- From: Kim Hamilton Duffy <kim@learningmachine.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:15:11 -0800
- To: Brent Zundel <brent.zundel@evernym.com>
- Cc: "W3C Credentials CG (Public List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAB=TY84pjEUcORpQHTiJJsg3LSvDEPTzEjHK_jHZWcAq7Fq3Ww@mail.gmail.com>
Oh dear...I didn’t notice the alias collision. I’ll update the mapping file, as you are the likelier Brent On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 10:12 AM Brent Zundel <brent.zundel@evernym.com> wrote: > Gotta say, I like my new moniker. > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 18:48 <kim@learningmachine.com> wrote: > >> Thanks to Brent Shambaugh for scribing this week! The minutes >> for this week's Credentials CG telecon are now available: >> >> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2019-02-12/ >> >> 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 2019-02-12 >> >> Agenda: >> >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2019Feb/0017.html >> Topics: >> 1. Introductions >> 2. announcements >> 3. Action Items >> 4. Use Cases >> Organizer: >> Joe Andrieu and Kim Hamilton Duffy and Christopher Allen >> Scribe: >> Brent Shambaugh >> Present: >> Jeff Orgel, Vaughan Emery, Heather Vescent, Bohdan Andriyiv, Kim >> Hamilton Duffy, Amy Guy, Brent Zundel, Mike Lodder, Joe Andrieu, >> Markus Sabadello, Adrian Gropper, Brent Shambaugh, Ted Thibodeau, >> Will Abramson, Ken Ebert, Benjamin Young, Jonathan Holt, >> Christopher Allen, Andrew Hughes, Ganesh Annan, Dmitri Zagidulin, >> Yancy Ribbens, Dave Longley, Manu Sporny, Moses Ma >> Audio: >> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2019-02-12/audio.ogg >> >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Sorry, having problems connecting on sip, >> trying voice >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Well darn, can't dial in either; busy signal >> :) >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: I'll keep trying sip >> Joe Andrieu: I'm having dialin issues too >> Brent Shambaugh is scribing. >> Joe Andrieu: Third time the charm >> Ted Thibodeau: 1000 Blessings on Kim for formatting the agenda in >> plaintext (so it's readable/usable via the archives link) >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Pipe up if you can't connect >> I connected by phone >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Is anyone on IRC having problems connecting? >> Mike Lodder: No problems using SIP >> Jeff Orgel: Phone no prob - long ago rarely >> Jonathan Holt: I'm on the phone just fine today using skype, but >> in the past i have had issues >> I'll scribe >> Brent Shambaugh is scribing. >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/ >> >> Topic: Introductions >> >> Will Abramson: I'm new, first time properly on the call >> ... managed to get in this time >> ... researching at Edinburgh, privacy preserving crypto >> ... hope to be at RWoT >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: For re-introductions, Dave Longley >> Dave Longley: I'm the CTO of Digital Bazaar, we focus on >> blockchain tech, DIDs, etc >> >> Topic: announcements >> >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: http://rwot8.eventbrite.com >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: RWoT in Barcelona >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: >> >> https://github.com/w3c/verifiable-claims/tree/master/f2f/2019-03-Barcelona >> ... register soon, early bird discount is over, but you can >> still get a topic paper discount >> Andrew Hughes: Please register soon if you haven't yet, and >> please submit papers >> Joe Andrieu: Want to mention we are past the paper deadline, so >> get it in. Also, the last day is the 22nd to register before >> on-site pricing kicks in >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: https://www.internetidentityworkshop.com >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: IIW is in May >> >> Topic: Action Items >> >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: >> >> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22action%3A+review+next%22 >> Christopher Allen: The #RebootingWebOfTrust topic papers are >> listed at https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot8-barcelona >> Joe Andrieu: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/pull/168 >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Updating ABNF for DIDs, that was originally >> the topic for today, but we are talking about something else. >> Joe Andrieu: Dmitry just submitted a PR that everyone should >> look at >> Dmitri Zagidulin: Please take a look, we will be adding some >> more, but we wanted to clarify the confusion between the DID and >> the DID reference >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Action item for all: review that PR >> Manu Sporny: We have a crypto suite registry that the community >> manages, I will type something up now >> Jonathan Holt: ?Link to LD crypto suite >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: >> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/44 >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Address request for clarity and privacy >> claims for DIDs >> ... the problem here is that the people who were to be assigned >> were not taggable, but are now >> ... the issue is that we claim that DIDs reduce >> correlatability, but haven't done a lot to talk about that >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: >> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/43 >> ... Ryan and Lionel are not here, so no updates on the next one >> either >> ... we'll get to that next week >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: >> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/18 >> ... next JWK cryptosuite implementation, action item for uPort. >> ... we wanted someone from uPort to show how to express a JWT >> with the JWK cryptosuite. >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: I'm going to try to switch to audio >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: I mean voice >> Christopher Allen: I'm not seeing examples of JWTs in DID method >> specs, could we take this to the next level ? >> ... what are we missing to take this to the next level? >> Manu Sporny: The way uPort has approached this is as a wrapper >> around the information than as a proof format. >> ... we added RSA2018 signatures in the hopes this would be what >> they use, but instead they wrap the VC ir DID doc and shove the >> whole thing in a JWT, rather than using a proof format. >> ... looks like there's a path forward to using ld proofs with >> zkps, bitcoin, proof of work >> ... it is up to the users of JWTs to determine how they will >> use it in their specs >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: I am back, let me know if connection is >> better this time >> ... action items need some owners >> ... does anyone have proposals for who can drive the work? >> Manu Sporny: Oliver has done a great job of engaging. Not >> volunteering him, but he would be great. >> >> Topic: Use Cases >> >> Joe Andrieu: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-use-cases/ >> Jonathan Holt: Sound like a loose mic cable >> Joe Andrieu: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-use-cases >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Turning over to Joe to run the rest of the >> meeting. None of my connections are working >> Joe Andrieu: On to use cases. Thanks to Manu and Amy for their >> work in cleaning this up >> ... want to introduce the document then spend time going >> through the 15 features. >> ... there are 5 use cases, 4 of which I like. Really want to >> keep the total to 5. Want readers to get a sense of what we're >> talking about. >> ... one of the things we have bumped into in VCWG: are all of >> our requirements addressed in the use cases >> ... prepping DID Explainer has contributed here. Start with >> feature benefit grid, describe the features, and then a coverage >> grid. >> ... some of them, I was generous on where they were mentioned. >> ... Every use case doesn't need all features >> Joe Andrieu: What does “sustainability” mean? [scribe assist by >> Andrew Hughes] >> ... notion on each of these benefits for anti-censorship: can't >> be shut down, i.e. for whistleblower, teenager >> ... anti-exploitation: prevent surveillance capitalism >> Joe Andrieu: OK - I’ll think about possible alternative lablels >> [scribe assist by Andrew Hughes] >> ... sustainability: no vendor lock in >> Joe Andrieu: Yes - thanks - because ‘sustainability’ evokes >> renewable/cost efficiency etc - which is part [scribe assist by >> Andrew Hughes] >> Joe Andrieu: All of this language is new, so we'd like editing >> ... Going to the queue >> Justin_R: I'm not familiar with the W3C use case documents, but >> from an outsider perspective, this reads like a set of solutions >> without stated problems. Adding requirements may help. >> Joe Andrieu: Good feeback >> Manu Sporny: Want to do some level setting. why are we focusing >> on this? the DID charter proposal went to advisory review. w >> Heather Vescent: +1 Justin. This does not tell the bigger story, >> it gets into the technical weeds, >> ... we gave them a heads up, but the use case doc was an old, >> unedited google doc. >> ... they want a ReSpec doc of use cases with some more polish. >> To be clear, it's more that the document doesn't tell me what >> problems it's addressing so I don't know if I care about the >> solutions. >> ... not sure if leading with the requirements will be the best. >> Perhaps following the VC use cases approach could work. >> Heather Vescent: Also, I feel like all the work on the other use >> case document was pointless. I don't see any of that work >> reflected in this document. Which was my main concern when we >> spent all that time way back then doing those. Why did we bother >> doing all those if they don't funnel into here? >> ... DIDs are challenging to talk about. Feedback is that use >> cases haven't been helpful in leading to understanding. >> Ted Thibodeau: Challenge (problem), solution (DID), application >> of solution (use case scenario) >> Heather Vescent: I was promised that back then, those use cases >> would not be for naught, but it seems that this has happened. >> Mike Lodder: Talking about cencorship and use cases, we could >> talk about how in some countries it is not legal to access >> certain types of data, e.g. GDPR. It may make sense for the DID >> to split based on what it has access to. Cencorship may not >> always be a negative. >> Joe Andrieu: Interesting idea, probably at a different layer >> than DIDs >> Mike Lodder: Data access control, services could use cencorship >> Christopher Allen: Two comments: one of the benefits of this >> area is there are cryptographic problems such as selective >> disclosure etc. that haven't been realized yet. >> ... to the larger question, I want to go even further in >> reducing use cases. The long-term educational claims use case >> where you could have claims where keys and parties may change >> over time, but the signatures don't change, even after 30 years. >> ... another one: the travel one, crossing borders (we talked >> about this at TPAC) different parties have different authority >> over different parts of travel. >> ... all these different identifier block this in different >> ways. DIDs help unblock this. >> ... less is more. The use cases are interesting, but we should >> lead with what is driving adoption now. >> Joe Andrieu: One challenge with these use cases is that they >> bleed into VC use cases. >> Dave Longley: Sounds like "using a Verifiable Credential" is a >> use case itself >> ... enabled by a DID, but more focused on VCs. >> ... we need to point out what DIDs uniquely make possible >> Jonathan Holt: My issue isn't with use cases, but with the >> charter. >> ... Is DID specific to W3C community, action items, or credo? >> ... so much of the DID happens in the realm of data >> democritization and self-sovreignty. Concerned that the W3C will >> end up being a members only club. >> Manu Sporny: You raise a good point, we need to address that as >> the WG takes form. >> Dave Longley: Protect >> Joe Andrieu: +1 To positive language >> ... back to use cases, the language should be more positive, >> e.g. censorhip-resistant over anti-cencorship. >> ... want to underscore what Chris said. When we talk about DID >> use cases we go high level, these are verifiable credentials. >> ... the W3C AC is very well versed in focused charters. Hard >> for them to link how this new identifier enables the high level >> use cases. >> ... need some glue in there now, otherwise it won't go well >> with AC. >> ... need to focus on use cases that only DID specific >> ... have an identifier with cryptographic control, service >> discovery, and auditability of key rotations. >> ... this will help the AC focus on that DIDs enable that other >> things don't >> Bohdan Andriyiv: Want to draw attention to longevity of DIDs. >> What differentiates DIDs from other identifiers is lifelong >> characteristic of DIDs. >> ... high stakes cooperation. Democracy, decentralized >> government. Should have a use case for high-stakes long term >> cooperation. >> Joe Andrieu: One thing that would greatly improve that use case >> is if the description outlines what actions the individuals would >> take. >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: I'm having a hard time reconciling the >> feedback when I look at the EDU use case. On the one hand, I'm >> hearing the use cases are too technical; on the other I'm hearing >> they doesn't spell out the details enough. It would be helpful to >> discuss specifics of 1 use case >> ... the individual interactions that drive the scenario would >> be useful >> Adrian Gropper: I think the very important reason to do the use >> cases, is the business case for self-sovereign identity. >> ... the adoption model should answer the question: what should >> the issuer, holder and verifier have to do about DIDs. >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Here's a different angle: of the use cases, >> which one is closest to a "good" one by AC standards. What is it >> lacking to make it better? >> ... if we focus the use cases on service discover etc. we will >> miss the business case. >> Manu Sporny: https://w3c.github.io/vc-use-cases/ >> Joe Andrieu: One of the things we have in the VC use cases >> document. We have the mechanistic use cases about what the >> individual entity can do, not the high level narrative. >> Manu Sporny: We called them User Roles, User Needs, and User >> Tasks... I think it was very useful. >> ... I think the pattern we have in the other document is >> useful: problem domain and solution domain >> Joe Andrieu: We have these 15 features, tried to break them down >> into what they provide as key benefits >> ... sensitive to need to phrase them more positively, but is >> anything missing? >> Christopher Allen: Keep on coming back to future proofing. Use >> of identifiers in the past hasn't addressed this problem. >> ... this isn't acceptable today. We're enabling new methods of >> support for longevity and future proofing. >> Adrian Gropper: +1 To logevity as reason for SSI >> ... this is an essential core value proposition >> Honest back-channel question, doesn't this just move the >> assumptions on longevity to the resolution side? >> Which is the real problem with all legacy identifier systems too, >> when you get down to it >> Kim Hamilton Duffy: I like the problem domain / solution domain >> idea; I think it would help address my question above >> (reconciling the too-technical feedback with the >> not-precise-enough feedback) >> Joe Andrieu: We have rotation, crypto future proof, >> organizational end-of-life longevity. These are all attempts to >> capture the future proofing. >> @Manu right but that means that it assumes the network will >> continue to run and the government structure won't fall, right? >> Manu Sporny: Yes, correct... >> Christopher Allen: But they're not specifically called out as >> future proofing. >> Manu Sporny: @Justin_R, but some of these networks have a more >> decentralized way of operating... and that's not the /only/ >> benefit. >> Jonathan Holt: I'm curious about the link to the "scantily clad >> woman", how was that a use-case as I don't see it >> Joe Andrieu: So we should separate economic from ??? >> sustainability >> @Manu ok, as long as I'm understanding the assumptions behind the >> claims here >> Joe Andrieu: Not sure where the link to the scantily clad woman >> is >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wz8sakevXzO2OSMP341w7M2LjAMZfEQaTQEm_AOs3_Q/edit#heading=h.70an1a4kg74q >> Manu Sporny: I deleted it. tried to stop the bleeding. >> Oh ffs really, an image?? >> (I missed that one) >> Joe Andrieu: Want to embrace: that's why we open it up, even if >> we get crazy stuff. Hopefully we're feeling better about the doc. >> Joe Andrieu: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-wg-charter/issues/9 >> ... Issue with the charter itself. Request to put at least one >> use case in the charter itself. >> Manu Sporny: Let's chat offline. >> Manu Sporny: @Justin_R, you get more things w/ DIDs... not just >> the possibility of a more decentralized identifier network or >> governance structures... other things are key rotation tied to a >> long lived auditable identifier. >> Moses Ma: Bye everyone >> Joe Andrieu: Thanks all, we will be quickly iterating. >> Manu Sporny: @Justin_R, so people tend to say "what does the >> *one* thing DIDs do?" -- and it's not just one thing, it's a >> combination of things... that because it does that combination of >> things, certain things are enabled. >> Manu Sporny: @Justin_R, like, you can have key rotation w/ no >> auditability... and while that's helpful (you can rotate keys), >> you don't know when people did the rotation, so you can't go back >> in time and check signatures from 15 years ago (as a hand-wavy >> example) >> >> >> >> >> -- Kim Hamilton Duffy CTO & Principal Architect Learning Machine Co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group kim@learningmachine.com
Received on Monday, 18 February 2019 18:15:46 UTC