W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > December 2019

IPR action item - update / Re: PDS/IdH/EDV Discussion - 2019-12-06 Minutes

From: Rouven Heck <rouven@identity.foundation>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 16:52:27 -0500
Message-ID: <CABnjaoEg0ZuK8Y2r-yOgSm4CdchqQvxmCBW0Jkb8JaQGudr7TA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: Daniel Buchner <daniel.buchner@microsoft.com>, Sam Curren <telegramsam@gmail.com>, "aries@lists.hyperledger.org" <aries@lists.hyperledger.org>, "indy@lists.hyperledger.org" <indy@lists.hyperledger.org>, W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>, Tobias Looker <tobias.looker@mattr.global>, Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@evernym.com>, Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>, Dmitri Zagidulin <dzagidulin@gmail.com>
Hi all,

I would like to provide a brief update around the action item around the
IRP question:

Earlier this week the JDF/DIF legal expert provided the details about
copyright licenses & patent policy used in DIF as well the specific terms
on how DIF materials can be taken to standards bodies. (FYI - for patents,
DIF uses the W3C patent policy without alteration.)

I have shared details on Thursday with the W3C leadership team and expect
their feedback soon. I'm optimistic that we can turn around any questions
quickly next week. I will share further updates as soon as possible.

Looking forward to removing the outstanding blockers asap so we can start
collaborating more closely soon.


On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 5:16 PM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>

> Hi all,
> We had around 60 people on the PDS/IdH/EDV Discussion (second call)
> today! A huge thank you to Amy Guy and Kaliya Young, who ended up taking
> 18 pages of transcription from the 90 minute call (see below).
> Amy, Kaliya, you are our scribe heroes!
> Audio available here:
> https://zoom.us/recording/share/BylkqbPxcMO9-Opie8Y3Y2QPyrGwwnqztvRyJVvCqGCwIumekTziMw
> We were successful in passing the following resolutions:
> RESOLVED: The PDS/IdH/EDV spec would be a joint work item of DIF and W3C
> CCG (and anyone else that wants to join, the group is open).
> RESOLVED: DIF would host the PDS/IdH/EDV calls, which would be open to
> everyone without any fees, with full transcriptions (scribing), audio
> recording of calls, and publication of minutes.
> RESOLVED: DIF would host the reference implementation and test suite for
> PDS/IdH/EDV. The reference implementation is not the standard and is not
> the test suite and is not expected to be THE one implementation everyone
> should use.
> RESOLVED: The Identity Hubs and Encrypted Data Vaults documents will be
> used as use case, requirements, and technical input for the
> collaborative effort. The DID Comm, UMA, and OAuth2 work will continue
> in parallel and are acknowledged as important related work that might
> influence the direction of the collaborative effort.
> Next steps: The IPR policy will need to be agreed to between DIF and
> W3C. Rouven has an action item to move that discussion forward. Meetings
> will not begin until this is resolved.
> Transcription provided by Amy Guy and Kaliya Young follows:
> ---------------
> DIF, W3C, and Aries Joint Meeting to Discuss Personal Data Stores,
> Identity Hubs, and Encrypted Data Vaults
> (second call)
> IPR Status: No IPR Policy - Discussion MUST NOT contain IP sensitive items
> Minutes for 2019-12-06
> Agenda:
> Topics:
>  1. Review Current Status
>  2. Discuss where the work could happen.
>  3. Discuss the IPR regime for the work.
>  4. Call times/frequency.
> Organizer: Manu Sporny
> Scribe: rhiaro and Kaliya
> Present: Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar), Amy Guy, Balazs Nemethi, Jonathan
> Holt (TranSendX), Dan Burnett (ConsenSys), Brent Zundel, Tzviya Siegman
> (Wiley), Joe Andrieu, Joachim Lohkamp (Jolocom), Rouven Heck
> (ConsenSys/DIF), Isaac Patka (Bloom), Troy Ronda (SecureKey), Chad
> Peiper (Verif-y), Eve Maler (ForgeRock), Richard Kraaijenhagen, Steve
> Magennis, Orie Steele, Dmitri Zagidulin (Digital Bazaar / Solid), Robbie
> Jones, Adrian Gropper, Michael Benaudis, Samuel Smith (ConsenSys),
> Sumita T. Jonak, Joel Hartshorn, Ed Goode (Microsoft), Kaliya Young
> (Identity Woman), David Lehn (Digital Bazaar), Dave Longley (Digital
> Bazaar), Lior Margalit, Katryna Dow (Meeco), Jo Vercammen (Meeco), Nancy
> Lush, Jan Vereecken (Meeco), Eddie Kago, Victor Grey, Jack Ramey
> (Workday), Stuart Freeman, Michael Dang (Workday), Daniel Hardman
> (Evernym), Brent Shambaugh, Tobias Looker (Mattr), Justin Bingham
> (Janeiro Digital / Solid), Christopher Allen (Blockchain Commons), Evan
> Tedesco (Dish Wireless), Ganesh Annan (Digital Bazaar), Sam Curren
> (Sovrin Foundation), Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin (Diwala), Dietrich
> Ayala (Protocol Labs), Eric Welton (Korsimoro)
> Manu: Please don’t discuss things that are IP sensitive or patent
> related. This call is about how we coordinate the work around data
> vaults, identity hubs, etc. No technical details. We’re going to review
> current status, primarily we decided what we wanted to work on but
> couldn’t decide where the work would happen. This call we’ll try to
> drive towards consensus on where the work happens. What IPR policy and
> what org. Then we can get call times and frequency. There are 47 (60 at
> the height of the call) people here, we’re going to have to be good
> about focussing the discussion. Please know that if we ask you to make
> your point quickly that you do s because we have a lot of people with
> opinions here.
> The queue, if you want to talk type q+ in the chat channel (zoom), first
> come first served.
> Rouven: Setting expectations of us getting to the point where we have a
> decision or consensus on something and then finding specific times might
> not be the outcome I was expecting giving we have many people from
> Europe and asia not joining. We work out options for proposals to then
> get feedback outside of the call so we can make sure it’s inclusive and
> not just people who could make it to this call.
> Manu: what we can do is put proposals forward on the call today and see
> if we have agreement on the call and circulate them through the minutes
> and get other people providing feedback. We have 50 people, that’s a lot
> of input, if we can get consensus on this call I’m fine with circulating
> it but everyone wants to see this work move forward sooner than later.
> Nobody is trying to exclude anyone but we should try to drive towards
> consensus.
> Rouven: i know many different companies who can’t make it. I’m not sure
> this is sufficiently representative of the orgs who are interested. We
> can see where we get to. Even if we have 150 people it’s not necessarily
> everyone.
> Manu: would like to hear from Rouven on DIF, Sam from Aries.
> Manu: we had proposals last time on the work items. Seemed like we had
> consensus. We circulated the minutes, nobody objected to those
> proposals. We’re proceeding as if those proposals are standing unless
> someone raises an objection.
> Last time we didn’t get to one proposal that we almost got to completion
> on around what the work items would be. Im wondering if we can finish
> that off on this call. Start by finishing that off. Then go into some of
> the potential proposals. Some are in the top of the document. Tried to
> sort it in order. What we can do is maybe once we have the basic
> position statements from everyone we can hopefully roll into each
> proposal and talking about each proposal. I’ve had a bit of a discussion
> with Rouven on the mailing list, there’s been a discussion between Aries
> folks and DIF folks and ccg folks in the interim. I think what we’re
> here to do today is to get to consensus on where the work happens and
> rough outlines on how it happens. That’s where I think things are.
> Sam: The position from Aries is not complex. We are interested in using
> these and interoperating with them, but they’re not really an
> overlapping concern to agents which are the primary work inside of
> Aries. We are here and interested, there’s a preference that the
> communication protocol use DIDComm as a foundational piece of
> communicating securely on top of DIDs. Other than that there’s not a lot
> of conflict here.
> Rouven: I think there was part of the discussion in the email. It didn’t
> reach everyone, it bounced back from some lists . The question which
> came up might have been confusing in the last conversation around scope.
> I’m just reiterating. There seems to be still clarity required about how
> DIDComm, Solid and other pieces will fit together. We might discover
> that when we go more into the work, or questions might come up. That’s
> why I’m advocating for figuring out some of these things, will help ups
> to determine what’s the ideal long term place for standardisation.
> Doesn’t mean incubation couldn’t happen now. The second part to
> protection, of course all the orgs have similar concerns, trying to
> highlight the incentives for everyone who is part of DIF is to focus on
> building decentralised identity solutions, high incentive for everyone
> who is part of this to make sure it’s moving fast, that’s the
> difference. Around policies - legal aspects, I might have not done a
> sufficient job last time to say that we are fully aware of the needs for
> IPR protection etc. The question which are always coming up are based on
> a lack of mutual understanding of the IPR situation. I don’t think we
> will solve this in the conversation today. If there are still remaining
> concerns that the protection in DIF is not sufficient we should have a
> conversation with lawyers to make sure we can remove this. Last, we have
> been working on incubating this storage thing since a few years now,
> within DIF, so I’m wondering more like the other way around what’s the
> reason we would not want to continue the work there, under the
> assumption that the legal and IP aspects are fine, and as I mentioned
> last time in terms of openness that should not make a difference, we can
> provide the same infrastructure.
> Christopher A: I want to speak from the CCG perspective as the members
> of the CCG and we as a community have created a full standard in VCs, a
> now working group which is the DID working group which has been
> chartered and begun. Quite a few other initiatives for some time.
> There’s a proven track record of dealing with IPR, some people complain
> about the difficulty of getting the two groups chartered but we’ve got
> better with it. DID was much faster and I think that the social attack
> vectors are well understood, and were mitigated very well under w3c
> process. My concern about looking through the list of processes and
> things from the DIF perspective is that they’re unproven, we don’t have
> examples of success with those, it’s too important of a project
> especially as it crosses so many different kinds of organizations and
> groups that I’m uncomfortable with that sort of IP regime. I really am
> firm that I would like to stick with the W3C. Under the CCG is the
> lightest of the W3C requirements. Pretty straightforward, we’ve used it
> at RWOT (not a w3c meeting), at other types of things. I think that it
> can serve well and be a nice entry point for things. I would love to see
> DIF continue to work on their process, maybe with some kind of thing
> that is more internal to the DIF community, and prove out their ability
> to move through to a specification that can become a standard, but I’d
> like to see the proof of that before we do it on something big. As far
> as the statement that DIF has been working on this longest, I would
> definitely say no. Other parties, Solid and IPFS, have been working on
> these things for a long time. In my work it has come up and I have some
> unique approaches of my own. I worry other people might try to patent
> them. That’s why I’m particularly concerned about the patent protection
> stuff. We want to work with DIF, DIF has more administrative staff. The
> ccg is volunteers. We don’t get paid to chair and go to meetings. DIF
> does have paid staff, I’d love their support in making this a successful
> effort.
> Adrian: I want to express, thanks for putting up the proposals that’s
> helpful. My concern is about the scoping of what we’re talking about and
> the way the proposals are written that there will be parallel efforts in
> DIF, IETF< W3C, my concern is specific to the issue if we’re talking
> about a storage protocol, are we doing it with the scope of the alice to
> bob problem included or not? I don’t mean to discuss that today, I just
> want to express this as a concern up front. It does impact how we plan
> to resolve the various proposals.
> Daniel B: There’s no IPR difference I could find ?? has assured us based
> on trust in him as a good lawyer that this is specifically designed to
> not have these issues. I don’t think it’s a problem, I’d like to see
> where you claim that in a room with all the lawyers. Please do
> substantiate that. Also people saying the data store that has been
> around. I might have been the first to work on it in 2012, none of these
> things existed at that point. General data store stuff PDS stuff out
> there for 20 years, but we’re talking about initiatives. We haven’t done
> serious things around that. The universal resolver ran out of DIF and
> specs went to w3c. We just published our first ratified spec, for
> linking DIDs to domain names. That went very smoothly and quickly.
> Invite everyone to comment and feedback. I don’t think I’ve heard as
> single point that is substantiated, a lot of conjecture, I’d like people
> to substantiate if you’re going to use those reasons.
> Drummond: one thing about the IPR - as folks know DIDComm is moving from
> Aries over to DIF and we just had the aries connectathon this week, we
> spent several hours with the WG charter and reviewing the JDF. the JDF
> started because of openid and the need to have a clean way to incubate
> standards. It’s a very robust intellectual property platform. It’s very
> similar to the w3c process. On that issue, unfortunately I’ve been
> working for a long time and DIF is under JDF, the processes would be
> equivalent. Doesn’t have the track record but JDF has the track record
> if you look back to openid and other orgs have operated under it, it’s
> the standard way to handle standards incubation at the linux foundation.
> I’d take that off the table and put the question of which community
> makes the most sense.
> Manu: I want to make sure that what we’re going towards is inclusive of
> all these communities. What has failed to date is saying this work is
> community x’s work and not community y’s work is not going to work. We
> should put forward a proposal to band together. Clearly there are
> concerns around IPR. I do agree with Rouven that we’re not going to
> solve those today. We’re going to have to defer those. But I think that
> gives us plenty of things to agree on still. What i’m going to try to
> propose is a joint work item between the various communities. A joint
> work item between w3c ccg, DIF and if aries wants to be a part - I’m
> hearing sam say we’re interested but it’s a different layer - but we
> don’t want to exclude any community. It’s a joint work item. What does
> that mean? It means all the communities work together on it. I’m
> suggesting that the joint work item is an official w3c ccg work item as
> well as an official DIF item. That does make the ipr complicated, not
> talk about that now .the gist would be DIF would organise and host the
> calls but DIF has to make sure that the calls are open to everyone
> without fees, with full transcriptions (scribing), recording of audio
> and publication of minutes. That’s primarily to make sure we’re making
> the initiative as inclusive as possible and covering IPR concerns. The
> other question was around where would implementation and test suites go?
> The assertion is that DIF would host it, DIF is more set up to do
> reference implementations and test suites than w3c typically does. It
> could be done in the ccg but DIF wants to head that work up so why not
> ensure that that happens. As far as IPR, I really don’t want us to
> rathole on the IPR discussion. There is a clean choice we could make
> today. I will very briefly highlight it but let’s pleass not focus on
> it. Let’s push that off and see if we can create agreements around joint
> work items.
> If we were to choose the w3c ipr policy and ensure everyone that
> participates in the group is a w3c member i think that would take all
> the ipr concerns off the table. The work still happens at DIF but under
> the w3c ipr policy instead of the DIF IPR policy. If it’s confusing, it
> is, there are subtle differences people are asserting exist and if we
> took that route we can make everyone happy. The fallback to the IPR
> discussion is okay we can’t figure that out which means we need to get
> all the lawyers in the same room. That will delay the start of the work
> but if that is all we can agree to then we’re all going to have to do
> that to see if a DIF transition from w3c or a DIF transition to IETF, is
> going to have any kind of issue. Based on assertions by Rouven and
> Daniel and Drummond there shouldn’t be an issue. If there isn’t that’s
> great. But if there is an issue we need to deal with it.
> Going back to the potential proposals, i’d like to see, I’m going from
> the top to the bottom. The first is to see if we can agree that the work
> is a joint work item between DIF and CCG. if we can’t do that there’s
> nothing to talk about here. I’m hoping we can agree to come together.
> The second proposals would be DIF would host the calls, ensuring they’re
> open to everyone without fees, full transcriptions, audio and minutes.
> The third is that DIF would host the reference implementations. Then we
> can talk about the fourth and fifth later.
> Rouven: I missed what you said at the end. If we can’t agree on this we
> all go our own paths? If we do not have a joint one there’s no other way
> forward? There’s not an option that it can’t be in DIF?
> Manu: I think if the negotiations are going to fall apart; everyone will
> go back on their own thing.
> Rouven: that’s not where I thought where we are.
> Manu: I hope we are all going to come together but if we don’t that’s
> the outcome.
> Rouven: coming together can be more than the compromise of a joint one.
> There are clear benefits of a joint one. Okay nobody needs to give up
> something, we work together. I’m not sure it helps us to make it simple
> for people to join or more complicated. I’m worried about the IPR
> assertions. What we want to achieve is to have a place where we can
> incubate as fast as we want and can. From there, during that time where
> we work on the definition and the storage part and the didcomm part and
> other pieces, then decide now we have formed a concrete understanding of
> the specific work items that need to move towards standardisation that
> we have a very open path forward. Starting in the ccg assumes it will
> need to w3c. That’s something based on the conversations I have not
> perceived that this is a given. There are a lot of people who do not
> believe the standardisation of the hubs needs or should be in w3c. It
> comes with this assumption with that path, even with the w3c ipr would
> put us there. The reason JDF started and the lawyers were fully aware of
> w3c, started in JDF to build this place which apparently is even more
> rigid which gives us all the options later to move to IETF, W3C or
> continue incubating to a spec within DIF. the range is more open. I’m
> not yet convinced that this compromise is the best.
> Jonathan Holt: w3c does come with some baggage. It goes back to the
> origins of the web. I love Tim but the ability to spin up a computer at
> your desk and be a node on the internet but what it turns out is that
> you can’t run that node 24/7. A lot of our data lives in data centers
> not owned by me. I’m a bit of a libertarian in that I really believe in
> data democratisation and self sovereign identity where i can create an
> identity with a random number and I have control over it. I have
> companies involved in this space and want to protect that IPR but i’m
> still a libertarian at heart where i want to have that radical
> disintermediation. We have an opportunity to re-architect to be self
> sovereign focussed.
> Justin B: I’m a member of the Solid editorial team with Dmitri and some
> others. I want to say that interested in collaborating and participating
> in this. I look forward to working with you. This is my first call.
> Trying to get up to speed from the last call. Will try to study for the
> next one.
> Manu: I heard Rouven say it would help everyone to understand exactly
> what we’re standardising before we put these proposals forward. I’m
> concerned that talking about that may derail things because it’s more
> specific than the general agreements. I’m trying to get people to agree
> on generalities then get more specific. Would you object to us starting
> general and trying to get specific or do you want to see that specific
> thing nailed down?
> Rouven: My expectation is not that we will solve this detail today
> anyway. I think my assumption is based on this space is so early. We’re
> still learning fundamentally new things. DIDs and VCs are way more ahead
> than many other pieces. Based on the conversations we have in different
> places like IIW we’re still forming our mental model on many of these
> pieces. Therefore my perception is bringing these things or keeping them
> closely connected and have a very interaction and discussion with
> didcomm and how we store things, there’s a lot of dependencies and for
> us to flesh out a nice clean stack will take some time, not two or three
> calls but we need to better understand what didcomm will look like, so
> incubating these things together in an open space where we don’t need to
> worry about ipr because we are protected but gives us all paths forward
> is for me not to solve this in the call, we can stay high level, but i’m
> just arguing for a continuous conversation in more detail to have a
> sharper understanding of how the pieces work together.
> Manu: let me start general and get specifici eventually. We will get
> there. The first proposal is 1.
> PROPOSAL 1: The PDS/IdH/EDV spec would be a joint work item of DIF and
> W3C CCG.
> 00:53:21        Kaliya Identity Woman:        +1
> 00:53:21        Dave Longley:        +1
> 00:53:22        Rouven Heck:        -1
> 00:53:23        jonnycrunch:        IEEE?
> 00:53:26        Michael Benaudis - Internet Identity Card:        +1
> 00:53:27        sumita:        +1
> 00:53:27        Dmitri Zagidulin:        +1
> 00:53:27        Joe:        +1
> 00:53:30        ET:        +1
> 00:53:31        Dan Burnett:        +1
> 00:53:32        Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar):        +1
> 00:53:40        Adrian Gropper:        +1
> 00:53:43        Joachim Lohkamp (Jolocom):        +1
> 00:53:50        Joel Hartshorn:        +1
> 00:53:51        BalazsN:        -1
> 00:53:54        Joe:        Yes. Of course
> 00:53:54        Kaliya Identity Woman:        I think it is so easy to
> join the W3C CCG to be “under” that IPR
> 00:53:55        Christopher Allen:        +1
> 00:53:58        Eve Maler (ForgeRock):        +1
> 00:54:19        jonnycrunch:        -1
> 00:54:21        Eddie Kago:        +1
> 00:55:03        Daniel Buchner:        ~ +1
> 00:55:03        Orie (Transmute):        +1
> 00:55:07        Tobias Looker:        +1
> 00:55:10        Troy Ronda:        +1
> 00:55:12        Stuart Freeman:        +1
> 00:55:42        Ken Ebert:        +1
> 00:55:49        katrynadow:        +1 KD +1 Jo V +1 Jan V
> 00:56:24        Rouven Heck:        +1 for collaboration: not sure what
> joint work item mean in this proposal
> Daniel B??: could the two groups come together later and decide to take
> it to IETF?
> Manu: yes
> Rouven: I made my point, it’s not a neutral place for pushing it forward
> because we already imply with the IPR for w3c
> Manu: it’s a joint work item which means the w3c ccg says we will
> contribute and DIF says we will contribute. Where the calls are hosted
> is at DIF. we haven’t talked about IPR yet. Do the two communities want
> to work together?
> Rouven: I misunderstood. Cooperation is good.
> Balazs: Yes, I also misunderstood.
> Jonathan H: the fact we’re all on a phone call today is that these
> communities are coming together. We all have different hats and belong
> to different communities. I participate in aries and w3c and IEEE. we
> wear different hats. My point is that standards imply standards body.
> But if we can create the standard and get it ratified in different
> bodies then we have a decentralised solution. We should be eating our
> own dogfood.
> Manu: how would you modify the proposal?
> Jonathan H: we need community input. There (??) we have a decentralised
> group of physicians with different boards, who have different
> requirements but we come together to collaborate but we also have
> community input so our boards are overseen so we’re doing what’s in best
> interest of the public. What we have now is companies coming together
> competing for customers in a multibillion dollar industry and we’re
> slicing up the pie for ownership by standards bodies. We don’t have
> sufficient oversight, it’s going to need to be more board than w3c and
> DIF. a lot of work has been incubated but there are others that should
> be brought to the table to make sure we are doing the right thing for
> everyone.
> Manu: it’s an open group, anyone can join, we just need to know where
> we're going to meet every week.
> Jonathan H: this wouldn’t delay how we have oversight. What we settle on
> in this group is then brought back and ratified in in the different
> communities to get their buy in.
> Manu: would you object philosophically to us saying this is at least a
> joint work item between DIF and the CCG.. among others.
> Rouven: what it means a joint work item?
> Manu: all this proposal is about is collaboration. Proposal 1 we agree.
> Brent: Look forward to the unravelling of the ramifications of the
> proposal we just accepted. We used very specific words that Rouven was
> trying to get clarity on that i think are going to mean things that
> people didn’t think they meant.
> Rouven: what brent said
> Adrian: I want to clarify that PDS/IdH/EDV is the name and the calls and
> minutes will be in one place? All we just decided is on the name of
> something called PDS/IdH/EDV?
> Manu: what we’ve decided is to work together on that thing. But we still
> need to define what that thing is.
> PROPOSAL 2: DIF would host the PDS/IdH/EDV calls, which would be open to
> everyone without any fees, with full transcriptions (scribing), audio
> recording of calls, and publication of minutes.
> 01:02:24        Daniel Buchner:        +1
> 01:02:28        Joachim Lohkamp (Jolocom):        +1
> 01:02:29        ET:        +1
> 01:02:29        Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar):        +1
> 01:02:31        Joel Hartshorn:        +1
> 01:02:32        Orie (Transmute):        =1
> 01:02:33        Dmitri Zagidulin:        +1
> 01:02:34        Orie (Transmute):        +1
> 01:02:34        Ganesh Annan:        +1
> 01:02:36        Dave Longley:        +1
> 01:02:38        BalazsN:        +1
> 01:02:38        Troy Ronda:        +1
> 01:02:39        Stuart Freeman:        +1
> 01:02:40        Tobias Looker:        +1
> 01:02:40        Eve Maler (ForgeRock):        +1
> 01:02:41        justinwb:        +1
> 01:02:42        Ken Ebert:        +1
> 01:02:43        Joe:        +1
> 01:02:44        Brent Zundel:        +1
> 01:02:44        Adrian Gropper:        +1
> 01:02:47        jonnycrunch:        q+
> 01:02:52        Dan Burnett:        +1
> 01:02:53        katrynadow:        +1 KD +1 Jo +1 Jan
> Jonathan H: what happens if DIF goes away? Who has control? Begs for a
> decentralised solution. I’m prone to using IPFS myself.
> Rouven: DIF is part of JDF which is part of Linux Foundation. There’s
> safeguards.
> Jonathan H: just make sure policies are in place for long term data
> retrieval.
> Manu: all the orgs we are considering have that. Calling that passed.
> Manu: next proposal up #3
> 01:04:25        Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar):        PROPOSAL 3: DIF
> would host the reference implementation and test suite for PDS/IdH/EDV.
> 01:04:33        Daniel Buchner:        +1
> 01:04:35        Rouven Heck:        +1
> 01:04:40        Eddie Kago:        +1
> 01:04:41        Dave Longley:        +1
> 01:04:43        Orie (Transmute):        +1
> 01:04:46        Joachim Lohkamp (Jolocom):        +1
> 01:04:48        Adrian Gropper:        +1
> 01:04:49        Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar):        +1
> 01:04:49        Ganesh Annan:        +1
> 01:04:49        Joe:        +1
> 01:04:51        Dmitri Zagidulin:        +1
> 01:04:52        Dan Burnett:        +1
> 01:04:53        Troy Ronda:        +1
> 01:04:55        BalazsN:        +1
> 01:04:57        Tobias Looker:        +1
> 01:05:00        Christopher Allen:        +1
> 01:05:00        ET:        +1
> 01:05:01        Joel Hartshorn:        +1
> 01:05:02        Daniel Hardman:        0
> 01:05:04        Daniel Hardman:        -1
> 01:05:08        Ken Ebert:        +1
> If DIF members want to post an implementation the test suite would be
> hosted at DIF
> Getting votes…
> Daniel H: not opposed but would like to get more clarity before +1
> Manu: not clear about full scope
> Daniel : Don’t want there to be an open source code base that every one
> should use. I want it to be a ‘toy’ model representation not something
> we are trying to get the world to build upon.
> Manu: I think fundamentally what happens with those reference
> implementations - forprofit companies go build something way better.  …
> Things will naturally happen this way daniel not sure we can predetermine.
> Daniel B: muffled…didn’t object.
> Manu: Daniel I heard you say you don’t object. Looking to you with this
> proposal would you philosophically object.
> Daniel H: Concern heard and worried about announcing it. But will keep
> raising until concerns heard.
> Christopher A: the reference implementation is not the standard and is
> not the test suite - would like have it amended to the statement.  Some
> people don’t understand the differnece it needs to be explicit
> (Something like this happened with SSL where difference was not
> understood).
> Manu: working on integrating feedback.
> PROPOSAL 3: DIF would host the reference implementation and test suite
> for PDS/IdH/EDV. The reference implementation is not the standard and is
> not the test suite and is not expected to be THE one implementation
> everyone should use.
> 01:09:09        Daniel Buchner:        +1
> 01:09:10        Orie (Transmute):        +1
> 01:09:10        Dave Longley:        +1
> 01:09:10        Joachim Lohkamp (Jolocom):        +1
> 01:09:11        ET:        +1
> 01:09:13        Daniel Hardman:        +1
> 01:09:14        Adrian Gropper:        +1
> 01:09:16        Rouven Heck:        +1
> 01:09:17        Christopher Allen:        +1
> 01:09:18        Joel Hartshorn:        +1
> 01:09:21        Ken Ebert:        +1
> 01:09:23        Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar):        +1
> 01:09:24        BalazsN:        +1
> 01:09:26        Ed Goode:        +1
> 01:09:28        Joe:        +1
> 01:09:30        jonnycrunch:        +1
> 01:09:32        Chad Peiper (Verif-y):        +1
> 01:09:34        Daniel Buchner:        (But there can only be one
> Highlander)
> 01:09:34        katrynadow:        +1 KD +1 Jo +1 Jan
> 01:09:35        Ganesh Annan:        +1
> 01:09:38        Troy Ronda:        +1
> 01:09:45        Dan Burnett:        Problem with ref implementations is
> that they do tend to be considered authoritative in practice, but I
> don't object
> 01:09:45        justinwb:        +1
> 01:09:47        Dan Burnett:        +1
> Does anyone object?
> Lots of +1s, no objections
> Manu: I think we are at a point we can start hosting calls at DIF to
> host to talk about this stuff. I think then we can finally get to the
> specifics.
> Manu: IPR not resolved yet
> Manu: further refine what we are talking about. Or IPR?
> Manu: we will get to closure on the IPR by the end of the call if we
> tackle it now.
> Rouven: proposal to talk to this about offline and take it in a smaller
> group to deal with IPR with the lawyers in the room - so they can be the
> experts.
> Manu: You want to focus on IPR?
> Rouven: no other way around focus on direction (cause lawyers not in room).
> Manu: proposal to focus on talking about IPR; either adopt W3C - or are
> we going to tell rouven and w3c to get together in a room and talk about
> it?
> Rouven: We need to discuss JDF lawyers whether they take additional IPR
> things moving in to JDF.
> Christopher A: not asking for a decision just these two different choices.
> Daniel B:  I think we can all agree to W3C’s IPR - I don’t think that is
> controversial.
> Manu: Proposal is if we just use W3C IPR we can start the calls
> immediately. Rouven and lawyers can get together in parallel to decide
> if there need to be changes in the future or not. It’s a shortcut. We
> may find that there is agreement between DIF, JDF, W3C IPR policies.
> Christopher A: I think it has been expressed well. Examples of __ work
> expressed in JDF. Start with W3C IPR and explore other options is most
> expedient path forward.  And to jonathan’s point there are still some
> issues with big companies in both/all organizations that I think are
> still challenging but I do believe that things are under the W3C policy
> and can go off different places as long as we don’t want to patent it.
> Rouven: We take the joint work item.  We would assume that because
> people sign up to CCG we are covered in DIF we have a one page IPR member.
> Christopher A: you don’t need to be a “W3C Member” to join the CCG (and
> be covered by IPR).
> Rouven: So we decide to do call next week and then we decide  the DIF
> IPR is stronger what are the implications if we decide to switch from
> one to the other.
> Joe A: There is an unfortunate slight of hand that is happening. There
> is a much larger conversation about how DIF W3C work together and would
> love to have a clean IPR pathway. There is no W3C policy around things
> as we described them.  Community Group collaborators agreement needs to
> be looked at.
> Manu: Taking everyone down logical choices here. If what Rouven and JDF
> lawyers are saying and there is no difference between DIF/JDF IPR and
> W3C CCG - there is no problem and we are wasting time if this is true.
> Option 1 - use W3C IPR policy and have meetings at DIF. Makes people who
> have dealt with W3C and IETF - DIF Should be happy there is no
> difference between that and DIF policy. It helps us to have an actual
> real call next week and we can start talking about details.
> People insist that we use the DIF/JDF IPR policy and people are
> concerned which means get the lawyers in the room and have everything
> settles and that could take weeks.
> Easiest path - heard folks say let’s get this started quickly - easiest
> path to use W3C IPR and calls at DIF and get started that way.
> If there is disagreement get the lawyers in the room and have them
> figure it out.
> Jonathan H:  It is about agreeing to the terms and then those terms
> being satisfied by W3C and DIF.
> Manu -
> PROPOSAL 5: The IPR policy would be the "W3C CG IPR policy", not the
> "DIF W3C IPR policy". The specification would have the "W3C CG IPR
> policy" on it, and anyone that participates in the group MUST be a W3C
> CCG member and can, in addition, be a DIF member.
> 01:22:44        Rouven Heck:        -1
> 01:22:48        Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar):        +1
> 01:22:49        Joachim Lohkamp (Jolocom):        +1
> 01:22:49        Joe:        +1
> 01:22:50        Orie (Transmute):        +1
> 01:22:51        Dave Longley:        +1
> 01:22:52        Dan Burnett:        +1
> 01:22:52        Tzviya Siegman:        +1
> 01:22:55        Kaliya Identity Woman:        +1
> 01:22:59        Eve Maler (ForgeRock):        +1
> 01:23:07        Ganesh Annan:        +1
> 01:23:10        Stuart Freeman:        +1
> 01:23:11        Adrian Gropper:        +1
> 01:23:13        Ken Ebert:        +1
> 01:23:14        bshambaugh:        +1
> 01:23:18        Christopher Allen:        +1
> 01:23:18        Dan Burnett:        Daniel, no malice intended - just
> the fact that lawyers disagree all the time :)
> 01:23:21        Tobias Looker:        +1
> 01:23:22        justin:        +1
> 01:23:39        Rouven Heck:        We cannot commit to this proposal
> today and know the implications
> 01:23:41        Rouven Heck:        q+
> 01:23:41        Joe:        q+
> 01:23:46        BalazsN:        -1
> Daniel B: The DIF one is stricter, can we sign both?
> Manu: The harm is that there may be subtle disagreements.
> Rouven: I think in a nutshell if we agreed to host this in DIF and we
> host under a particular IPR agreement - what does it mean. The reason
> the DIF IPR policy has been defined the way it is - my understanding is
> that it is more strict. If we all agree in January we decide DIF IPR is
> stronger what happens? I strongly suggest we not make a decision to
> figure out an agreement on this proposal. If someone is a lawyer speak
> up now and we can make a decision.
> Joe A: Ok so - i’m hearing two different stories from the DIF folks -
> one - they are the same two - it is more strict. So all the companies
> that have reviewed the W3C to look at CCG and approved their ability to
> participate. So if we use DIF IPR then some folks can’t participate
> until their lawyers have read the IPR and approved. Even DIF has already
> approved W3C IPR.
> Daniel B (from chat): q+ what is the track record of moving something
> from the CCG under that IRP outside of W3C, to another SDO?
> Do we have assurances that we can export that work to IETF, IEEE, etc?
> Manu (from chat): yes we do. WebRTC, HTTP, etc.
> Rouven: As I said this is why I am thinking the last 20 min to skip I
> don’t think we have the right people on the call to have this IPR
> figured out. The lawyer that we had worked on - it is slightly more
> strict - it is different. We have more then 10 active companies working
> on data stores working on data stores at DIF. Yes W3C has 400 members -
> is it higher then the number of actual organizations working on code. 20
> min with 50 people talking about thing we don’t have expertise.
> Manu: Proposal that W3C and DIF need to discuss and this will not move
> forward.
> Dave Longley: We are going to adopt W3C policy and this is the one the
> work would move forward under and we are done.
> PROPOSAL 5: The IPR policy will need to be agreed to between DIF and
> W3C. Rouven has an action item to move that discussion forward. Meetings
> will not begin until this is resolved.
> 01:29:16        Orie (Transmute):        -1
> 01:29:29        Rouven Heck:        +1
> 01:29:33        rhiaro:        Why are DIF unhappy with w3c IPR if it's
> 'essentially the same'?
> 01:29:33        Joe:        -1
> 01:29:34        BalazsN:        +1
> 01:29:36        Kaliya Identity Woman:        -1
> 01:29:37        Dave Longley:        -1
> 01:29:38        Daniel Buchner:        +1
> 01:29:41        Daniel Buchner:        q+
> 01:29:45        Adrian Gropper:        +0
> 01:29:47        Dan Burnett:        +0
> 01:29:50        Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar):        +1
> Daniel B: As a modification of that. I don’t want to delay anything. I
> want to do the work. What if we timeboxed it. You have to give us an
> answer by the 6th of January or we fall back to W3C IPR policy.
> Rouven: We can agree on anything and the lawyers outside can have an
> opinion. I can’t speak on the lawyers’ behalf. That is why I can talk
> with them and find out.
> Daniel B: That is we figure it out in a month. Or its not. We are or are
> not as an organization willing to accept a different IPR policy. If we
> do that we at least understand what our answer would be at that time.
> Manu: Let me try to synthesize. You have the ED of the DIF saying that
> he cannot agree to W3C CG IPR Policy and that he needs to talk to the
> lawyers because he is uncertain that we can use W3C CG IPR Policy. So we
> have agreed to put this thing at the DIF and it is up to you, Rouven, to
> clear this up. Roven has action item to move forward. We have made a
> tremendous amount of progress on the call today. Everyone should feel
> really good about what we accomplished. I have one other scoping
> proposal if we are able to get this done we will be able to get clarity
> on what we are working on.
> Christopher A:  I look at the number of +1s that we just move forward
> with W3C IPR. We could just do that… you can join us later if you like
> if you are a DIF only member. DIF members can join W3C CCG for free. We
> have done this stuff before and progressed it all the way to an
> international standard, we could do the same with this work and start on
> it immediately. This is why a long time ago. I thought DIF was going to
> do reference implementations and CCG is wanting to do standards and now
> that DIF is wanting to do standards, the goal posts are being moved. I'm
> expressing frustration.
> Manu: I hope you are hearing - there is frustration with this outcome
> Rouven. People were expecting DIF to be ready to take on this work and
> DIF is not ready. It was said that the W3C and DIF IPR policies were
> identical, and now we're hearing that they're not. I hope you are
> hearing that loud and clear. People are frustrated.
> Joe A: We do not have consensus on this last point.
> Manu: Yes, that is true. Although, we are not undoing the other
> consensus that we have. The only -1s we got to the use W3C CG IPR Policy
> was you Rouven. But since you are the Executive Director, we have no
> choice but to go with what you are proposing, which means that we're all
> waiting on you and the lawyers to sort it out. We can only kick it over
> to the folks at DIF to sort it out.
> Daniel B: Can access DIF folks very fast. Who on W3C can we coordinate
> with?
> Manu: Wendy Seltzer and others. We accomplished a lot today. I think the
> hardest thing is to get the groups to agree to come together to work on
> this at a specific venue - the venue just has to figure out some stuff.
> Lets figure out what goes into this specification.
> We almost got to a resolution.
> PROPOSAL 4: The Identity Hubs and Encrypted Data Vaults documents will
> be used as use case, requirements, and technical input for the
> collaborative effort. The DID Comm, UMA, and OAuth2 work will continue
> in parallel and are acknowledged as important related work that might
> influence the direction of the collaborative effort.
> Ask clarifying questions? Before we pick it up for a straw poll.
> Adrian: quick point I if the reference use case does not include Alice
> and Bob.
> Manu: What does Alice and Bob mean?
> Adrian: We are talking about the relationship by agents storage and
> relationship to Alice the data subject and the Bob who is the requesting
> policy.
> Dmitri: Is your concern not addressed by UMA?
> Adrian: if we’re starting out with the use case in edv and that use case
> is in or out of scope that’s not good enough.
> Sam: I had a conversation with Adrian that helped me understand what he
> is talking about now. EDVs and Hubs are things stored by the identity
> owner. Data provider has data and allows data access; is that mode in or
> out of scope?
> Manu: I think it is inscope. In this data provider role.
> Sam: The data is not necessarily encrypted at rest with the keys of the
> user.
>  This is a more “traditional” data storage (UMA) stored encrypted of the
> keys of the provider not the identity owner.
> Manu: Adrian would you like to add another input document that has your
> use-case.
> Adrian: I would appreciate if Orie and Sam would do that with me.
> Straw poll on:
> PROPOSAL 4: The Identity Hubs, Encrypted Data Vaults, and Adrian's use
> case documents will be used as use case, requirements, and technical
> input for the collaborative effort. The DID Comm, UMA, and OAuth2 work
> will continue in parallel and are acknowledged as important related work
> that might influence the direction of the collaborative effort.
> 01:42:43        Dave Longley:        +1
> 01:42:45        Orie (Transmute):        +1
> 01:42:46        Adrian Gropper:        +1
> 01:42:51        Kaliya Identity Woman:        +1
> 01:42:56        Joe:        +1
> 01:42:57        Thomas Hardjono:        +1
> 01:42:58        BalazsN:        +1
> 01:42:59        Orie (Transmute):        (I will help with the concern)
> 01:42:59        Daniel Buchner:        +1
> 01:42:59        Joachim Lohkamp (Jolocom):        +1
> 01:43:04        Sam Curren (TelegramSam):        +1
> 01:43:05        Dan Burnett:        +1
> 01:43:07        Ken Ebert:        +1
> 01:43:11        Troy Ronda:        +1
> 01:43:15        Michael Benaudis - Internet Identity Card:        +1
> 01:43:16        Chad Peiper (Verif-y):        +1
> +1’s it is…
> Manu: Thank you very much. Everyone should be very happy with what we
> have accomplished.
> We will get the minutes out and when the very first call on this work
> item can start.
> -- manu
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
> https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches
Received on Saturday, 14 December 2019 21:53:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:19:07 UTC