- From: Rouven Heck <rouven@identity.foundation>
- Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 16:52:27 -0500
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: Daniel Buchner <daniel.buchner@microsoft.com>, Sam Curren <telegramsam@gmail.com>, "aries@lists.hyperledger.org" <aries@lists.hyperledger.org>, "indy@lists.hyperledger.org" <indy@lists.hyperledger.org>, W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>, Tobias Looker <tobias.looker@mattr.global>, Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@evernym.com>, Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>, Dmitri Zagidulin <dzagidulin@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <CABnjaoEg0ZuK8Y2r-yOgSm4CdchqQvxmCBW0Jkb8JaQGudr7TA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi all, I would like to provide a brief update around the action item around the IRP question: Earlier this week the JDF/DIF legal expert provided the details about copyright licenses & patent policy used in DIF as well the specific terms on how DIF materials can be taken to standards bodies. (FYI - for patents, DIF uses the W3C patent policy without alteration.) I have shared details on Thursday with the W3C leadership team and expect their feedback soon. I'm optimistic that we can turn around any questions quickly next week. I will share further updates as soon as possible. Looking forward to removing the outstanding blockers asap so we can start collaborating more closely soon. Best, Rouven On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 5:16 PM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > We had around 60 people on the PDS/IdH/EDV Discussion (second call) > today! A huge thank you to Amy Guy and Kaliya Young, who ended up taking > 18 pages of transcription from the 90 minute call (see below). > > Amy, Kaliya, you are our scribe heroes! > > Audio available here: > > > https://zoom.us/recording/share/BylkqbPxcMO9-Opie8Y3Y2QPyrGwwnqztvRyJVvCqGCwIumekTziMw > > We were successful in passing the following resolutions: > > RESOLVED: The PDS/IdH/EDV spec would be a joint work item of DIF and W3C > CCG (and anyone else that wants to join, the group is open). > > RESOLVED: DIF would host the PDS/IdH/EDV calls, which would be open to > everyone without any fees, with full transcriptions (scribing), audio > recording of calls, and publication of minutes. > > RESOLVED: DIF would host the reference implementation and test suite for > PDS/IdH/EDV. The reference implementation is not the standard and is not > the test suite and is not expected to be THE one implementation everyone > should use. > > RESOLVED: The Identity Hubs and Encrypted Data Vaults documents will be > used as use case, requirements, and technical input for the > collaborative effort. The DID Comm, UMA, and OAuth2 work will continue > in parallel and are acknowledged as important related work that might > influence the direction of the collaborative effort. > > Next steps: The IPR policy will need to be agreed to between DIF and > W3C. Rouven has an action item to move that discussion forward. Meetings > will not begin until this is resolved. > > Transcription provided by Amy Guy and Kaliya Young follows: > > --------------- > > DIF, W3C, and Aries Joint Meeting to Discuss Personal Data Stores, > Identity Hubs, and Encrypted Data Vaults > (second call) > > > IPR Status: No IPR Policy - Discussion MUST NOT contain IP sensitive items > Minutes for 2019-12-06 > Agenda: > Topics: > 1. Review Current Status > 2. Discuss where the work could happen. > 3. Discuss the IPR regime for the work. > 4. Call times/frequency. > Organizer: Manu Sporny > Scribe: rhiaro and Kaliya > Present: Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar), Amy Guy, Balazs Nemethi, Jonathan > Holt (TranSendX), Dan Burnett (ConsenSys), Brent Zundel, Tzviya Siegman > (Wiley), Joe Andrieu, Joachim Lohkamp (Jolocom), Rouven Heck > (ConsenSys/DIF), Isaac Patka (Bloom), Troy Ronda (SecureKey), Chad > Peiper (Verif-y), Eve Maler (ForgeRock), Richard Kraaijenhagen, Steve > Magennis, Orie Steele, Dmitri Zagidulin (Digital Bazaar / Solid), Robbie > Jones, Adrian Gropper, Michael Benaudis, Samuel Smith (ConsenSys), > Sumita T. Jonak, Joel Hartshorn, Ed Goode (Microsoft), Kaliya Young > (Identity Woman), David Lehn (Digital Bazaar), Dave Longley (Digital > Bazaar), Lior Margalit, Katryna Dow (Meeco), Jo Vercammen (Meeco), Nancy > Lush, Jan Vereecken (Meeco), Eddie Kago, Victor Grey, Jack Ramey > (Workday), Stuart Freeman, Michael Dang (Workday), Daniel Hardman > (Evernym), Brent Shambaugh, Tobias Looker (Mattr), Justin Bingham > (Janeiro Digital / Solid), Christopher Allen (Blockchain Commons), Evan > Tedesco (Dish Wireless), Ganesh Annan (Digital Bazaar), Sam Curren > (Sovrin Foundation), Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin (Diwala), Dietrich > Ayala (Protocol Labs), Eric Welton (Korsimoro) > > > Manu: Please don’t discuss things that are IP sensitive or patent > related. This call is about how we coordinate the work around data > vaults, identity hubs, etc. No technical details. We’re going to review > current status, primarily we decided what we wanted to work on but > couldn’t decide where the work would happen. This call we’ll try to > drive towards consensus on where the work happens. What IPR policy and > what org. Then we can get call times and frequency. There are 47 (60 at > the height of the call) people here, we’re going to have to be good > about focussing the discussion. Please know that if we ask you to make > your point quickly that you do s because we have a lot of people with > opinions here. > > > The queue, if you want to talk type q+ in the chat channel (zoom), first > come first served. > > > Rouven: Setting expectations of us getting to the point where we have a > decision or consensus on something and then finding specific times might > not be the outcome I was expecting giving we have many people from > Europe and asia not joining. We work out options for proposals to then > get feedback outside of the call so we can make sure it’s inclusive and > not just people who could make it to this call. > > > Manu: what we can do is put proposals forward on the call today and see > if we have agreement on the call and circulate them through the minutes > and get other people providing feedback. We have 50 people, that’s a lot > of input, if we can get consensus on this call I’m fine with circulating > it but everyone wants to see this work move forward sooner than later. > Nobody is trying to exclude anyone but we should try to drive towards > consensus. > > > Rouven: i know many different companies who can’t make it. I’m not sure > this is sufficiently representative of the orgs who are interested. We > can see where we get to. Even if we have 150 people it’s not necessarily > everyone. > > > Manu: would like to hear from Rouven on DIF, Sam from Aries. > > > Manu: we had proposals last time on the work items. Seemed like we had > consensus. We circulated the minutes, nobody objected to those > proposals. We’re proceeding as if those proposals are standing unless > someone raises an objection. > > > Last time we didn’t get to one proposal that we almost got to completion > on around what the work items would be. Im wondering if we can finish > that off on this call. Start by finishing that off. Then go into some of > the potential proposals. Some are in the top of the document. Tried to > sort it in order. What we can do is maybe once we have the basic > position statements from everyone we can hopefully roll into each > proposal and talking about each proposal. I’ve had a bit of a discussion > with Rouven on the mailing list, there’s been a discussion between Aries > folks and DIF folks and ccg folks in the interim. I think what we’re > here to do today is to get to consensus on where the work happens and > rough outlines on how it happens. That’s where I think things are. > > > Sam: The position from Aries is not complex. We are interested in using > these and interoperating with them, but they’re not really an > overlapping concern to agents which are the primary work inside of > Aries. We are here and interested, there’s a preference that the > communication protocol use DIDComm as a foundational piece of > communicating securely on top of DIDs. Other than that there’s not a lot > of conflict here. > > > Rouven: I think there was part of the discussion in the email. It didn’t > reach everyone, it bounced back from some lists . The question which > came up might have been confusing in the last conversation around scope. > I’m just reiterating. There seems to be still clarity required about how > DIDComm, Solid and other pieces will fit together. We might discover > that when we go more into the work, or questions might come up. That’s > why I’m advocating for figuring out some of these things, will help ups > to determine what’s the ideal long term place for standardisation. > Doesn’t mean incubation couldn’t happen now. The second part to > protection, of course all the orgs have similar concerns, trying to > highlight the incentives for everyone who is part of DIF is to focus on > building decentralised identity solutions, high incentive for everyone > who is part of this to make sure it’s moving fast, that’s the > difference. Around policies - legal aspects, I might have not done a > sufficient job last time to say that we are fully aware of the needs for > IPR protection etc. The question which are always coming up are based on > a lack of mutual understanding of the IPR situation. I don’t think we > will solve this in the conversation today. If there are still remaining > concerns that the protection in DIF is not sufficient we should have a > conversation with lawyers to make sure we can remove this. Last, we have > been working on incubating this storage thing since a few years now, > within DIF, so I’m wondering more like the other way around what’s the > reason we would not want to continue the work there, under the > assumption that the legal and IP aspects are fine, and as I mentioned > last time in terms of openness that should not make a difference, we can > provide the same infrastructure. > > > Christopher A: I want to speak from the CCG perspective as the members > of the CCG and we as a community have created a full standard in VCs, a > now working group which is the DID working group which has been > chartered and begun. Quite a few other initiatives for some time. > There’s a proven track record of dealing with IPR, some people complain > about the difficulty of getting the two groups chartered but we’ve got > better with it. DID was much faster and I think that the social attack > vectors are well understood, and were mitigated very well under w3c > process. My concern about looking through the list of processes and > things from the DIF perspective is that they’re unproven, we don’t have > examples of success with those, it’s too important of a project > especially as it crosses so many different kinds of organizations and > groups that I’m uncomfortable with that sort of IP regime. I really am > firm that I would like to stick with the W3C. Under the CCG is the > lightest of the W3C requirements. Pretty straightforward, we’ve used it > at RWOT (not a w3c meeting), at other types of things. I think that it > can serve well and be a nice entry point for things. I would love to see > DIF continue to work on their process, maybe with some kind of thing > that is more internal to the DIF community, and prove out their ability > to move through to a specification that can become a standard, but I’d > like to see the proof of that before we do it on something big. As far > as the statement that DIF has been working on this longest, I would > definitely say no. Other parties, Solid and IPFS, have been working on > these things for a long time. In my work it has come up and I have some > unique approaches of my own. I worry other people might try to patent > them. That’s why I’m particularly concerned about the patent protection > stuff. We want to work with DIF, DIF has more administrative staff. The > ccg is volunteers. We don’t get paid to chair and go to meetings. DIF > does have paid staff, I’d love their support in making this a successful > effort. > > > Adrian: I want to express, thanks for putting up the proposals that’s > helpful. My concern is about the scoping of what we’re talking about and > the way the proposals are written that there will be parallel efforts in > DIF, IETF< W3C, my concern is specific to the issue if we’re talking > about a storage protocol, are we doing it with the scope of the alice to > bob problem included or not? I don’t mean to discuss that today, I just > want to express this as a concern up front. It does impact how we plan > to resolve the various proposals. > > > Daniel B: There’s no IPR difference I could find ?? has assured us based > on trust in him as a good lawyer that this is specifically designed to > not have these issues. I don’t think it’s a problem, I’d like to see > where you claim that in a room with all the lawyers. Please do > substantiate that. Also people saying the data store that has been > around. I might have been the first to work on it in 2012, none of these > things existed at that point. General data store stuff PDS stuff out > there for 20 years, but we’re talking about initiatives. We haven’t done > serious things around that. The universal resolver ran out of DIF and > specs went to w3c. We just published our first ratified spec, for > linking DIDs to domain names. That went very smoothly and quickly. > Invite everyone to comment and feedback. I don’t think I’ve heard as > single point that is substantiated, a lot of conjecture, I’d like people > to substantiate if you’re going to use those reasons. > > > Drummond: one thing about the IPR - as folks know DIDComm is moving from > Aries over to DIF and we just had the aries connectathon this week, we > spent several hours with the WG charter and reviewing the JDF. the JDF > started because of openid and the need to have a clean way to incubate > standards. It’s a very robust intellectual property platform. It’s very > similar to the w3c process. On that issue, unfortunately I’ve been > working for a long time and DIF is under JDF, the processes would be > equivalent. Doesn’t have the track record but JDF has the track record > if you look back to openid and other orgs have operated under it, it’s > the standard way to handle standards incubation at the linux foundation. > I’d take that off the table and put the question of which community > makes the most sense. > > > Manu: I want to make sure that what we’re going towards is inclusive of > all these communities. What has failed to date is saying this work is > community x’s work and not community y’s work is not going to work. We > should put forward a proposal to band together. Clearly there are > concerns around IPR. I do agree with Rouven that we’re not going to > solve those today. We’re going to have to defer those. But I think that > gives us plenty of things to agree on still. What i’m going to try to > propose is a joint work item between the various communities. A joint > work item between w3c ccg, DIF and if aries wants to be a part - I’m > hearing sam say we’re interested but it’s a different layer - but we > don’t want to exclude any community. It’s a joint work item. What does > that mean? It means all the communities work together on it. I’m > suggesting that the joint work item is an official w3c ccg work item as > well as an official DIF item. That does make the ipr complicated, not > talk about that now .the gist would be DIF would organise and host the > calls but DIF has to make sure that the calls are open to everyone > without fees, with full transcriptions (scribing), recording of audio > and publication of minutes. That’s primarily to make sure we’re making > the initiative as inclusive as possible and covering IPR concerns. The > other question was around where would implementation and test suites go? > The assertion is that DIF would host it, DIF is more set up to do > reference implementations and test suites than w3c typically does. It > could be done in the ccg but DIF wants to head that work up so why not > ensure that that happens. As far as IPR, I really don’t want us to > rathole on the IPR discussion. There is a clean choice we could make > today. I will very briefly highlight it but let’s pleass not focus on > it. Let’s push that off and see if we can create agreements around joint > work items. > > > If we were to choose the w3c ipr policy and ensure everyone that > participates in the group is a w3c member i think that would take all > the ipr concerns off the table. The work still happens at DIF but under > the w3c ipr policy instead of the DIF IPR policy. If it’s confusing, it > is, there are subtle differences people are asserting exist and if we > took that route we can make everyone happy. The fallback to the IPR > discussion is okay we can’t figure that out which means we need to get > all the lawyers in the same room. That will delay the start of the work > but if that is all we can agree to then we’re all going to have to do > that to see if a DIF transition from w3c or a DIF transition to IETF, is > going to have any kind of issue. Based on assertions by Rouven and > Daniel and Drummond there shouldn’t be an issue. If there isn’t that’s > great. But if there is an issue we need to deal with it. > > > Going back to the potential proposals, i’d like to see, I’m going from > the top to the bottom. The first is to see if we can agree that the work > is a joint work item between DIF and CCG. if we can’t do that there’s > nothing to talk about here. I’m hoping we can agree to come together. > The second proposals would be DIF would host the calls, ensuring they’re > open to everyone without fees, full transcriptions, audio and minutes. > The third is that DIF would host the reference implementations. Then we > can talk about the fourth and fifth later. > > > Rouven: I missed what you said at the end. If we can’t agree on this we > all go our own paths? If we do not have a joint one there’s no other way > forward? There’s not an option that it can’t be in DIF? > > > Manu: I think if the negotiations are going to fall apart; everyone will > go back on their own thing. > > > Rouven: that’s not where I thought where we are. > > > Manu: I hope we are all going to come together but if we don’t that’s > the outcome. > > > Rouven: coming together can be more than the compromise of a joint one. > There are clear benefits of a joint one. Okay nobody needs to give up > something, we work together. I’m not sure it helps us to make it simple > for people to join or more complicated. I’m worried about the IPR > assertions. What we want to achieve is to have a place where we can > incubate as fast as we want and can. From there, during that time where > we work on the definition and the storage part and the didcomm part and > other pieces, then decide now we have formed a concrete understanding of > the specific work items that need to move towards standardisation that > we have a very open path forward. Starting in the ccg assumes it will > need to w3c. That’s something based on the conversations I have not > perceived that this is a given. There are a lot of people who do not > believe the standardisation of the hubs needs or should be in w3c. It > comes with this assumption with that path, even with the w3c ipr would > put us there. The reason JDF started and the lawyers were fully aware of > w3c, started in JDF to build this place which apparently is even more > rigid which gives us all the options later to move to IETF, W3C or > continue incubating to a spec within DIF. the range is more open. I’m > not yet convinced that this compromise is the best. > > > Jonathan Holt: w3c does come with some baggage. It goes back to the > origins of the web. I love Tim but the ability to spin up a computer at > your desk and be a node on the internet but what it turns out is that > you can’t run that node 24/7. A lot of our data lives in data centers > not owned by me. I’m a bit of a libertarian in that I really believe in > data democratisation and self sovereign identity where i can create an > identity with a random number and I have control over it. I have > companies involved in this space and want to protect that IPR but i’m > still a libertarian at heart where i want to have that radical > disintermediation. We have an opportunity to re-architect to be self > sovereign focussed. > > > Justin B: I’m a member of the Solid editorial team with Dmitri and some > others. I want to say that interested in collaborating and participating > in this. I look forward to working with you. This is my first call. > Trying to get up to speed from the last call. Will try to study for the > next one. > > > Manu: I heard Rouven say it would help everyone to understand exactly > what we’re standardising before we put these proposals forward. I’m > concerned that talking about that may derail things because it’s more > specific than the general agreements. I’m trying to get people to agree > on generalities then get more specific. Would you object to us starting > general and trying to get specific or do you want to see that specific > thing nailed down? > > > Rouven: My expectation is not that we will solve this detail today > anyway. I think my assumption is based on this space is so early. We’re > still learning fundamentally new things. DIDs and VCs are way more ahead > than many other pieces. Based on the conversations we have in different > places like IIW we’re still forming our mental model on many of these > pieces. Therefore my perception is bringing these things or keeping them > closely connected and have a very interaction and discussion with > didcomm and how we store things, there’s a lot of dependencies and for > us to flesh out a nice clean stack will take some time, not two or three > calls but we need to better understand what didcomm will look like, so > incubating these things together in an open space where we don’t need to > worry about ipr because we are protected but gives us all paths forward > is for me not to solve this in the call, we can stay high level, but i’m > just arguing for a continuous conversation in more detail to have a > sharper understanding of how the pieces work together. > > > Manu: let me start general and get specifici eventually. We will get > there. The first proposal is 1. > > > PROPOSAL 1: The PDS/IdH/EDV spec would be a joint work item of DIF and > W3C CCG. > 00:53:21 Kaliya Identity Woman: +1 > 00:53:21 Dave Longley: +1 > 00:53:22 Rouven Heck: -1 > 00:53:23 jonnycrunch: IEEE? > 00:53:26 Michael Benaudis - Internet Identity Card: +1 > 00:53:27 sumita: +1 > 00:53:27 Dmitri Zagidulin: +1 > 00:53:27 Joe: +1 > 00:53:30 ET: +1 > 00:53:31 Dan Burnett: +1 > 00:53:32 Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar): +1 > 00:53:40 Adrian Gropper: +1 > 00:53:43 Joachim Lohkamp (Jolocom): +1 > 00:53:50 Joel Hartshorn: +1 > 00:53:51 BalazsN: -1 > 00:53:54 Joe: Yes. Of course > 00:53:54 Kaliya Identity Woman: I think it is so easy to > join the W3C CCG to be “under” that IPR > 00:53:55 Christopher Allen: +1 > 00:53:58 Eve Maler (ForgeRock): +1 > 00:54:19 jonnycrunch: -1 > 00:54:21 Eddie Kago: +1 > 00:55:03 Daniel Buchner: ~ +1 > 00:55:03 Orie (Transmute): +1 > 00:55:07 Tobias Looker: +1 > 00:55:10 Troy Ronda: +1 > 00:55:12 Stuart Freeman: +1 > 00:55:42 Ken Ebert: +1 > 00:55:49 katrynadow: +1 KD +1 Jo V +1 Jan V > 00:56:24 Rouven Heck: +1 for collaboration: not sure what > joint work item mean in this proposal > > > Daniel B??: could the two groups come together later and decide to take > it to IETF? > > > Manu: yes > > > Rouven: I made my point, it’s not a neutral place for pushing it forward > because we already imply with the IPR for w3c > > > Manu: it’s a joint work item which means the w3c ccg says we will > contribute and DIF says we will contribute. Where the calls are hosted > is at DIF. we haven’t talked about IPR yet. Do the two communities want > to work together? > > > Rouven: I misunderstood. Cooperation is good. > > > Balazs: Yes, I also misunderstood. > > > Jonathan H: the fact we’re all on a phone call today is that these > communities are coming together. We all have different hats and belong > to different communities. I participate in aries and w3c and IEEE. we > wear different hats. My point is that standards imply standards body. > But if we can create the standard and get it ratified in different > bodies then we have a decentralised solution. We should be eating our > own dogfood. > > > Manu: how would you modify the proposal? > > > Jonathan H: we need community input. There (??) we have a decentralised > group of physicians with different boards, who have different > requirements but we come together to collaborate but we also have > community input so our boards are overseen so we’re doing what’s in best > interest of the public. What we have now is companies coming together > competing for customers in a multibillion dollar industry and we’re > slicing up the pie for ownership by standards bodies. We don’t have > sufficient oversight, it’s going to need to be more board than w3c and > DIF. a lot of work has been incubated but there are others that should > be brought to the table to make sure we are doing the right thing for > everyone. > > > Manu: it’s an open group, anyone can join, we just need to know where > we're going to meet every week. > > > Jonathan H: this wouldn’t delay how we have oversight. What we settle on > in this group is then brought back and ratified in in the different > communities to get their buy in. > > > Manu: would you object philosophically to us saying this is at least a > joint work item between DIF and the CCG.. among others. > > > Rouven: what it means a joint work item? > > > Manu: all this proposal is about is collaboration. Proposal 1 we agree. > > > Brent: Look forward to the unravelling of the ramifications of the > proposal we just accepted. We used very specific words that Rouven was > trying to get clarity on that i think are going to mean things that > people didn’t think they meant. > > > Rouven: what brent said > > > Adrian: I want to clarify that PDS/IdH/EDV is the name and the calls and > minutes will be in one place? All we just decided is on the name of > something called PDS/IdH/EDV? > > > Manu: what we’ve decided is to work together on that thing. But we still > need to define what that thing is. > > > PROPOSAL 2: DIF would host the PDS/IdH/EDV calls, which would be open to > everyone without any fees, with full transcriptions (scribing), audio > recording of calls, and publication of minutes. > > > 01:02:24 Daniel Buchner: +1 > 01:02:28 Joachim Lohkamp (Jolocom): +1 > 01:02:29 ET: +1 > 01:02:29 Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar): +1 > 01:02:31 Joel Hartshorn: +1 > 01:02:32 Orie (Transmute): =1 > 01:02:33 Dmitri Zagidulin: +1 > 01:02:34 Orie (Transmute): +1 > 01:02:34 Ganesh Annan: +1 > 01:02:36 Dave Longley: +1 > 01:02:38 BalazsN: +1 > 01:02:38 Troy Ronda: +1 > 01:02:39 Stuart Freeman: +1 > 01:02:40 Tobias Looker: +1 > 01:02:40 Eve Maler (ForgeRock): +1 > 01:02:41 justinwb: +1 > 01:02:42 Ken Ebert: +1 > 01:02:43 Joe: +1 > 01:02:44 Brent Zundel: +1 > 01:02:44 Adrian Gropper: +1 > 01:02:47 jonnycrunch: q+ > 01:02:52 Dan Burnett: +1 > 01:02:53 katrynadow: +1 KD +1 Jo +1 Jan > > > Jonathan H: what happens if DIF goes away? Who has control? Begs for a > decentralised solution. I’m prone to using IPFS myself. > > > Rouven: DIF is part of JDF which is part of Linux Foundation. There’s > safeguards. > > > Jonathan H: just make sure policies are in place for long term data > retrieval. > > > Manu: all the orgs we are considering have that. Calling that passed. > > > Manu: next proposal up #3 > > > 01:04:25 Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar): PROPOSAL 3: DIF > would host the reference implementation and test suite for PDS/IdH/EDV. > 01:04:33 Daniel Buchner: +1 > 01:04:35 Rouven Heck: +1 > 01:04:40 Eddie Kago: +1 > 01:04:41 Dave Longley: +1 > 01:04:43 Orie (Transmute): +1 > 01:04:46 Joachim Lohkamp (Jolocom): +1 > 01:04:48 Adrian Gropper: +1 > 01:04:49 Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar): +1 > 01:04:49 Ganesh Annan: +1 > 01:04:49 Joe: +1 > 01:04:51 Dmitri Zagidulin: +1 > 01:04:52 Dan Burnett: +1 > 01:04:53 Troy Ronda: +1 > 01:04:55 BalazsN: +1 > 01:04:57 Tobias Looker: +1 > 01:05:00 Christopher Allen: +1 > 01:05:00 ET: +1 > 01:05:01 Joel Hartshorn: +1 > 01:05:02 Daniel Hardman: 0 > 01:05:04 Daniel Hardman: -1 > 01:05:08 Ken Ebert: +1 > > > If DIF members want to post an implementation the test suite would be > hosted at DIF > Getting votes… > > > Daniel H: not opposed but would like to get more clarity before +1 > Manu: not clear about full scope > > > Daniel : Don’t want there to be an open source code base that every one > should use. I want it to be a ‘toy’ model representation not something > we are trying to get the world to build upon. > > > Manu: I think fundamentally what happens with those reference > implementations - forprofit companies go build something way better. … > Things will naturally happen this way daniel not sure we can predetermine. > > > Daniel B: muffled…didn’t object. > > > Manu: Daniel I heard you say you don’t object. Looking to you with this > proposal would you philosophically object. > > > Daniel H: Concern heard and worried about announcing it. But will keep > raising until concerns heard. > > > Christopher A: the reference implementation is not the standard and is > not the test suite - would like have it amended to the statement. Some > people don’t understand the differnece it needs to be explicit > (Something like this happened with SSL where difference was not > understood). > > > Manu: working on integrating feedback. > > > PROPOSAL 3: DIF would host the reference implementation and test suite > for PDS/IdH/EDV. The reference implementation is not the standard and is > not the test suite and is not expected to be THE one implementation > everyone should use. > 01:09:09 Daniel Buchner: +1 > 01:09:10 Orie (Transmute): +1 > 01:09:10 Dave Longley: +1 > 01:09:10 Joachim Lohkamp (Jolocom): +1 > 01:09:11 ET: +1 > 01:09:13 Daniel Hardman: +1 > 01:09:14 Adrian Gropper: +1 > 01:09:16 Rouven Heck: +1 > 01:09:17 Christopher Allen: +1 > 01:09:18 Joel Hartshorn: +1 > 01:09:21 Ken Ebert: +1 > 01:09:23 Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar): +1 > 01:09:24 BalazsN: +1 > 01:09:26 Ed Goode: +1 > 01:09:28 Joe: +1 > 01:09:30 jonnycrunch: +1 > 01:09:32 Chad Peiper (Verif-y): +1 > 01:09:34 Daniel Buchner: (But there can only be one > Highlander) > 01:09:34 katrynadow: +1 KD +1 Jo +1 Jan > 01:09:35 Ganesh Annan: +1 > 01:09:38 Troy Ronda: +1 > 01:09:45 Dan Burnett: Problem with ref implementations is > that they do tend to be considered authoritative in practice, but I > don't object > 01:09:45 justinwb: +1 > 01:09:47 Dan Burnett: +1 > > > Does anyone object? > Lots of +1s, no objections > > > Manu: I think we are at a point we can start hosting calls at DIF to > host to talk about this stuff. I think then we can finally get to the > specifics. > > > Manu: IPR not resolved yet > > > Manu: further refine what we are talking about. Or IPR? > > > Manu: we will get to closure on the IPR by the end of the call if we > tackle it now. > > > Rouven: proposal to talk to this about offline and take it in a smaller > group to deal with IPR with the lawyers in the room - so they can be the > experts. > > > Manu: You want to focus on IPR? > > > Rouven: no other way around focus on direction (cause lawyers not in room). > > > Manu: proposal to focus on talking about IPR; either adopt W3C - or are > we going to tell rouven and w3c to get together in a room and talk about > it? > > > Rouven: We need to discuss JDF lawyers whether they take additional IPR > things moving in to JDF. > > > Christopher A: not asking for a decision just these two different choices. > > > Daniel B: I think we can all agree to W3C’s IPR - I don’t think that is > controversial. > > > Manu: Proposal is if we just use W3C IPR we can start the calls > immediately. Rouven and lawyers can get together in parallel to decide > if there need to be changes in the future or not. It’s a shortcut. We > may find that there is agreement between DIF, JDF, W3C IPR policies. > > > Christopher A: I think it has been expressed well. Examples of __ work > expressed in JDF. Start with W3C IPR and explore other options is most > expedient path forward. And to jonathan’s point there are still some > issues with big companies in both/all organizations that I think are > still challenging but I do believe that things are under the W3C policy > and can go off different places as long as we don’t want to patent it. > > > Rouven: We take the joint work item. We would assume that because > people sign up to CCG we are covered in DIF we have a one page IPR member. > > > Christopher A: you don’t need to be a “W3C Member” to join the CCG (and > be covered by IPR). > > > Rouven: So we decide to do call next week and then we decide the DIF > IPR is stronger what are the implications if we decide to switch from > one to the other. > > > Joe A: There is an unfortunate slight of hand that is happening. There > is a much larger conversation about how DIF W3C work together and would > love to have a clean IPR pathway. There is no W3C policy around things > as we described them. Community Group collaborators agreement needs to > be looked at. > > > Manu: Taking everyone down logical choices here. If what Rouven and JDF > lawyers are saying and there is no difference between DIF/JDF IPR and > W3C CCG - there is no problem and we are wasting time if this is true. > Option 1 - use W3C IPR policy and have meetings at DIF. Makes people who > have dealt with W3C and IETF - DIF Should be happy there is no > difference between that and DIF policy. It helps us to have an actual > real call next week and we can start talking about details. > > > People insist that we use the DIF/JDF IPR policy and people are > concerned which means get the lawyers in the room and have everything > settles and that could take weeks. > > > Easiest path - heard folks say let’s get this started quickly - easiest > path to use W3C IPR and calls at DIF and get started that way. > > > If there is disagreement get the lawyers in the room and have them > figure it out. > > > Jonathan H: It is about agreeing to the terms and then those terms > being satisfied by W3C and DIF. > > > Manu - > > > PROPOSAL 5: The IPR policy would be the "W3C CG IPR policy", not the > "DIF W3C IPR policy". The specification would have the "W3C CG IPR > policy" on it, and anyone that participates in the group MUST be a W3C > CCG member and can, in addition, be a DIF member. > > > 01:22:44 Rouven Heck: -1 > 01:22:48 Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar): +1 > 01:22:49 Joachim Lohkamp (Jolocom): +1 > 01:22:49 Joe: +1 > 01:22:50 Orie (Transmute): +1 > 01:22:51 Dave Longley: +1 > 01:22:52 Dan Burnett: +1 > 01:22:52 Tzviya Siegman: +1 > 01:22:55 Kaliya Identity Woman: +1 > 01:22:59 Eve Maler (ForgeRock): +1 > 01:23:07 Ganesh Annan: +1 > 01:23:10 Stuart Freeman: +1 > 01:23:11 Adrian Gropper: +1 > 01:23:13 Ken Ebert: +1 > 01:23:14 bshambaugh: +1 > 01:23:18 Christopher Allen: +1 > 01:23:18 Dan Burnett: Daniel, no malice intended - just > the fact that lawyers disagree all the time :) > 01:23:21 Tobias Looker: +1 > 01:23:22 justin: +1 > 01:23:39 Rouven Heck: We cannot commit to this proposal > today and know the implications > 01:23:41 Rouven Heck: q+ > 01:23:41 Joe: q+ > 01:23:46 BalazsN: -1 > > > Daniel B: The DIF one is stricter, can we sign both? > > > Manu: The harm is that there may be subtle disagreements. > > > Rouven: I think in a nutshell if we agreed to host this in DIF and we > host under a particular IPR agreement - what does it mean. The reason > the DIF IPR policy has been defined the way it is - my understanding is > that it is more strict. If we all agree in January we decide DIF IPR is > stronger what happens? I strongly suggest we not make a decision to > figure out an agreement on this proposal. If someone is a lawyer speak > up now and we can make a decision. > > > Joe A: Ok so - i’m hearing two different stories from the DIF folks - > one - they are the same two - it is more strict. So all the companies > that have reviewed the W3C to look at CCG and approved their ability to > participate. So if we use DIF IPR then some folks can’t participate > until their lawyers have read the IPR and approved. Even DIF has already > approved W3C IPR. > > > Daniel B (from chat): q+ what is the track record of moving something > from the CCG under that IRP outside of W3C, to another SDO? > Do we have assurances that we can export that work to IETF, IEEE, etc? > > > Manu (from chat): yes we do. WebRTC, HTTP, etc. > > > Rouven: As I said this is why I am thinking the last 20 min to skip I > don’t think we have the right people on the call to have this IPR > figured out. The lawyer that we had worked on - it is slightly more > strict - it is different. We have more then 10 active companies working > on data stores working on data stores at DIF. Yes W3C has 400 members - > is it higher then the number of actual organizations working on code. 20 > min with 50 people talking about thing we don’t have expertise. > > > Manu: Proposal that W3C and DIF need to discuss and this will not move > forward. > > > Dave Longley: We are going to adopt W3C policy and this is the one the > work would move forward under and we are done. > > > PROPOSAL 5: The IPR policy will need to be agreed to between DIF and > W3C. Rouven has an action item to move that discussion forward. Meetings > will not begin until this is resolved. > > > 01:29:16 Orie (Transmute): -1 > 01:29:29 Rouven Heck: +1 > 01:29:33 rhiaro: Why are DIF unhappy with w3c IPR if it's > 'essentially the same'? > 01:29:33 Joe: -1 > 01:29:34 BalazsN: +1 > 01:29:36 Kaliya Identity Woman: -1 > 01:29:37 Dave Longley: -1 > 01:29:38 Daniel Buchner: +1 > 01:29:41 Daniel Buchner: q+ > 01:29:45 Adrian Gropper: +0 > 01:29:47 Dan Burnett: +0 > 01:29:50 Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar): +1 > > > Daniel B: As a modification of that. I don’t want to delay anything. I > want to do the work. What if we timeboxed it. You have to give us an > answer by the 6th of January or we fall back to W3C IPR policy. > > > Rouven: We can agree on anything and the lawyers outside can have an > opinion. I can’t speak on the lawyers’ behalf. That is why I can talk > with them and find out. > > > Daniel B: That is we figure it out in a month. Or its not. We are or are > not as an organization willing to accept a different IPR policy. If we > do that we at least understand what our answer would be at that time. > > > Manu: Let me try to synthesize. You have the ED of the DIF saying that > he cannot agree to W3C CG IPR Policy and that he needs to talk to the > lawyers because he is uncertain that we can use W3C CG IPR Policy. So we > have agreed to put this thing at the DIF and it is up to you, Rouven, to > clear this up. Roven has action item to move forward. We have made a > tremendous amount of progress on the call today. Everyone should feel > really good about what we accomplished. I have one other scoping > proposal if we are able to get this done we will be able to get clarity > on what we are working on. > > > Christopher A: I look at the number of +1s that we just move forward > with W3C IPR. We could just do that… you can join us later if you like > if you are a DIF only member. DIF members can join W3C CCG for free. We > have done this stuff before and progressed it all the way to an > international standard, we could do the same with this work and start on > it immediately. This is why a long time ago. I thought DIF was going to > do reference implementations and CCG is wanting to do standards and now > that DIF is wanting to do standards, the goal posts are being moved. I'm > expressing frustration. > > > Manu: I hope you are hearing - there is frustration with this outcome > Rouven. People were expecting DIF to be ready to take on this work and > DIF is not ready. It was said that the W3C and DIF IPR policies were > identical, and now we're hearing that they're not. I hope you are > hearing that loud and clear. People are frustrated. > > > Joe A: We do not have consensus on this last point. > > > Manu: Yes, that is true. Although, we are not undoing the other > consensus that we have. The only -1s we got to the use W3C CG IPR Policy > was you Rouven. But since you are the Executive Director, we have no > choice but to go with what you are proposing, which means that we're all > waiting on you and the lawyers to sort it out. We can only kick it over > to the folks at DIF to sort it out. > > > Daniel B: Can access DIF folks very fast. Who on W3C can we coordinate > with? > > > Manu: Wendy Seltzer and others. We accomplished a lot today. I think the > hardest thing is to get the groups to agree to come together to work on > this at a specific venue - the venue just has to figure out some stuff. > > > Lets figure out what goes into this specification. > We almost got to a resolution. > > > PROPOSAL 4: The Identity Hubs and Encrypted Data Vaults documents will > be used as use case, requirements, and technical input for the > collaborative effort. The DID Comm, UMA, and OAuth2 work will continue > in parallel and are acknowledged as important related work that might > influence the direction of the collaborative effort. > > > Ask clarifying questions? Before we pick it up for a straw poll. > > > Adrian: quick point I if the reference use case does not include Alice > and Bob. > > > Manu: What does Alice and Bob mean? > > > Adrian: We are talking about the relationship by agents storage and > relationship to Alice the data subject and the Bob who is the requesting > policy. > > > Dmitri: Is your concern not addressed by UMA? > > > Adrian: if we’re starting out with the use case in edv and that use case > is in or out of scope that’s not good enough. > > > Sam: I had a conversation with Adrian that helped me understand what he > is talking about now. EDVs and Hubs are things stored by the identity > owner. Data provider has data and allows data access; is that mode in or > out of scope? > > > Manu: I think it is inscope. In this data provider role. > > > Sam: The data is not necessarily encrypted at rest with the keys of the > user. > This is a more “traditional” data storage (UMA) stored encrypted of the > keys of the provider not the identity owner. > > > Manu: Adrian would you like to add another input document that has your > use-case. > > > Adrian: I would appreciate if Orie and Sam would do that with me. > > > Straw poll on: > > > PROPOSAL 4: The Identity Hubs, Encrypted Data Vaults, and Adrian's use > case documents will be used as use case, requirements, and technical > input for the collaborative effort. The DID Comm, UMA, and OAuth2 work > will continue in parallel and are acknowledged as important related work > that might influence the direction of the collaborative effort. > > > 01:42:43 Dave Longley: +1 > 01:42:45 Orie (Transmute): +1 > 01:42:46 Adrian Gropper: +1 > 01:42:51 Kaliya Identity Woman: +1 > 01:42:56 Joe: +1 > 01:42:57 Thomas Hardjono: +1 > 01:42:58 BalazsN: +1 > 01:42:59 Orie (Transmute): (I will help with the concern) > 01:42:59 Daniel Buchner: +1 > 01:42:59 Joachim Lohkamp (Jolocom): +1 > 01:43:04 Sam Curren (TelegramSam): +1 > 01:43:05 Dan Burnett: +1 > 01:43:07 Ken Ebert: +1 > 01:43:11 Troy Ronda: +1 > 01:43:15 Michael Benaudis - Internet Identity Card: +1 > 01:43:16 Chad Peiper (Verif-y): +1 > > > +1’s it is… > > > Manu: Thank you very much. Everyone should be very happy with what we > have accomplished. > > > We will get the minutes out and when the very first call on this work > item can start. > > -- manu > > -- > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches > https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches > > >
Received on Saturday, 14 December 2019 21:53:12 UTC