W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > November 2014

Re: Digital Signatures for Credentials

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 02:36:14 +0000
Message-ID: <CABP7RbfHz6uQ2uMJ1DTpMrN991zjuUttr8P639ATu1d-f0gqcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, public-credentials@w3.org, public-socialweb@w3.org, St├ęphane Boyera <boyera@w3.org>
+1. Thanks Manu.

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014, 6:03 PM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> On 11/19/2014 02:30 PM, Harry Halpin wrote:
> > There is no debate. JOSE is a standard for JSON that has had high
> > review and adoption from the IETF. SM is a proposed specification
> > from a Community Group for RDF that is out of scope for the Social
> > Web WG, although conceivably some future WG at the IETF could find
> > their normalization algorithm useful.
>
> It's not the place of a W3C staff contact to declare victory and shut
> down a debate. You're overstepping your authority, Harry.
>
> Clearly, people are arguing about JOSE vs. SM. There is a debate, even
> if you don't want there to be one.
>
> Here are the points where I agree with you:
>
> * Standardizing SM via Social Web WG is clearly out of scope of the
>   charter. No one has asked Social Web WG to take on that work.
> * The RDF Graph Normalization stuff will happen in a group that cares
>   about that sort of thing, not in the Social Web WG.
> * It's probably not worth debating whether or not RDF Graph
>   Normalization or SM is going to happen in the Social Web WG.
>
> However, stating that JOSE is the obvious choice for digital signatures
> in the Social Web WG, the Web Payments CG, the Credentials CG, the
> Linked Data Platform, or even the Web Payments IG is very far from
> reality and you'll find that there will be considerable push-back if the
> Social Web WG tries to railroad the use of JOSE through on something
> that touches Linked Data.
>
> > For the Social Web WG, as regards JSON, we will use JOSE as SM is out
> > of scope as its not part of our deliverables. If another WG
> > standardizes SM (which I would be doubtful of), then I'm happy to
> > reconsider.
>
> It's not for you alone to decide which digital signature mechanism the
> Social Web WG is going to use. W3C operates on consensus, and there is
> currently no consensus on which digital signature mechanism would be
> best. It's highly inappropriate of a W3C staff contact (you) to assert
> that a group /will/ use a particular technology, especially when that
> very "decision" is being challenged by multiple people in the community.
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: The Marathonic Dawn of Web Payments
> http://manu.sporny.org/2014/dawn-of-web-payments/
>
>
Received on Friday, 21 November 2014 02:36:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:46:54 UTC