Re: [MINUTES] W3C Credentials CG Call - 2018-11-13 12pm ET

I just want to shoot inn here about key management.
There is alot of good stuff happening in the Ethereum space with key
management.

Just take a look at the work gnosis safe is doing - https://goo.gl/r1Yzep
Social recovery, two factor signing with devices and multisig.

Metamasks newest release with ethereum standards -
https://media.consensys.net/metamask-at-devcon-privacy-standards-mobile-and-more-d826225b9b4b
Hardware wallet, adhearing to standards that come up in the ethereum space.

Universallogin initiative from Alex Van Sande and Austin Griffith -
https://universallogin.io/
You have alot of disposable keys, but they adhear to one account/key.

Can some of these things be inspirational, or is this already thought of?

On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 6:05 AM <kim@learningmachine.com> wrote:

> Thanks to Manu Sporny and Dmitri Zagidulin for scribing this week! The
> minutes
> for this week's Credentials CG telecon are now available:
>
> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2018-11-13/
>
> Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes.
> Audio from the meeting is available as well (link provided below).
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Credentials CG Telecon Minutes for 2018-11-13
>
> Agenda:
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2018Nov/0113.html
> Topics:
>   1. Introductions and Reintroductions
>   2. Announcements
>   3. Action Items
>   4. Work Items
>   5. DID Unique Selling Proposition
> Organizer:
>   Kim Hamilton Duffy and Joe Andrieu and Christopher Allen
> Scribe:
>   Manu Sporny and Dmitri Zagidulin
> Present:
>   Jeff Orgel, Bohdan Andriyiv, Dmitri Zagidulin, Christopher Allen,
>   Joe Andrieu, Manu Sporny, Dave Longley, Ted Thibodeau, Heather
>   Vescent, Michaela Casaldi, Brent Zundel, Ryan Grant, Ganesh
>   Annan, Ken Ebert, Jonathan Holt, Kim Hamilton Duffy, Moses Ma,
>   Kaliya Young, Dan Burnett, Andrew Hughes, Drummond Reed, Chris
>   Webber
> Audio:
>   https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2018-11-13/audio.ogg
>
> Michaela Casaldi: Present +
> Christopher Allen: Scribe list:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LkqZ10z7FeV3EgMIQEJ9achEYMzy1d_2S90Q_lQ0y8M/edit#heading=h.ngyk8y939osi
> Manu Sporny is scribing.
> Dmitri Zagidulin: *Manu: I can scribe!*
> Dmitri Zagidulin is scribing.
> <Start of call / IRC instructions>
> Agenda review, intros, announcements, progress reports
> Manu Sporny:
>
> https://www.w3.org/Security/strong-authentication-and-identity-workshop/cfp.html
> Manu Sporny:  Just a heads up, the Strong Authentication &
>   Identity Workshop
>   … the application deadline closes in 3 days
>   … so if you havent submitted a position statement, hurry up
> Jonathan Holt: +Present
>
> Topic: Introductions and Reintroductions
>
> Christopher Allen:  Do we have anybody new?
> Christopher Allen:  Ok, re-introductions
>   … gannan?
> Ganesh Annan:  Hi, I'm Ganesh Annan, I'm a dev at Digital Bazaar,
>   … I'm also part of the VCWG, here to learn & work with new
>   standards
> Christopher Allen: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/announcements/
> Christopher Allen:  Thank you. we have a number of upcoming
>   events
>   … here it is in IRC. in particular, there is the Strong Auth &
>   Identity Workshop in Redmond,
>
> Topic: Announcements
>
>   … which Manu mentioned earlier, happens in Dec 10-11,
> Manu Sporny: I like the compactness of the new page.
>   … I suspect a number of us will be there, we'll have a chance
>   to pitch DIDs as a solution to other working groups at W3C
>   … in prep for our official request to become a working group at
>   the beginning of the year
> Christopher Allen: http://weboftrust.info
>   … second one is Rebooting Web of Trust, Feb 27-Mar 3 2019,
>   location TBD
>   … we're hoping to make a decision re location by end of the
>   month
>   … we're hoping either that event or the Sept event will be in
>   Europa
> Christopher Allen: https://www.internetidentityworkshop.com/
> Moses Ma: If it's in europe, we need lots of advance warning
>   … finally, we have the Internet Identity Workshop, Apr 30-May
>   2nd
> Bohdan Andriyiv: +1 For Europe!
>   … where we'll have a lot of people from this group
> Moses Ma: Also, I can help organize an event in europe
> *Manu: yesss! me too*
> Christopher Allen:  Any other announcements?
> Moses Ma: Would amsterdam work?
>   … just a little more on Europe, we've heard requests for
>   Berlin. also Zurich and ..?
> Moses Ma: I might be able to get some space donated for this?
>   … we'll know more later
> Heather Vescent: OK, that's fine.
> Heather Vescent: Q_
> Brentz: I was wondering, for those who submitted applications /
>   position statements for the workshop,
>   … when will we hear back?
> Manu Sporny:  Excellent question, we don't know yet
> Kaliya Young: We have room for up to 70
>   … if you've submitted a paper, you're almost certainly going to
>   be invited
> Kaliya Young: Currently at 45 submitted
>   … we're behind on getting back to people
> Kaliya Young: If it is "in range" you will likely get invite
> Kaliya Young: So buy your plane ticket
> Dan Burnett: This is very bad for travel booking
>   … likely you'll hear about it after this Fri, which is a week
>   or so before the event
>   … but I would just assume - if you submitted both of those
>   things, you're probably in
> Christopher Allen:  That's both the registration, and an email
>   with your position statement
> Christopher Allen:
>
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22action+item%22
>
> Topic: Action Items
>
> Christopher Allen:  Ok, we're gonna move on to Action Items
> Christopher Allen:
>
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22action+item
> Christopher Allen:
>
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22action+item%22
>   … these are our current action items
>   … at this point, all of these have been assigned, aside from
>   the JWK CryptoSuite specs
> Kim Hamilton Duffy: All, please type present+ if you've not
>   already
>   … this has been an ongoing concern, a lot of people want to us
>   to use JWK,
>   … if we're gonna do that, we need somebody to make a proposal
> Christopher Allen: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/18
> Kim Hamilton Duffy: I thought that's going through the VCWG
>   group?
> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Ah I see, nm
> Christopher Allen:  Kim: no, I don't think this is a WG thing,
>   they can't make decisions about signature systems
> Dmitri Zagidulin:  I was going to ask about CBOR-based key
>   notation instead of JWK - but that may be getting off topic.
>   [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
> Christopher Allen:  Anyhow, it's still an open issue, still
>   unassigned, so I'm concerned
>   … and maybe we should also open an issue about COSE
>   … would be great to have a formal proposal for that
>   … manu, can you add those?
> Manu Sporny:  Yep, will add those
> Christopher Allen:
>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/blob/master/work_items.md
>
> Topic: Work Items
>
> Christopher Allen:  Continuing on to Work Items
>   … we have a large number of items, and progress is a bit slow
>   at the moment, focusing on DIDs and such
>   … I want to make sure nobody has announcements/changes in the
>   last couple of weeks
>   … any changes?
>
> Topic: DID Unique Selling Proposition
>
> Christopher Allen:  Ok, not seeing anything, so let's move on to
>   the core of our discussion, which is
>   … the DID unique selling proposition
> Ryan Grant: Digital Contract Design is trying to investigate our
>   position on JWT and JSON-LD, and stuck on understanding the Open
>   World assumption.  We are looking for examples.
>   … a number of us have had experience over the last couple of
>   months in talking to each other, getting into the details,
>   … but somewhere along the way, we've lost track of
>   persuasiveness
>   … we got some feedback from a couple of groups / committees,
>   one was from the w3c Architecture Group,
> Manu Sporny:  They were asking, how is this (the DID spec) going
>   to help regular people?
> Christopher Allen:  I updated my slides on DIDs, so I'm hoping
>   that's become clearer, but I hope we can make more progress on
>   that
>   … anybody else recently have experience on explaining DIDs,
>   what the problems you encountered were, etc?
> Jonathan Holt:  I'm on the ABMS
>   … the struggle they're dealing with - it's about key management
>   … who manages the keys, in an organization?
> Heather Vescent: All - I'm not sure how to bring this up, or if
>   it's not appropriate, but Kaliya and I address a lot of this
>   stuff in our report. We don't have to re-invent this information.
>   We just need to support ways to make it widely available.
> Christopher Allen:  Right, so we definitely want to address that
>   question sooner rather than later
> Christopher Allen:  Next is manu
> Manu Sporny:  I agree with Jonathan,
>   … I'm coming at it from another angle
> Jonathan Holt: ABMS (American Board of Medical Specialties )
>   … fundamentally, many of these organizations (such as the
>   federal government), do not want to be in the business of
>   managing identifiers
>   … they end up being responsible for that anyway,
>   … because everybody decides that the gov't should do it, so now
>   they become a target, a honeypot
>   … so if we wanted to hone in on a main advantage for DIDs,
>   … they tend to be different per vertical,
>   … but the one common thing that we've found is that - the
>   organization just does not want to be responsible for minting
>   identifiers
>   … and DIDs are are new type of identifier, where they don't
>   have to manage it, but they still get nice cryptographic
>   properties
> Ryan Grant:  Over the last week, I've been working on a threat
>   model using DIDs
>   … and we found that it was hard to understand
>   … the data model of the application without extending the
>   future use of the system
> Andrew Hughes: I have a question: does ‘the world’ know why the
>   Certificate Authority model of x.509 certificate management is
>   ‘bad’?
>   … into Verifiable Claims
>   … that made several things in our threat model make sense
> Manu Sporny: Achughes, probably not :)
> Drummond Reed:  I want to second that
>   … I tried multiple explanations over time, but I've migrated
>   entirely to starting with VCs (I call them just "credentials")
> Manu Sporny: Achughes, I don't think people really understand the
>   "weakest link" problem of the CA system.
>   … and the case for digital creds is strong and intuitive for
>   many people
> Manu Sporny:  We might be making a bad assumption that ‘the
>   world’ knows what we all believe is ‘bad’ about centralized
>   management of keys [scribe assist by Andrew Hughes]
>   … and then back into the need for a decentralized identifier
>   … so that just seems to flow nicely, work pretty well
> Christopher Allen:
>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/15M0tdSS1dRMVdJdVgBlFap8JwiuFdvocZ0AAu7c1eBk/edit#slide=id.g4444355b49_0_12
> Christopher Allen:  My recent experience in talking about borders
>   … I found it resonated with smaller countries' governments
>   … also companies across borders, etc
> Dan Burnett: I have found that I can explain DIDs just fine, but
>   the 'so what' question only gets answered with VCs.
>   … the basic argument is: we're more and more part of an
>   international world, and changing rules, and parties, and levels
>   … and all the models of centralized hierarchy do not work
>   anymore
>   … so they appreciated the border thng
>   … this worked in Switzerland, Taiwan, Malta
>   … it may not work in the heart of the US, but that's certainly
>   a part of it
> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  Per Learning Machines, leading with VCs
>   makes it a lot easier
>   … explaining that a VC is like a degree, it's a long-term
>   credential, hopefully for the entire lifetime
> Dan Burnett: Not ownership.  Control!
>   … so then key management comes up, so then we get into DIDs
>   … various implementations may not have this or that feature,
>   … so this works well, but it limits it to an audience that buys
>   into the idea of cryptographic ownership/control
> Joe Andrieu:  I tried to get Tzviya to chime in
>   … she presented DIDs internally
>   … and the first question was - what about key management?
> Joe Andrieu: A. digital credentials separated from login
>   management B. for subject: no longer dependent on credential
>   issuer for verification C. for issuer: no longer need to manage
>   user name & password for credentials
>   … (tried to get Tzviya to chime in)
> Kaliya Young: Key MANAGEMENT Is a huge issue - we should be
>   having intensive focus on solving this....and stop hand waving.
>   What is the plan? for realz?
>   … and for the issuer, they no longer need to manage
>   identifiers, like manu said
> Andrew Hughes:  I don't think I've heard a good explanation as to
>   why not some other universal id scheme, like DNS or certificates
>   — why are they bad?
>   … what problem is DIDs trying to solve?
>   … why is "decentralized" better?
> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Cwebber2 described this brilliantly at last
>   year's TPAC
> In order to be useful, why do the identifiers have to be
>   centralized?
>   … why not use an existing centralized identification scheme,
>   that everyone is using?
> Christopher Allen:  I really appreciated Kaliya's presentation at
>   MyData,
>   … the beginning had a nice way of leading into — there are just
>   too many identifiers
> Christopher Allen:  Now, whether or not DIDs solve that
>   particular problem, is an open question
> Andrew Hughes: X/<static>/identifiers for things are needed/
> Manu Sporny:  I've been hearing lots of good things about
>   Kaliya's presentation at MyData
>   … I feel she nailed it, as far as intro
>   … the thing I went on the queue for: these identifiers, they
>   seem like a hot potato,
>   … nobody wants them. Gov't does not want to manage them, it's a
>   giant money pit
> Kaliya Young: Here is the video -
>
> https://identitywoman.net/mydata-2018-domains-of-identity-self-sovereign-identity/
>   … it's just something they need to achieve some secondary
>   thing. they don't care about identifiers themselves
>   … so then the issue becomes, who will? A foundation or
>   nonprofit?
>   … many foundations are like, we're not going to trust a
>   for-profit company,
> Kaliya Young: Here is another shorter one that i did at New
>   America for the Future of Property Rights -
>
> https://identitywoman.net/my-talk-at-new-america-on-self-sovereign-identity-the-domains-of-identity/
> Dave Longley: Centralized IDs introduce a third party in the
>   middle of a relationship that is otherwise unnecessary ...
>   decentralized IDs also more accurately represent entities as they
>   exist in the natural world: they have independent existence.
>   … and a nonprofit company may have trouble being funded to
>   manage this for a long time
>   … so, nobody wants to manage identifiers, but they all want to
>   depend on them
>   … and then there's the subject of - DIDs give you nice
>   cryptographic properties, service discovery mechanisms,
>   … and they become an interesting avenue that people may not
>   have pursued already
> Andrew Hughes: I think the ‘hot potato’ explanation is a good one
>   when contrasted with the ‘corporate control of identifiers is
>   bad’ - that for me is a powerful argument
>   … we've tried all those things before (government issued,
>   corporate issued, etc), and it hasn't addressed many of the
>   problems
> Dmitri Zagidulin:  On the subject of DIDs, in order to have
>   universal identifiers, you need two things 1) format of URL, and
>   2) format of payload. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
> Dmitri Zagidulin:  DIDs are a nice standard for the format of the
>   payload. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
> Dmitri Zagidulin:  Someone needed to standardize what the JSON
>   object needed to look like - service endpoints, public keys,
>   you're going to need something like that regardless of what you
>   come up with. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
> Drummond Reed: +1 To DIDs extending, not competing, with other
>   identifiers
> Dmitri Zagidulin:  The URLs themselves -- it's important to note
>   that it's not in competition... it's a superset - they can work
>   w/ traditional URLs, but they can also work with these new
>   ledgers. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
> Drummond Reed:  Yeah, I agree with that point, DIDs don't
>   compete, they're a new type of identifiers
>   … when I first got exposed to the acronym DID, it was from
>   verbiage that Manu and Longley had written
> Dan Burnett: New URL scheme == new identifiers
>   … and I love the way they captured it - every identifier that's
>   currently in use, globally available over the internet - they're
>   RENTED
> Dave Longley: "Every identifier you've ever had on the Web is
>   controlled by someone else"
>   … once you stop paying, it's gone, so that's unacceptable from
>   a security and privacy perspective
>   … so that's one thing that I mention, theyre not rented,
>   they're permanent identifiers
>   … and I'm not familiar with any other alternatives
> Dan Burnett: The "You don't control any of your other
>   identifiers" argument is the one that I use, too.  Every single
>   one can be taken away from you.
> Christopher Allen:  Another thing that I haven't heard is talking
>   about vendor lock-in
> Manu Sporny: Identitywoman, re: key management - I think we're
>   still trying to figure it out -- I mean, there are theories and
>   implementations, but this stuff hasn't been out long enough to
>   truly understand what this looks like in the hands of the masses
>   (other than Signal/WhatsApp-style key management)
>   … for example, take Linked In, who has this nice API for a long
>   time,
>   … but then soon deprecated it, so it ruined the ecosystem
> Dan Burnett:  I was ggonna challenge Manu a bit, re problems with
>   existing identifiers
>   … the question I have is really whether the key management
>   issue for DIDs will end up the same type of hot potato
> Drummond Reed:  I completely disagree that key management
>   requires another party to get involved
>   … the whole thing behind DKMS is that keys are controlled by
>   their owner
>   … but there's no necessity for a third party
> Jonathan Holt: +1 Can be totally self sovereign
> Drummond Reed: DKMS reference: http://bit.ly/dkmsv3
> Christopher Allen:  I want to address something somebody said
>   earlier, which is, we need a DID Document, whether the identifier
>   is centralized or not
>   … and somebody mentioned that therre aren't any
>   individually-owned ones, and there were,
>   … CIDs, cryptographic identifiers, like PGP, Tor etc
> Dan Burnett: Drummond, my comment was not about what is
>   technically possible, rather about how the average person will
>   end up using them.  It's an issue I see in the blockchain
>   industry I'm in in general.
> Drummond Reed: Also, there hasn't been any mention yet of the key
>   rotation, key recovery, and service discovery benefits of DIDs.
>   … and the problem with them was - they could not be easily
>   rotated
> Moses Ma: Q
>   … whereas DIDs potentially allow you to retain the identifier
>   through key changes, updates
> Dmitri Zagidulin:  Just wanted to also mention Heather and
>   Kaliya's report on Decentralized Ecosystem - they give a very
>   accessible introduction there, good selling points there. [scribe
>   assist by Manu Sporny]
> Drummond Reed: +1
> Manu Sporny:  I wanted to translate some of the great discussion
>   happening today into written prose
>   … the w3c technical architecture group had asked us
>   … to say some subset of the discussion of today's call, in
>   written form
>   … it's slightly frustrating since we've written a Primer
>   already, but it's not quite enough, they want to understand how
>   an everyday person will benefit from DIDs, in a short form
> Joe Andrieu:
>   https://github.com/w3ctag/w3ctag.github.io/blob/master/explainers.md
>   … so I'm wondering, who in the community will take that action
>   item?
>   … so, who is interested?
> Drummond Reed: I too think the DID Primer is pretty good.
> Moses Ma:  Hi everybody
>   … we're writing a paper about the use of DIDs and Credentials
>   in STOs (security token offerings)
>   … and I'd like to get some reviews on it. send me an email
> Dan Burnett: I will help too
> Joe Andrieu:  I posted a link to "About Explainers",
>   … but if there are other folks who want to get involved, I'll
>   take the lead, but I would love assistance
> Christopher Allen:  Ok, let's move to the next section, which is
>   - writing down the questions that people ask
>   … the raw common questions that we get, to make sure we have
>   answers
>   … we're gonna try to get through that in the next 10 mins or
>   so, and maybe next week we can look into a draft explainer
>   … I'm not sure what the best way to do a draft FAQ
> *ChristopherA: maybe we start a Google Doc?*
> Joe Andrieu:  What I was hoping for on this call (and we got some
>   of it), is to ask - what are the common questions?
>   … so, not necessarily a full FAQ, but just - let's start with a
>   list of questions
> Kaliya Young: Key Management!!!
> Joe Andrieu:  Ok, let me go get that google doc started
> Manu Sporny:  Just to echo what Kaliya said on IRC, key
>   management does come up,
>   … but in our experience, customers don't even know what key
>   management is or why it's a problem
> Moses Ma: So if you have time to review my white paper on DIDs
>   and STOs, please send me a note?
>   … we often ship software that shields users from key
>   management, it's hidden from them
> Kaliya Young: The key management people bring up when I present
>   is the key management by the Individual.
> Kaliya Young: Not by the "issuing party"
>   … let me step back. when we try to explain DIDs and VCs,
>   … it's always in a very specific context, to a specific
>   customer problem
>   … when we engage with tech teams, they only have a superficial
>   knowledge of decentralized tech, and they don't know or care
>   … they only care that addresses their problem, and that it has
>   had security vetting
> Kim Hamilton Duffy: +1 On that
>   … it does happen, at a certain level, that at some point we get
>   handed off to someone who truly does understand this stuff in
>   depth
>   … and then there's a whole slew of questions, like - what are
>   the economics of the ledger
> Dan Burnett: Yep
>   … what happens if the governance structure of the ledger falls
>   over,
> Joe Andrieu:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O_Hxa3yVoT8LRsqtJACDUw9VmjVADaXT6JR-F0iTy6c/edit?usp=sharing
>   … what happens in case of device loss?
> Joe Andrieu: For recording questions
>   … so yes, we get key mgmt questions, but most of the other
>   questions are about economic and governance models
> Dave Longley: "Who is the audience?"
>   … but those questions are only people who are interested in
>   this in-depth, they are not typical of most customers
>   … like Google Docs — you don't care about the details
>   underneath, you just use them, or not
> Ryan Grant: True but i used to trust Google differently than i do
>   now, and people ask me.
> Christopher Allen:  Ok, so, I'm gonna bring something to the
>   floor
>   … Heather and Kaliya both claim that they have in their report
>   answers to a lot fo these questions
>   … but it's a commercial report, and they would like
>   compensation,
>   … I don't think the community is in a place where we can buy
>   out the whole report
>   … so my question is - can the community pay a small amount to
>   Heather and Kaliya, to maybe put together a primer, with a link
>   to the larger report
> Kaliya Young: Why isn't the community in a place to buy out the
>   report - seems like there are some pretty big corporations at
>   this table
> Dan Burnett: Bounties!
>   … so, do we want to talk about passing the hat? would Heather
>   and Kaliya be interested?
> Kaliya Young: IBM, HTC, Microsoft
> Heather Vescent: Also, the big companies pay for DEVELOPERS and
>   TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
> Heather Vescent:  I'm listening to this conversation,
>   … increasingly frustrated.
>   … this is the challenge that we have working together
>   … this is an ongoing challenge we have in this community
>   … I'm watching these large organizations, they have money
>   behind initiatives, and the reason Kaliya and I wrote this
>   report,
>   … was that we saw the need for all of these questions being
>   discussed
>   … and we took our own initiative and did it.
>   … but we're not in a privileged position, like the authors of
>   that German blockchain organization, that have dayjobs
>   … these companies, they will make so much money on these new
>   technologies
>   … I hear this conversation, where you're trying to get everyone
>   to work together on these questions, and we spent so much time on
>   that already,
>   … and had it reviewed by three different technologists
>   … and we don't want to paywall it, but we want to be
>   compensated
> Christopher Allen:  We're very sympathetic, and want to solve the
>   problem
>   … in the room, a lot of the big companies, IBM etc, are not
>   represented
>   … we have trouble getting them to attend, etc
>   … but the people currently in the room are not able to help
>   out. I wish we could, but it's not happening,
>   … let's find a strategy that might help in some other way
>   … maybe a shorter description / explainer, with a link to the
>   full report?
>   … we want to solve this problem for everybody.
> Kaliya Young: Clear communication about this technology IS
>   currently the limiting factor for adoption
> Christopher Allen:  We do have a URL to the FAQ / question list
> Christopher Allen: Questions doc is
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O_Hxa3yVoT8LRsqtJACDUw9VmjVADaXT6JR-F0iTy6c/edit?usp=sharing
> Kaliya Young: Clear communication takes effort, time, expertise
>   and therefore money
> Christopher Allen:  I agree, Kaliya and Heather
>   … it's a problem, I don't know how to solve it.
> Manu Sporny: I'd suggest that "production technology" is also a
>   gating factor.
> Kaliya Young: The way one solves it is to find the $ to
>   compensate the communicators
> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  I feel like we have brought this up a few
>   times,
>   … and it's not clear what a working model is
>   … when we bring it up, we risk… I don't know, I don't think
>   we're making progress in talking about how to solve it
>   … I'm curious - what is a model that Kaliya and Heather would
>   like?
>   … maybe we're proposing things that work in the developer
>   community, but not in this case
> Heather Vescent:  We were approached.. wait, to back up.
>   … everyone has an opinion on how we should do things
>   … we chased 5 different models, we want to make it accessible
>   and available
>   … and none of those has succeeded
>   … in our conversations, everyone has an idea of how you should
>   do it
>   … and I've spent so much time chasing the viability of
>   different models, when all I want to do,
>   … is that I want to release this content we spent so much time
>   on, that I know you and your clients will benefit from
>   … but I can't, the last time I did that, I was exploited. I'm
>   traumatized by this now
>   … I want it to be accessible and available
>   … but I don't know what's going to work.
>   … I don't want to volunteer for more stuff. I want to leverage
>   what we've got.
> Christopher Allen:  I want to make sure, a) you know that we
>   appreciated the problem
>   … manu has experienced very similar problems
> Heather Vescent: Right - so why don't we work together to ensure
>   this doesn't happen. Why can't we work together to solve this
>   problems for us all?
>   … I don't think it's personal. it's an industry-wide problem, a
>   tech problem
>   … I don't know how to solve it.
> Manu Sporny: I think the issue is that we don't know /how/ to
>   solve the problem, heathervescent.
> Jonathan Holt: Is there a link to purchase the report?
> Christopher Allen:  I'd like to move forward to the next thing
>   … if you could put a link to the report
>   … I've pitched it a few times to people.
>   … I'd certainly like to see it happen. I'd like to see us all
>   do well.
> Manu Sporny: +1 To wanting to see us all do well.
> Christopher Allen:  Ok, closing comments?
>   … we'll focus on pain points next week
>   … we need to be able to put this explainer document, it'll have
>   to be open source, go onto various mailing lists
>   … we can't progress without writing up some of this stuff
>   … it doesn't need to be the full report. we just need a 2-4
>   page thing, that's better than the current DID Primer
>   … anyone else?
> Moses Ma: Thanks for being visionary and see y'all next time!
>   bye!
>   … ok, nobody else on the queue. everybody, thank you for your
>   stories today
>   … look forward to working with you in the next few weeks
>   … thank you, bye
>
>
>
>
>

-- 


*Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin*
Co-Founder & CTO, Diwala
+47 411 611  <+47%20404%2061%20926>94
www.diwala.io