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

Re: Your Credentials CG work items have received the most votes

From: David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 23:20:09 +0100
To: Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@blockstream.com>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Cc: Joe Andrieu <joe@joeandrieu.com>, David Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>, Matt Stone <matt.stone@pearson.com>, =Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com>
Message-ID: <8a708e78-dc85-0bb5-b2d8-03863baeabef@kent.ac.uk>
Hi Christopher

Regarding the Privacy and Security Requirements work item, I presented
the first abbreviated cut of these at the CG Call on 13 June and they
are documented here


What format do we want the final document to take? Are we looking for a
(semi-) formal document with use cases to specify requirements, and
acceptance tests to verify that the requirements have been met. Are we
to use any SD tools for specifying requirements? Should we use the
MoSCoW method to prioritise them?

Or will an informal document be sufficient?



On 06/07/2017 01:06, Kim Hamilton Duffy wrote:
> Hi all,
> Work items you expressed interest in received the most votes in the
> latest poll snapshot. It's time to make these happen!
> For each work item, we need a champion(s) to drive the next steps. This
> role can be duked out amongst candidate champions per work item (listed
> at the end).
> The following are next steps for each work item:
> - Confirm who else is working on it. There must be at least 2 people on
> each work item
> - Start breaking down goals and timeline
> - Ideally, the timeline will include at least 1 deliverable this summer.
> This can be as simple as a snapshot of current thinking, follow-up
> plans, etc. The goal here is to increase community engagement by
> releasing early and often
> We'd like to start reviewing the above, in whatever rough form they
> exist, as early as next meeting on 11 July. The pressure is low -- we
> are not looking for a presentation, just a conversation to keep forward
> momentum. 
> *Top 5-ish; there were ties*
> 1. (tie) Decentralized Identifiers
>     Champions: Drummond Reed, Manu Sporny, Kim Duffy, Christopher Allen
>     Supporters: Dave Longley
> 1. (tie) Lifecycle of a Verifiable Claim 
>     Champions: Joe Andrieu, David Chadwick
>     Supporters: Matt Stone, Kim Duffy
> 2. Data Minimization and Selective Disclosure Report
>     Champions: Christopher Allen
>     Supporters: Kim Duffy, Dave Longley, (Dmitry Khovratovich?)
> 3. Verifiable Claims Browser API and Browser Polyfill
>     Champions: Dave Longley, Manu Sporny, Kim Duffy, David Chadwick
>     Supporters:
> 4. (tie) Verifiable Claims and Attribute Exchange Protocols 
>     Champions: - [David Chadwick - After Lifecycle is defined]?
>     Supporters: 
> 4. (tie) Privacy & Security Requirements for Credentials Ecosystem 
>     Champions: Christopher Allen, David Chadwick
>     Supporters: Kim Duffy
> *Closely followed by... (if we're feeling ambitious)*
> 5. Security Review & Evaluation Requirements
>     Champions: Christopher Allen
>     Supporters: Kim Duffy
> 6. Terminology (work item for VCWG?)
>     Champions: Joe Andrieu, Manu, Dave Longley, David Chadwick
>     Supporters: Christopher Allen, Matt Stone, Kim Duffy
> -- Kim (Hamilton) Duffy and Christopher Allen, co-chairs
> -- 
> Kim Hamilton Duffy
> Principal Engineer | Learning Machine + MIT Media Lab
> Co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group
> 400 Main Street Building E19-732, Cambridge, MA 02139
> 12001 N. Central Expy, Suite 1025, Dallas, TX 75243
> kim@learningmachine.com <mailto:kim@learningmachine.com> | kimhd@mit.edu
> <mailto:kimhd@mit.edu>
> 425-652-0150 | LearningMachine.com
Received on Friday, 7 July 2017 22:20:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:44 UTC