W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > April 2016

Re: Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2016-03-29

From: Brent Shambaugh <brent.shambaugh@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 14:14:15 -0400
Message-ID: <CACvcBVoWr_qvz8Qcdwo7YM30nQxxte7HKJSXx4R7_Rb=h+YCJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Cc: Kaliya IDwoman <kaliya-id@identitywoman.net>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>, Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>

> On 30 March 2016 at 01:40, Kaliya IDwoman <kaliya-id@identitywoman.net>
> wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>  You don't know me....but you might have heard of me..I'm Identity Woman.
>>  I have watched many many identity efforts arise and fall in the last 12
>> years
> Hi!  Yes, I am familiar with your work :)
>>  I am a bit surprised to hear OpenID Connect and SAML as failures in the
>> space - they actually work and are widely adopted.  They provide ways to
>> exchange various types of information about people between different
>> business entities.
>> The problem you are seeking to solve is not an easy one to solve and
>> there have been many, many different attempts. There are some interesting
>> ongoing efforts that are different but related such as the Trust Elevation
>> TC at OASIS.
> Do you think OASIS may be any closer at this point to aligning their work
> with the W3C's work at LInked Data.
> The last time I evaluated this there was still something of a gap.  I've
> seen positive steps tho from folks like Paul Trevithick and more recently
> Marcus Sabadello (XDI)

 I was actually quite surprised to see Paul Trevithick presenting about
rww.io at IIW#18 back when it was new.

>> I think it would be VERY VERY VERY advisable to have a few of the most
>> active and most keen members of this committee come out to the Internet
>> Identity Workshop April 26-28 in Mountain View to float what you are
>> thinking about doing and get substantive meaningful input from the
>> community of people who have worked in this problem space...some of them
>> for 20+ years and within the IIW for 11 years. So there is a huge brain
>> trust to draw on.
>> If the ticket to get into to IIW is to expensive ... I will be happy to
>> work with those who want to come on getting discount codes to make it
>> doable...for who ever wants to attend.
>> http://www.internetidentityworkshop.com
>> I strongly suggest that believing you can solve "it" whatever you define
>> as that without tapping the community knowledge pool at IIW is a fools
>> errand.
> I think 'fools errand' may be overstating the case.  Are you actually
> familiar with the technical details of the solution offered?
> Also I suspect you're not impartial here, as dont you have a hand in
> organzing IIW?  However, I have seen some good work come out of this
> conference.  I do much prefer the W3C stack for this, at this point in
> time.  My hope is for such efforts to converge over time.
>> Regards,
>> - Kaliya
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:32 AM, <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks to Gregg Kellogg for scribing this week! The minutes
>>> for this week's Verifiable Claims telecon are now available:
>>> http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2016-03-29/
>>> Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes.
>>> Audio from the meeting is available as well (link provided below).
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2016-03-29
>>> Agenda:
>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2016Mar/0059.html
>>> Topics:
>>>   1. Introduction to Todd Albers
>>>   2. W3C Advisory Committee Summary
>>>   3. Next Steps (in the next 4-6 weeks)
>>>   4. Spec Ops
>>> Action Items:
>>>   1. Manu to contact interviewees and survey respondents with
>>>     charter and use cases and questionnaire.
>>>   2. Shane to update use cases to make them broader than payments
>>>     (based on feedback at W3C AC Meeting)
>>>   3. Matt Stone to review use cases.
>>>   4. Richard Varn to review use cases.
>>>   5. Eric Korb to review use cases.
>>>   6. Carla Casilli to review use cases.
>>>   7. Todd Albers to review use cases.
>>> Organizer:
>>>   Manu Sporny
>>> Scribe:
>>>   Gregg Kellogg
>>> Present:
>>>   Gregg Kellogg, Manu Sporny, Todd Albers, Shane McCarron, Carla
>>>   Casilli, Richard Varn, Dave Longley, Matt Stone, David I. Lehn,
>>>   Daniel C. Burnett, Rob Trainer, Andy Dale, Colleen Kennedy
>>> Audio:
>>>   http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2016-03-29/audio.ogg
>>> Gregg Kellogg is scribing.
>>> Manu Sporny:  Talking about W3C meeting and SpecOps.
>>> Topic: Introduction to Todd Albers
>>> Todd Albers:  I’m Todd Albers, work for US Federal Reserve Bank.
>>>   I’m interested in the different use cases as it relates to
>>>   credentials.
>>>   … My background is in web apps and have worked in SaaS with
>>>   credit cards.
>>> Topic: W3C Advisory Committee Summary
>>> Manu Sporny:  We started circulating a draft charter for VCWG. We
>>>   tried to paint a picture of what the WG would look like based on
>>>   42 respnoses to survey, and the 12+ people we interviewed around
>>>   the charter.
>>> Manu Sporny:
>>>   http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/charter/vcwg-draft.html
>>>   … We also showed use cases.
>>> Manu Sporny: http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/use-cases/
>>>   … We focused primarily around credentials uses for payments.
>>>   Initial feedback is that they would like to see it broader (e.g.,
>>>   Healthcare and Education). The discussions last week at the
>>>   Advisory Committee reinforced that.
>>>   … We did a number of interviews to see what they thought about
>>>   the work. A number of respondents were very cautious, due to
>>>   previous failures in the space (OpenID Connect, SAML, …).
>>>   … There was some pushback questioning why this work was
>>>   different. We were able to sit down with them (Dan Applequist).
>>>   He’d like to see more general language at the beginning of the
>>>   doc to make it clear what problem we’re trying to solve.
>>>   … We spoke with the AC Rep from Apple (David Singer) who was
>>>   also cautious.
>>>   … We also spoke with Harry Halpin, who has been most strongly
>>>   opposed to the work. We indicated that the charter was modified
>>>   due to his input. He thought this was a positive step, but had
>>>   not reviewed the charter. He raised an issue on our claim of
>>>   consensus to create a charter. I went through the list of people,
>>>   and he had no response to that. (He’d like to see the list).
>>>   … We brought up VC, and I didn’t hear any strong objection to
>>>   the work. There are upwards of 400 members, and we would need to
>>>   respond if we get any formal objections.
>>> Shane McCarron:  I didn’t hear anything negative. I did hear was
>>>   intereset from quarters I hadn’t expected, where there are uses
>>>   we hadn’t expected.
>>> Manu Sporny:  Web Annotations would like something like this to
>>>   not who author is, also RIAA and MPAA for noting artists and
>>>   royalties.
>>>   … All in all, it was really good; it didn’t seem like anyone
>>>   was surprized or came out of left field. We talked with W3CM
>>>   (Jeff Jaffe) who wanted to see how it was going, and to see who
>>>   would be Staff contact for this work.
>>>   … I mentioned that gkellogg is a front-runner as far as being a
>>>   staff contact, but we need to find funding, but others may come
>>>   up too.
>>> Carla Casilli: Feels like a good time to say Yay!
>>> Topic: Next Steps (in the next 4-6 weeks)
>>> Manu Sporny:  It’s up to us now, and there doesn’t seem to be
>>>   anyone standing in the way. We could bring it in front of the W3C
>>>   Membership for a formal vote sooner or later. We need to be sure
>>>   it’s structured to have a very good chance of success. What comes
>>>   next is getting people who are going to show up every week,
>>>   engage, and get the hard work done over the next 2 years.
>>> Shane McCarron: We did say we would circle back with the
>>>   interviewees.  Has that been done?
>>>   … We’re going to ask people for committments, show up, join
>>>   W3C, etc. If we don’t get at least 20 W3C members voting for it,
>>>   and at least 15 people who show up regularly. Good news is that
>>>   we’ve had that engagement so far, but people need to commit to
>>>   join the W3C.
>>>   … We need to hire a W3C Fellow, make test suites, and so forth,
>>>   and that takes money. We’re at the point where it needs funding
>>>   for us to start. If we start without that in place, the work
>>>   could falter.
>>>   … We haven’t yet circled back with interviewees, and survey
>>>   respondents this week. There’s a question of if we should create
>>>   a committment questionaire.
>>> Richard Varn: Can you summarize the to dos?
>>> Shane McCarron:  We said we would formally circle back.
>>> Carla Casilli: What's the minimum number of required
>>>   participants?
>>> Manu Sporny:  You missed that, we haven’t yet done that and need
>>>   to do it this week. I’m wondering if we should have a
>>>   questionaire to see if people would participate, object or
>>>   something else.
>>> Manu Sporny:  Richard asked about ToDo’s. The first thing is to
>>>   notify interviewees that we have a charter and want to forge
>>>   ahead. Do they see any issues. Then we need to get back with
>>>   Survey respondents (23 or so).
>>> Richard Varn: Don't forget Lumina
>>> Manu Sporny:  Then we need to push key organizations for informal
>>>   reviews of the charter (Bloomberg, Fed Reserve, B&M Gates
>>>   Foundations, EMS, Pearson, …) need to get them on the record..
>>>   … The faster we get to 20 commitments, the better, but we
>>>   should shoot for 50 organizations supporting the work.
>>>   … It takes 20-25 yes votes to start. There must be at least 10
>>>   participants on each call.
>>> Carla Casilli: Great, thanks.
>>> Manu Sporny:  Those are low bars. The Web Payments IG has 47
>>>   organizations and 112 participants; I’d like to do at least as
>>>   well.
>>>   … Once we get to that point, the charter will go up for formal
>>>   review. There’s 1-2 months for review and voting. W3C will review
>>>   votes and handle objections, and hopefully, we’ll have a WG after
>>>   that. Timeline is still end of July to start the WG.
>>> Richard Varn: Are we reasonably sure the vested interests and
>>>   browser makers will not object?
>>> Manu Sporny:  We don’t see any objections on the horizon.
>>> Richard Varn: Cool
>>> Manu Sporny:  We’re predicting 18-24 months to do the work. We
>>>   could do in 12 months if everything goes according to plan (but
>>>   it never does).
>>>   … We’re releasing a blog post about our experiences with the
>>>   Web Payments group so far: things have not gone well, at least
>>>   when it came to our group creating a bunch of specs and putting
>>>   it into a WG. We tried to get browser vendors on board, but bad
>>>   things happened.
>>> Richard Varn: Understood
>>> Dave Longley: But hopefully a lot will be mitigated by starting
>>>   small
>>>   … Even though we’ve asked and giving notification, and we’re
>>>   not doing protocol, which they care about, there are no
>>>   guarantees. The WPIG is an example of how things can fall apart.
>>>   That’s one of the biggest concerns we have, how to mitigate risks
>>>   of powerful groups coming in and disrupting the process.
>>> Dave Longley: Some of that vision will have started to actualize,
>>>   so it can be seen/understood by new players more easily.
>>> Dave Longley: If we have implementations out there.
>>>   … As dlongley says, starting small and getting deployments is
>>>   key. Having deployments in an industry before it comes into W3C
>>>   is a good thing, as it validates the vision, and shows that it
>>>   can’t be easily moved. Its a risk we need to understand
>>> ACTION: Manu to contact interviewees and survey respondents with
>>>   charter and use cases and questionnaire.
>>> ACTION: Shane to update use cases to make them broader than
>>>   payments (based on feedback at W3C AC Meeting)
>>> Manu Sporny:  I’ll also create the survey and put it out to the
>>>   group.
>>> Shane McCarron: +1 To reviewing the use case document
>>>   … We need to take a closer look at the use cases document to
>>>   make sure everyone understands it. Particularly as people think
>>>   it’s too focused on payments.
>>> Shane McCarron: I would also like to start (again) working on the
>>>   extended use cases
>>> ACTION: Matt Stone to review use cases.
>>> ACTION: Richard Varn to review use cases.
>>> ACTION: Eric Korb to review use cases.
>>> Shane McCarron:  We talked about an extended use-case document
>>>   (the “vision” thing). Where should it live, in CG or as adjunct
>>>   document within VCTF?)
>>> Manu Sporny:  I’d suggest in CG for now. I’m concerned about
>>>   handing a document over to a group that won’t tend to it long
>>>   term.
>>> Matt Stone:  I was going to ask where we are going to manage
>>>   other workspaces and have a sand-box to flesh it out. Do we have
>>>   a vision for how to bring in other industries? We could add
>>>   example uses cases for each flow in each industry.
>>> Manu Sporny:  We don’t have anything solid in mind right now.
>>>   Just repeating the use case for each industry isn’t useful, but
>>>   spreading around the use case descriptions among 5-6 industries
>>>   would be useful.
>>> Matt Stone:  Would it make sense to have a meta-use case to show
>>>   creating, issuing, verifying across different use cases?
>>> Carla Casilli: What's the timeframe for review and editing?
>>> Manu Sporny:  I think the editors have worked on some of these
>>>   already. You might point out flows which are missing. Adding 2-3
>>>   more flows would be useful.
>>> Carla Casilli: Okay, just wanted to know if it was by 12pm ET. ;)
>>> ACTION: Carla Casilli to review use cases.
>>>   … Realistically, we need another month to do this work. But,
>>>   really ASAP. Reviews should be in by the end of this week so we
>>>   can review it.
>>> Todd Albers: I can help with the review as well
>>> ACTION: Todd Albers to review use cases.
>>> Manu Sporny:  Shanem and other editors are in charge of getting
>>>   use cases cross-industrty.
>>>   … Next week, we’ll try and see how we’re doing with
>>>   commitments; we’re going to need everyone’s help to get
>>>   commitments for this work.
>>>   … Then we need to be sure the work is well-funded, so we don’t
>>>   languish.
>>> Topic: Spec Ops
>>> Matt Stone:  This is the first W3C I’ve participated in so
>>>   actively. You’ve mentioned funding; can you briefly tell us how
>>>   that works?
>>> Manu Sporny:  We’re doing something a bit different than the way
>>>   W3C groups typically run. VC and Credentials is a “charged”
>>>   topic; there have been failures in the past and people are
>>>   nervous about it. We’ve done a good job in making something
>>>   achievable.
>>>   … Typically, you create a charter, and companies join. But,
>>>   when the work starts, they typically send people to do the work
>>>   that are stretched too thin. A number of WG’s I’ve participating
>>>   in, the vast amount of work is done by Volunteers (Invited
>>>   Experts). This is a skill that people acquire over years, which
>>>   can slow down the work.
>>>   … The question is, do we depend on companies to do the work, or
>>>   do we hire people to support us through the process, that’s what
>>>   Spec Ops is about (Specification Operations). It was set up to
>>>   accellerate the process of doing standards work, so we don’t hit
>>>   the typical snags.
>>>   … We need folks like ShaneM, he’s the projects manager at
>>>   SpecOps; same with Gregg and Dan. It’s highly unlikelly that W3C
>>>   will staff the work.
>>>   … We don’t have a good response, as no current W3C staff member
>>>   has jumped at it; a failed effort reflects badly on the staff,
>>>   and noone has an appitite for the work, and they’re swamped.
>>>   We’re going to have to bring in someone from the outside.
>>>   … A company can fund a “W3C Fellow” to do such work. A number
>>>   of us have been through this process before, which helps us out.
>>> Shane McCarron:  It’s also not clear to me who at W3C would staff
>>>   this; picking a Fellow to staff is probably the best way to make
>>>   it happen. I don’t want anyone to think that SpecOps is
>>>   strong-arming the group to go in a particular direction.
>>>   … We’re not saying you need to buy a standard, but work like
>>>   this needs dedicated people doing the work. There’s a lot of
>>>   cross-group coordination needed, which is something the staff
>>>   contact makes happen. SpecOps is about finding such experts and
>>>   getting them into the work.
>>> Shane McCarron: https://spec-ops.io
>>> Matt Stone:  Is it fair to thing about SpecOps as staff
>>>   augmentation for W3C?
>>> Manu Sporny:  Yes. To be clear, this is not about paying SpecOps
>>>   to get the standard through the door, but there is stuff that
>>>   needs to be done that large organizations don’t know how to do.
>>>   This causes the standard to slow or stop.
>>>   … If a number of organizations join and staff with good
>>>   technologists, that’s great! (This rarely happens). Because of
>>>   the high risk of people pointing to this and saying “I told you
>>>   so”, I’m particularly concerned.
>>>   … If it starts out and it turns out there’s a large number of
>>>   qualified people, then we won’t need SpecOps, but I’ve rarely
>>>   seen that happen (maybe once).
>>> Shane McCarron:  Its my job as Projects Manager for SpecOps to
>>>   answer such questions, so please contact me.
>>> Manu Sporny:  Spec editing is hard to staff, as is test-suite
>>>   generation. There are a number of technologies we depend on that
>>>   need to be created, WebDHT, RDF Normalization, … A new group
>>>   needs to be started to make this stuff work.
>>> Matt Stone: +1 (Empathy) to ShaneM
>>>   … when we start a WG we need an idea about how this work is
>>>   going to happen. Right now, we don’t have a solid plan for RDF
>>>   Normalization, LD Signatures, WebDHT or decentralized identifier
>>>   work. Without those technologies, we don’t have portable
>>>   credentials.
>>> Shane McCarron:  For example, the Web Annotation WG asked me to
>>>   attend last week. They’ve done a lot of work on a JSON-LD-based
>>>   mechnisms for annotation, but got to the end without realizing
>>>   they had no testing infrastructure.
>>> Manu Sporny:  As dlongley says, SpecOps creates technology that
>>>   is broadly available.
>>> Manu Sporny:  We’ll focus on use cases, responses and survey for
>>>   the rest of the week.
>>> Carla Casilli: Thanks, all! bye
Received on Friday, 1 April 2016 18:14:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:41 UTC