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

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 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>