W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > August 2017

Re: [MINUTES] W3C Credentials CG Call - 2017-07-25 12pm ET

From: David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:42:20 +0100
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <b14253aa-5813-1b31-45bc-b1a37a8dd549@kent.ac.uk>
Please accept my apologies for today's meeting as I am travelling

David

On 31/07/2017 17:40, msporny@digitalbazaar.com wrote:
> Thanks to Nathan George for scribing this week! The minutes
> for this week's Credentials CG telecon are now available:
> 
> http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2017-07-25/
> 
> 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 2017-07-25
> 
> Agenda:
>   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2017Jul/0028.html
> Topics:
>   1. Re-Introductions
>   2. Action Items
>   3. DID Specification Work Item
>   4. Lifecycle Deep Dive
> Resolutions:
>   1. Accept the DID Specification as a Credentials CG work item.
> Organizer:
>   Kim Hamilton Duffy and Christopher Allen
> Scribe:
>   Nathan George
> Present:
>   Nathan George, Chris Webber, Christopher Allen, Dave Longley, 
>   Ryan Grant, Manu Sporny, Drummond Reed, Joe Andrieu, Adrian 
>   Gropper, Moses Ma, Frederico Sportini, David Chadwick, David I. 
>   Lehn, Adam Migus
> Audio:
>   http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2017-07-25/audio.ogg
> 
> 
> Topic: Re-Introductions
> 
> Nathan George is scribing.
> Chris Webber:  I work on social web stuff, and am absentmindedly 
>   participating and lurking in the background to hear what is going 
>   on
> Christopher Allen:  Thank you and welcome
>   ... is there any longer term member that would like to 
>   reintroduce themselves to the Credentials community
> Dave Longley:  I am the CTO of Digital Bazaar, we create products 
>   related to Web Payments, Verifiable Claims, and Blockchain - we 
>   co-founded this group and a number of others at W3C. We build our 
>   solutions on open standards and devote a lot of time to 
>   initiatives such as this one.
> 
> Topic: Action Items
> 
> Christopher Allen:  On work items, our oldest work item is the 
>   naming options
> Christopher Allen: 
>   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2017Jul/0026.html
>   ... we've decided at this point to pursue this proposal in this 
>   email
>   ... which is to leave the name alone for now, but we haven't 
>   called that final in case there are any objections
>   ... none have been raised on the list, we have until next 
>   meeting to do so
>   ... the plan is to keep the name the same and change the 
>   charter to address the things we wish to address
>   ... the revision of the mission statement will begin in August
>   ... There will be a proposal about how to work with the Digital 
>   Verification group
>   ... are there any action items we have missed?
>   ... nothing being raised in queue
> 
> Topic: DID Specification Work Item
> 
> Christopher Allen:  The next discussion is to officially take on 
>   the DID as a work item
>   ... we have many champions implementing it, and no objections 
>   so far
> Manu Sporny: https://opencreds.github.io/did-spec/
> Ryan Grant: +1
>   ... question for manu, can we do this with "+1" here? or do we 
>   need to do it on the list?
>   ... or do the chairs just say yes?
> Manu Sporny:  Typically W3C process is to seek consensus and 
>   chairs only step in if that cannot be achieved
> Manu Sporny:  Typically w3c process is to try to achieve 
>   consensus and let that drive it, only when it's difficult to find 
>   consensus do the chairs step in. I would suggest that we do a 
>   quick call for consensus on the call today and see how many 
>   people we have supporting it. After we do that, notify the 
>   mailing list that there's a week to object to taking the DID spec 
>   as a work item. [scribe assist by Dave Longley]
>   ... lets do a quick +1 on the call, and then notify the mailing 
>   list that there is a week to object.  If there are no objections, 
>   then we'll proceed.
> Drummond Reed: Who makes the proposal?
> Manu Sporny:  So lets see how much support there is here, and 
>   notify immediately to the mailing list
> Manu Sporny:  If there are no objections after a week we just 
>   pull it in and start working on it. That's the typical way to 
>   address addition of new work, it results in the hardest thing to 
>   undo after you work on it. I think we should propose to work on 
>   it in the CG right now and then make an announcement immediately 
>   after the call on the mailing list notifying about objections for 
>   a week. [scribe assist by Dave Longley]
> Manu Sporny:  That's the typical process. [scribe assist by Dave 
>   Longley]
> 
> PROPOSAL:  Accept the DID Specification as a Credentials CG work 
>   item.
> 
> Christopher Allen:  The proposal is to accept the DID data 
>   specification that has been drafted by Drummond, Manu and many 
>   others as a work item
>   ... please +1 or -1 that here
> Manu Sporny: +1
> Drummond Reed: +1
> Joe Andrieu: +1 For DID as a work item
> Christopher Allen: +1
> Dave Longley: +1
> Nathan George: +1
> Adrian Gropper: +1
> Moses Ma: +1
> Frederico Sportini: +1
> Ryan Grant: +1
> Christopher Allen:  We have 9 votes in favor and no objections
>   ... I will post an email to the list right after the call
>   ... Moving on to our main topic of a deep dive
> 
> RESOLUTION: Accept the DID Specification as a Credentials CG work 
>   item.
> 
> Topic: Lifecycle Deep Dive
> 
>   ... We discovered that multiple participants have interest in 
>   the life cycle of a VC
>   ... but different approaches to how to look at that, that may 
>   be very compatible
>   ... each will take a 10 minutes to describe how they approach 
>   it, then some time for them to comment on similarities, and then 
>   open things up to a group discussion
> Joe Andrieu: My presentation: 
>   http://legreq.com/files/WoT.VC.EngagementModel.pdf Joram 1.0.0: 
>   http://bit.ly/joram100 Chris's WoT Scenario: 
>   https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rebooting-the-web-of-trust-fall2017/blob/master/topics-and-advance-readings/RWOT-User-Story.md
> Joe Andrieu:  Here are some links, one for the presentation then 
>   the Joram paper, then Chris' work to frame the use case
>   ... my work item was to propose doing a identity life cycle and 
>   engagement model with VCs
>   ... the Joram 1.0.0 paper came from the Syrian refugee crisis 
>   research
>   ... the idea is to capture the human requirements on both sides 
>   of a complex technical systme
>   ... for Joram we assume there is a magical distributed data 
>   store and that Joram can accrete an identity through that system, 
>   but try not to get bogged down in the specifics of how that works
>   ... we added some devops stages, I'll get to this in a second
>   ... it covers all the stages of user engagement with the system
>   ... the idea is to keep it slim and easy to read, as a 
>   sympathetic narrative so that you can get into the minds of the 
>   users
>   ... and understand why they are doing what they are doing and 
>   get a gut-check of the viability of the system (would they really 
>   do this?)
>   ... the fourth slide is all 15 stages all together
>   ... in slide 5 the two paragraphs that comprise stage 7
>   ... show the level of detail involved.
>   ... (see content)
>   ... this gives you a sense of what people need to do to 
>   accomplish their jobs
>   ... on slide 6, the top half of the stages
>   ... describes how things unfold
>   ... <continues to outline stages in the 
>   joram-engagement-model.pdf file>
>   ... Identity information is acquired through stage 6, 
>   disclosure
>   ... stage 9, updates, covers expected changes to the record 
>   through some sort of interface or app
>   ... in step 10 things are going wrong in an unexpected way (you 
>   might have to hand-write some sort of edit to the DB)
>   ... step 11-13 are devops stages
>   ... transferring one schema to another are covered.
>   ... finally how to deal with lost credentials, which might be 
>   the hardest problem in this type of use case
>   ... after that exit and re-engagement
>   ... slide 8 is a link to ChristopherA's work, a write up of a 
>   "web of trust" use case involving first and second generation 
>   emmigrant trying to establish a reputation that doesn't 
>   compromise personal safety or current workplace location
>   ... that wraps up the introduction to this model
> Drummond Reed: Great stuff, Joe
> David Chadwick: 
>   https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2qPJBxhjfdqYmJGaE5HODFLZ3ROUFAxQ05yOG9uRTBaaDlr/view
> Moses Ma: How do I get on the queue?
> Christopher Allen:  We will go to questions in a couple of 
>   minutes, next up DavidC
> David Chadwick:  I've put up a link to the doc I have published.  
>   There is some overlap, but JoeAndrieu'
>   ... 's approach is a bit different
>   ... I've started from a new born baby
>   ... when someone is born there isn't any information about them 
>   yet, and it has to be created by who we call "issuers" in the VC 
>   model
>   ... Issuers create and store information about individuals
>   ... it is naturally distributed because there are hundereds of 
>   entities issuing this information
>   ... and it gets stale, and needs to be updated
>   ... when it is stale they may delete it, the person may come 
>   back and ask to have it updated, and there is an issue here in 
>   the world today
>   ... insofar that there is a very weak binding between the 
>   person and the information that is held about them
>   ... so it sometimes only requires as little information as your 
>   address to pose as someone else and get that information changed
>   ... one hope is that VCs create a stronger binding that will 
>   prevent someone from claiming to be you and using that to steal 
>   your information
>   ... take a look at page 2 and that the information is about you 
>   but you're not necessarily creating it or owning
>   ... that information
>   ... we do want you to be able to control who can see it
>   ... The holder is moving to the center of the ecosystem, and 
>   controlling access even when they are not the issuer
>   ... You can create your own information and issue information 
>   about yourself (favorite food or color)
>   ... However we are most interested in claims created by others
>   ... this information will always be created or held in some 
>   form by the Issuer
>   ... then this information will need to be updated
>   ... there is no fool-proof link that binds the person to the 
>   information, but we'd like to make that much stronger
>   ... There are three cases here we might want to consider
>   ... starting fresh with a new identity, come with the identity 
>   from the country of origin, or masquerade as another person
>   ... this is not the core of what we're looking at, but this 
>   model could apply to what JoeAndrieu discussed
> David Chadwick:  The figure here was published by the group 6 mo 
>   or a year ago
>   ... we are on page 5
>   ... this shows the Holder as the center of the ecosystem and 
>   how they hold them and present them where they wish
>   ... there could be use cases where someone other than the 
>   subject holds and presents, but I think that is an unusual case, 
>   not the normal case
>   ... there are 9 steps outlined here as the life-cycle of a 
>   Verifiable Credential
>   ... Finally I look at the trust model, which is very important.
>   ... without this we can't say much about these
>   ... a R.P. needs to be able to know what to trust and how to 
>   use the data
>   ... <see bullet points>
>   ... The issuer and inspectors do not need to trust the 
>   repository, which is a critical difference between this and 
>   federated identity management
>   ... we might want the user to trust the repository to not lose 
>   information and not corrupt data
> Drummond Reed: Indeed, that's a big difference
>   ... so the question now is how to relate this document to 
>   JoeAndrieu's
>   ... in his he is interacting with Stewards and the user just 
>   has a bracelet identifying him to those Stewards
> Ryan Grant: Okay here
> Christopher Allen: I'm calling back.
> Joe Andrieu: Chris did we lose you? We could hear David
>   ... perhaps it is good to see what questions we have now about 
>   similarities and differences
> Christopher Allen:  I'm back, did DavidC finish
> Manu Sporny:  Yes, we can start processing the queue at this 
>   point
> Christopher Allen:  JoeAndrieu, first would you like to comment 
>   briefly, and then a turn for DavidC before we go to the queue
> Joe Andrieu:  One interesting thing (I like the work here on 
>   fleshing out the whole picture), the data model is really focused 
>   on a single individual, but doesn't discuss merrits or things 
>   like a trust model
>   ... that isn't in scope for my document
>   ... it is just one thread through the experience
>   ... It didn't start out as intentional, but the information 
>   life-cycle is not about identity but focuses on information flows 
>   instead
>   ... where that information "acretes an identity"
> David Chadwick:  I saw the main difference was that JoeAndrieu's 
>   model has the stewards doing the interaction with the data store, 
>   and the refugee is a passive entity
>   ... but wasn't the main actor
> Christopher Allen:  The web-of-trust use case has a lot more 
>   "agency" items addressed, so that may help
> Manu Sporny:  There are two points I'd like to make
>   ... I'm trying to figure out where all of this good work goes 
>   from a document perspective
>   ... how do we direct that energy into the specfication or 
>   architecture for the W3C standards track
>   ... we want this stuff to become more central to the messaging 
>   than just a published doc
>   ... David's work feels like a big improvement on the 
>   architecture document that we have right now
>   ... and it feels like we could take section 2 on of this 
>   document and make that into the VC arch doc
>   ... the architecture document could have some life-cycle 
>   documents in it, or some life-cycle explaination
>   ... then we could point to JoeAndrieu's work
>   ... as it does a great job of breaking down the whole use case 
>   in a technology agnostic way
>   ... which helps us call out what technologies we are mapping 
>   these use cases to
>   ... JoeAndrieu, how do we intend to map this to a set of 
>   technologies to achieve the use case?
>   ... this could provide good gap analysis to see if we've 
>   covered it
> Christopher Allen: (I do map in my draft of the WOT user story, 
>   but I don't think Joe plans to keep that part)
>   ... DavidC, would you be comfortable with putting this into the 
>   arch document and pointing to JoeAndrieu's detailed use case in 
>   there?
>   ... which then JoeAndrieu could map to which specs help to 
>   achieve is use case?
> Moses Ma:  I think what we'd like to do is take what you've done 
>   and create, maybe not a use case for the entire group, but map 
>   the needs for an ICO investor
>   ... they are doing to want to know "is this a hacker?", "is 
>   this an accredited investor?" and this might help us understand 
>   the other end of use (as opposed to the refugee case)
> Ryan Grant:  I have a question for JoeAndrieu
>   ... on the center of the pictoral diagram, that is a sort of 
>   state of rest, is there a name for it?
> Joe Andrieu:  This is a visual short hand to keep from having the 
>   arrows go to all the other places
>   ... every arrow that goes there goes out to all the other 
>   connections
> Christopher Allen: I think it marks that timeline is different 
>   than the previous which has discrete steps
>   ... for example once you've disclosed you could go into any of 
>   the other stages
> Ryan Grant:  So apart from the one-way's that are called out, it 
>   is just a way of reducing the arrows?
> Joe Andrieu:  Correct
> Ryan Grant:  I have a question for DavidC for the way to search 
>   for disputes by the subject of the claim
>   ... for example, they believe I live in Hawaii but have also 
>   given me a good credit rating
>   ... causing the dillema, do I use it when it is obviously not 
>   quite correct?  Can I somehow register my formal dispute, that I 
>   have attempted to correct my data?
> Moses Ma: Joe, Manu, Chris - do you want us to create another 
>   "user persona" diagram? We can map the day in a life into a 
>   single visual.
>   ... it would be nice to have some way of registering these
> David Chadwick:  This is a good question, where the Issuer is the 
>   owner of the information and publish incorrect information about 
>   you
>   ... I'd like to think that the data protection legislation that 
>   we have would help with this (legally providing the ability to 
>   redress this)
>   ... I know that there are supposed to be ways for addressing 
>   this
> Moses Ma: I mean modifying the current diagram to fit this use 
>   case, integrating the models presented.
>   ... I have used the legislation to pay to get the data but not 
>   change it
>   ... I think it needs to go into the model somewhere, it needs 
>   to be able to be addressed
> Ryan Grant:  I feel like we do have these legal means, but where 
>   there is an agent-mediated protocol it makes bumping out of that 
>   mediated protocol very difficult
>   ... it creates many registration and complexity issues
> David Chadwick:  The hope is that you as the center have the 
>   ability to control this, but there are some interesting impacts 
>   to this, where you may chose not to disclose negative information 
>   about you
>   ... so we need means for someone being able to disclose 
>   information to an inspector without necessarily involving the 
>   Holder
> Christopher Allen:  Clearly there are a few things in this 
>   category
>   ... a discussion in the VC group about kinds of VCs, including 
>   providing evidence of ratings or reputation
>   ... then the difference between revocation (by the issuer) and 
>   refutation (by the subject)
>   ... some of this belongs in the data model, some of it in the 
>   layer above that
>   ... in our community there is a difference between a 
>   self-sovereign system and how you might do this in other ways
>   ... the self-soveriegn approach doesn't necesaarily address 
>   negative information but does address other concerns that are 
>   underrepresented currently
>   ... Another thing that really helps is that these documents are 
>   consicse and we need more documents like them
>   ... something about a user with agency over their healthcare, 
>   for example going through the life-cycle of care
>   ... we should come up for a name for what these are called 
>   where they are not quite use-cases and not quite user stories
>   ... when I designed the web-of-trust bitcoin reference, I 
>   referred to Alice's engagement model to make sure we had the 
>   right steps outlined in detail
> Joe Andrieu:  I would like to respond to Manu's question
>   ... How do we map this work to tech implementations?
>   ... For what we're doing with Alice, there is the assumption 
>   that it is the technology we are doing for VCs
>   ... with Issuers, Holders and Verifiers and how that works, but 
>   I probably won't drive down more than that
>   ... those are design and implementation choices
> Moses Ma: By the way, it looks like our consulting firm is going 
>   to get a gig with a large bank to facilitate a design spec around 
>   blockchains, decentralized identity, verifiable claims and... 
>   capital markets. If you'd like to join the design sprint as a 
>   "spark plug" outside innovator, please send me an email with your 
>   bio. It won't pay a bundle, but we'll be able to cover travel and 
>   an honorarium. My email is moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com. 
>   Probably in late September.
>   ... It is easier to place a design decision in the narrative, 
>   but when you tease out the non-human interactions you free up 
>   what the implementation _can_ be
> Manu Sporny:  Thanks, that is good
> David Chadwick:  Also to answer Manu's question, I'm happy for 
>   that to go into the working document
>   ... I can work with you offline on the mechanics of edit 
>   rights, etc
> Adrian Gropper:  This leads me to ask, is this too simple a model 
>   for self-soveriegn identity in the following sense:
>   ... in the HIE of one we have a practitioner who isn't an 
>   institution and a patient, Alice
>   ... they have technology to manage their self-soveriegnty
> Ryan Grant: (FDA)
>   ... with mobile devices and identity containers, and I'm not 
>   sure that the two presentations today capture that "three layer 
>   model" that includes the pharmacy or DEA as the institutional 
>   component
> David Chadwick:  I'd love to read your use case and see if we can 
>   have it fit when it is finished
> Adrian Gropper:  I'm in process writing an update for RWoT in the 
>   fall
> David Chadwick:  Please post a link
> Christopher Allen:  One of the key things here has to do with 
>   "agency"
>   ... Joram 1.1 should be more specific about agency and who is 
>   in control at various phases
>   ... whether it is institutions or Joram himself
> Moses Ma: Nage, the ICO example would include the SEC or (France 
>   AMF) and the dealer broker, so it might capture the three layer 
>   model.
>   ... Alice, Bob, and Carol have 100% agence, etc
>   ... we might have a third party like an insurer where there is 
>   less agency...
>   ... given the engagement model how might we do this through a 
>   variety of mechanisms
>   ... in all of these documents capturing these details might be 
>   important
>   ... JoeAndrieu and DavidC and agropper and whoever else, please 
>   continue to evolve these and see how this information might fit 
>   in
>   ... to answer manu's question, I don't think we're quite there 
>   for integration, but we should encourage them and keep them 
>   moving forward (I plan to particpate)
> Christopher Allen:  Next week we will close out the naming 
>   discussion and start on the mission statement
>   ... that will be about half of the meeting, are there any other 
>   requests for next week?
> Joe Andrieu:  Want to talk after the call about "apartment 
>   hunting" use case? [scribe assist by Ryan Grant]
>   ... if you have any more to present please let us know
> Moses Ma: One other small issue - "VC" is very established as an 
>   acronym for "venture capitalist", maybe discuss expanding to a 3 
>   letter acronym?
> Adrian Gropper: Can someone help find my HIE of One RWoT link 
>   before the minutes are closed?
> Ryan Grant: Moses: +1
>   ... the final thing that we are going to do is "if there those 
>   that would like to hang around for DID discussion"
> Christopher Allen:  We'll want some time for DID issue discussion 
>   on next week's call [scribe assist by Drummond Reed]
>   ... we will take a few minutes after the meeting for the next 
>   few weeks for a "stand up" of sorts around that topic
>   ... thanks for joining us, we will have another call next week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 1 August 2017 15:42:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:45 UTC