Re: DID PR review deadline: October 24

Found a relevent IETF RFC[4] re: trust anchors[2]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 at 18:09 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

> very quickly.  was looking at the overview[1] and saw the concept "root
> of trust <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_anchor>" which hyperlinks
> to Trust Anchor[2].  I suggest either defining a new wikipedia page for the
> term[3] rather than simply a redirect, or change the term used in the spec
> doc.
>
> more l8r.
>
> Tim.H.
>
> [1] https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-spec/#overview
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_anchor
> [3]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Root_of_Trust&action=history
>
[4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5914

>
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 at 17:49 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 at 08:20 Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/18/2017 01:50 PM, Kim Hamilton Duffy wrote:
>>> > Manu -- what are your thoughts?
>>>
>>> Steven, at this point the only feedback we're looking for is only
>>> technical in nature and even then, based on whether the text reflects
>>> consensus at Rebooting the Web of Trust 5, which you weren't at.
>>>
>>
>> Is this a RWOT spec?
>>
>> If so, it should be marked as such.   This CG can then make one inspired
>> by it, if/as required.
>>
>> Therein, the spec should be moved to the RWOT repo?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> In other words, the spec isn't ready for your kind of valuable feedback
>>> yet... it would largely be a waste of your time to correct the large
>>> swaths of the spec text that may be confusing for non-implementers that
>>> are buried in the details right now.
>>>
>>> I expect that we may need your review help in a few months time from
>>> now. As always, thanks for offering and we will certainly take you up on
>>> it once it becomes a good use of your time.
>>>
>>
>> I'll review and have a look; and am not sure of the specifics, whilst
>> noting important principles herein.
>>
>> IMHO: it's important to be inclusive and the W3 IPR framework is not
>> unintentionally misaligned in some way that is against the spirit of this
>> structure.
>>
>> I  guess.  try not to oversimplify imho.  might end-up with unintended
>> consequences. (technically speaking).
>>
>>
>>> -- manu
>>>
>>> best wishes,
>>
>> tim.
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
>>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>> blog: Rebalancing How the Web is Built
>>> http://manu.sporny.org/2016/rebalancing/
>>>
>>>

Received on Thursday, 19 October 2017 10:00:24 UTC