Tuesday and that will be our first topic > > ACTION: Mike Lodder to invite Jan Camenisch to crypto Tuesday > > Lionel Wolberger: ... There is a CL section in the document. > Might be good to reach out to Jan. > ... Also maybe we can reach out to Dan Larimer? > Kim Hamilton Duffy: Education Task Force: > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lJm2UPVQOUfHAYD50doWAwhqb97abfMgbsFZjZ8Rj-I/edit?usp=sharing > Kim Hamilton Duffy: Repo: > https://github.com/w3c-ccg/edu_occ_verifiable_credentials > > Topic: Education Task Force > > Kim Hamilton Duffy: We're launching the Education and Life Long > Learning Task Force (name may change) > ... we going to overview the work we have in mind > ... we see the CCG as a good fit with this education work > ... Nate Otto and Kerri Lemoie will talk about it > ... Long been an interest in Open Badges and verifiable > credentials > ... a desire for a more lightweight specification > ... we've gotten more motivated to engage on that. > ... we see this eventually resulting in requirements from > education > ... for example, in verifiable claims, examples are things like > driver's license or other IDs given to you > ... in education formal needs are important, > ... but so are endorsements that, say, a peer gives > ... The other thing we see as potential deliverable is a draft > specification > ... for where we want to see an Open Badges Verifiable > Credential standard > ...also technical prototyping > Nate Otto: We think that through this work we could outline what > changes might be needed to these associated specifications to > make sure they have a happy future together. For example, "Add > Linked Data Signatures as a new available signing method for Open > Badges" > Kim Hamilton Duffy: Priorities include engaging the broader > community > ...we want to be able to express open badges as verifiable > credentials > ...we see an open badges being wrapped by verifiable > credential, using linked-data signatures > ...we are trying to let Open Badges *use* the tools of the VCWG > and community > Nate Otto: > https://github.com/w3c-ccg/edu_occ_verifiable_credentials/blob/master/open_badge_assertions_as_verifiable_credentials.md > Whoops just noticed one tiny issue with this -- reusing the > "recipient_did" so intent is ambiguous. The claim should have its > own unique DID as id, and we would use the > "did:example:recipient_did" as the recipient.identity > ...recipent owned credentials are important > ...and LD signatures compatibility > Kerri Lemoie: http://credreg.net/ > ...next up: Credential Engine Registry > Kerri Lemoie: Applications can use the registry for free > ... archived by Internet Archive > ... over 200 fields to define credentials > Nate Otto: The Credential Engine Registry is available at > https://credentialfinder.com/ > ...this is a proposal for further discussions > Kim Hamilton Duffy: Features to add to Open Badges > ... 1. amending an assertion with further evidence > ... 2. identification of an evidence provider > Christopher Allen: (Schema link to credentials finder: > http://credreg.net/ctdl/terms) > ... also the idea of credentials that aren't valid until > counter-signed > ... this is vital for GDPR > Kerri Lemoie: The counter sign ability is yet another level of > verifiability > ... sometimes credentials are issued without the subject's > knowledge or with info they didn't intend to publicize > Kim Hamilton Duffy: This brings up issues of different parties > at different phases is the credential lifecycle > Kerri Lemoie: Ongoing conversation, issue that the creator of > the badge is presumed to be the issuer > ... his has complications, but simplifies things in others > Mike Lodder: Is there a use case for issuing a credential without > the subject's knowledge? > Nate Otto: Both the BadgeClass and the Assertion may have an > "issuer" property. Currently in Open Badges 2.0 only the > BadgeClass identifies its "issuer", and the Assertion's creator > is assumed to be the same as the BadgeClass's. > ... we've discussed different technical issues about types and > whether there is a finite list > ... Which raises questions of what verifiability means > Nate Otto: We've outlined some of the use cases for allowing > Assertion to have an "issuer" that is different on the openbadges > specification here: > https://github.com/IMSGlobal/openbadges-specification/issues/75 > Kim Hamilton Duffy: So there are a range of topics the task > force would address > ... and we'd live to have a good place to continue this > conversation and document what we're doing and going through a > consensus process to understand use cases and requirements > ... and feed into different specs that might be implemented > Bohdan Andriyiv: I wanted to raise a question > ... why do we want to wrap open badges into verifiable > credentails? I have a propsal... > ... why not have Open Badges *be* a verifiable credential > ... maybe that's a simpler way. using optional properties. > ... I'll post the idea in the open badges group > Bohdan Andriyiv: > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/openbadges/MJJ52U5jTwA > Kim Hamilton Duffy: Great. let's get that into the conversation. > ... I look forwrd to reviewing your approach > Kerri Lemoie: +1 To further discussions on drabiv's thinking > Manu Sporny: This is all great. > ... fantastic to discuss how to make all these technologies > work together > ... super excited about possibilities for alignment with Open > Badges > ... bringing in from VCWG > Nate Otto: I suspect that Bohdan (drabiv) and we are proposing > very similar modifications to Open Badges to allow the expression > of "entity earned a <defined credential>" using the Verifiable > Credentials syntax. > Manu Sporny: Lots of folks who want to create VCs, but there is > little guidance about how to do that > ... developers want examples > ... so maybe the community needs to start creating an example > catalog > Kim Hamilton Duffy: +1 > ...is there anyone else in the community that wants to help > with that? > Christopher Allen: +1 > Mike Lodder: I'm interested > ... we need this > Mike Lodder: +1 > ... here's the registry, here's where you can see how to do it > Kerri Lemoie: +1 To examples and assistance in crafting them. > Great way to learn. > ... Seeing some +1s > ... maybe this is an additional discussion > Kim Hamilton Duffy: Absolutely. that's one of the biggest areas > we (the educational task force) are working on > Mike Lodder: I can't speak for the Sovrin community as a whole > but I believe they will want this > ... examples of how the current specs would be used for > educational use cases > Christopher Allen: An example repo with > ... submitted for review, reviewed, > ... with a bunch of JSON-LD examples > ... we could accumulate examples to review > ... then go through them collectively and unwind problems and > improve them as examples > ... also, I'd be interested from an education world, > counter-signed claims > ...I've long desired that for RWOT use cases, GDPR, and other > cases. > ... I'd like to get the requirements for that more clear. > ... I understand *my* reason and GDPR reasons, and I'd like to > understand the education uses of that > Mike Lodder: This is this why Evernym uses CL signatures > Kerri Lemoie: +1 ChristoperA > Kim Hamilton Duffy: There is a section in VC data model... > Mike Lodder: They involve both the issuer and the subject to > jointly sign a claim > ... in the case of educational claims we need to be more > explicit about the privacy trade-offs we're making > Kim Hamilton Duffy: Any specific thoughts from education > community? > Nate Otto: Welcome Stuart to today's call! > Stuart Sutton: This is Stuart Sutton from the credential engine > Jarlath O'Carroll: +1 > ... we are highly supportive of the work of this group. > ... happy to contribute > Serge Ravet: Happy to contribute too :-) > Nate Otto: Stuart, could you possibly make it to Santa Barbara > for https://rwot6.eventbrite.com in March? > Christopher Allen: I have a request... > ... I'd love to see from the educational task force, some > peer-to-peer use cases > ... e.g., "I've seen lots of Joe's javascript. It's high > quality" > Kerri Lemoie: +1 To including peer-to-peer in use cases > Nate Otto: Welcome Szerge (Serge Ravet) to the call! > Nate Otto: We Open Badges and CredReg folks have brought in some > newcomers to today's CCG call. > Kim Hamilton Duffy: The work Szerge has been doing with Nate is > pulling in a lot of interesting European context > Serge Ravet: I'm developing the [x] alliance > ... working on forms of recognition > Serge Ravet: Open recognition alliance > Manu Sporny: Awesome, welcome to the group Szerge! > Kerri Lemoie: Serge is from the Open Recognition Alliance > http://openrecognition.org > > ACTION: CCG to create VC examples repo. > > Kerri Lemoie: Thank you!! > Kim Hamilton Duffy: That's a wrap. Thanks everyone. > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2018 20:20:05 UTC