Re: [MINUTES] W3C Credentials CG Call - 2019-02-12 12pm ET

Yes, yes. It was likely Brent Zundel.

-Brent Shambaugh

GitHub: https://github.com/bshambaugh
Website: http://bshambaugh.org/
LinkedIN: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brent-shambaugh-9b91259
Skype: brent.shambaugh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Brent_Shambaugh
WebID: http://bshambaugh.org/foaf.rdf#me

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 12:16 PM Kim Hamilton Duffy <kim@learningmachine.com>
wrote:

> Oh dear...I didn’t notice the alias collision. I’ll update the mapping
> file, as you are the likelier Brent
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 10:12 AM Brent Zundel <brent.zundel@evernym.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Gotta say, I like my new moniker.
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 18:48 <kim@learningmachine.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks to Brent Shambaugh for scribing this week! The minutes
>>> for this week's Credentials CG telecon are now available:
>>>
>>> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2019-02-12/
>>>
>>> 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 2019-02-12
>>>
>>> Agenda:
>>>
>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2019Feb/0017.html
>>> Topics:
>>>   1. Introductions
>>>   2. announcements
>>>   3. Action Items
>>>   4. Use Cases
>>> Organizer:
>>>   Joe Andrieu and Kim Hamilton Duffy and Christopher Allen
>>> Scribe:
>>>   Brent Shambaugh
>>> Present:
>>>   Jeff Orgel, Vaughan Emery, Heather Vescent, Bohdan Andriyiv, Kim
>>>   Hamilton Duffy, Amy Guy, Brent Zundel, Mike Lodder, Joe Andrieu,
>>>   Markus Sabadello, Adrian Gropper, Brent Shambaugh, Ted Thibodeau,
>>>   Will Abramson, Ken Ebert, Benjamin Young, Jonathan Holt,
>>>   Christopher Allen, Andrew Hughes, Ganesh Annan, Dmitri Zagidulin,
>>>   Yancy Ribbens, Dave Longley, Manu Sporny, Moses Ma
>>> Audio:
>>>   https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2019-02-12/audio.ogg
>>>
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Sorry, having problems connecting on sip,
>>>   trying voice
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Well darn, can't dial in either; busy signal
>>>   :)
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy: I'll keep trying sip
>>> Joe Andrieu: I'm having dialin issues too
>>> Brent Shambaugh is scribing.
>>> Joe Andrieu: Third time the charm
>>> Ted Thibodeau: 1000 Blessings on Kim for formatting the agenda in
>>>   plaintext (so it's readable/usable via the archives link)
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Pipe up if you can't connect
>>> I connected by phone
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Is anyone on IRC having problems connecting?
>>> Mike Lodder: No problems using SIP
>>> Jeff Orgel: Phone no prob - long ago rarely
>>> Jonathan Holt: I'm on the phone just fine today using skype, but
>>>   in the past i have had issues
>>> I'll scribe
>>> Brent Shambaugh is scribing.
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/
>>>
>>> Topic: Introductions
>>>
>>> Will Abramson:  I'm new, first time properly on the call
>>>   ... managed to get in this time
>>>   ... researching at Edinburgh, privacy preserving crypto
>>>   ... hope to be at RWoT
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  For re-introductions, Dave Longley
>>> Dave Longley:  I'm the CTO of Digital Bazaar, we focus on
>>>   blockchain tech, DIDs, etc
>>>
>>> Topic: announcements
>>>
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy: http://rwot8.eventbrite.com
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  RWoT in Barcelona
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/w3c/verifiable-claims/tree/master/f2f/2019-03-Barcelona
>>>   ... register soon, early bird discount is over, but you can
>>>   still get a topic paper discount
>>> Andrew Hughes:  Please register soon if you haven't yet, and
>>>   please submit papers
>>> Joe Andrieu:  Want to mention we are past the paper deadline, so
>>>   get it in. Also, the last day is the 22nd to register before
>>>   on-site pricing kicks in
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy: https://www.internetidentityworkshop.com
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  IIW is in May
>>>
>>> Topic: Action Items
>>>
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22action%3A+review+next%22
>>> Christopher Allen: The #RebootingWebOfTrust topic papers are
>>>   listed at https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot8-barcelona
>>> Joe Andrieu: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/pull/168
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  Updating ABNF for DIDs, that was originally
>>>   the topic for today, but we are talking about  something else.
>>> Joe Andrieu:  Dmitry just submitted a PR that everyone should
>>>   look at
>>> Dmitri Zagidulin:  Please take a look, we will be adding some
>>>   more, but we wanted to clarify the confusion between the DID and
>>>   the DID reference
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  Action item for all: review that PR
>>> Manu Sporny:  We have a crypto suite registry that the community
>>>   manages, I will type something up now
>>> Jonathan Holt: ?Link to LD crypto suite
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:
>>>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/44
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  Address request for clarity and privacy
>>>   claims for DIDs
>>>   ... the problem here is that the people who were to be assigned
>>>   were not taggable, but are now
>>>   ... the issue is that we claim that DIDs reduce
>>>   correlatability, but haven't done a lot to talk about that
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:
>>>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/43
>>>   ... Ryan and Lionel are not here, so no updates on the next one
>>>   either
>>>   ... we'll get to that next week
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:
>>>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/18
>>>   ... next JWK cryptosuite implementation, action item for uPort.
>>>   ... we wanted someone from uPort to show how to express a JWT
>>>   with the JWK cryptosuite.
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy: I'm going to try to switch to audio
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy: I mean voice
>>> Christopher Allen:  I'm not seeing examples of JWTs in DID method
>>>   specs, could we take this to the next level ?
>>>   ... what are we missing to take this to the next level?
>>> Manu Sporny:  The way uPort has approached this is as a wrapper
>>>   around the information than as a proof format.
>>>   ... we added RSA2018 signatures in the hopes this would be what
>>>   they use, but instead they wrap the VC ir DID doc and shove the
>>>   whole thing in a JWT, rather than using a proof format.
>>>   ... looks like there's a path forward to using ld proofs with
>>>   zkps, bitcoin, proof of work
>>>   ... it is up to the users of JWTs to determine how they will
>>>   use it in their specs
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  I am back, let me know if connection is
>>>   better this time
>>>   ... action items need some owners
>>>   ... does anyone have proposals for who can drive the work?
>>> Manu Sporny:  Oliver has done a great job of engaging. Not
>>>   volunteering him, but he would be great.
>>>
>>> Topic: Use Cases
>>>
>>> Joe Andrieu: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-use-cases/
>>> Jonathan Holt: Sound like a loose mic cable
>>> Joe Andrieu: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-use-cases
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Turning over to Joe to run the rest of the
>>>   meeting. None of my connections are working
>>> Joe Andrieu:  On to use cases. Thanks to Manu and Amy for their
>>>   work in cleaning this up
>>>   ... want to introduce the document then spend time going
>>>   through the 15 features.
>>>   ... there are 5 use cases, 4 of which I like. Really want to
>>>   keep the total to 5. Want readers to get a sense of what we're
>>>   talking about.
>>>   ... one of the things we have bumped into in VCWG: are all of
>>>   our requirements addressed in the use cases
>>>   ... prepping DID Explainer has contributed here. Start with
>>>   feature benefit grid, describe the features, and then a coverage
>>>   grid.
>>>   ... some of them, I was generous on where they were mentioned.
>>>   ... Every use case doesn't need all features
>>> Joe Andrieu:  What does “sustainability” mean? [scribe assist by
>>>   Andrew Hughes]
>>>   ... notion on each of these benefits for anti-censorship: can't
>>>   be shut down, i.e. for whistleblower, teenager
>>>   ... anti-exploitation:  prevent surveillance capitalism
>>> Joe Andrieu:  OK - I’ll think about possible alternative lablels
>>>   [scribe assist by Andrew Hughes]
>>>   ... sustainability: no vendor lock in
>>> Joe Andrieu:  Yes - thanks - because ‘sustainability’ evokes
>>>   renewable/cost efficiency etc - which is part [scribe assist by
>>>   Andrew Hughes]
>>> Joe Andrieu:  All of this language is new, so we'd like editing
>>>   ... Going to the queue
>>> Justin_R: I'm not familiar with the W3C use case documents, but
>>>   from an outsider perspective, this reads like a set of solutions
>>>   without stated problems. Adding requirements may help.
>>> Joe Andrieu:  Good feeback
>>> Manu Sporny:  Want to do some level setting. why are we focusing
>>>   on this? the DID charter proposal went to advisory review. w
>>> Heather Vescent: +1 Justin. This does not tell the bigger story,
>>>   it gets into the technical weeds,
>>>   ... we gave them a heads up, but the use case doc was an old,
>>>   unedited google doc.
>>>   ... they want a ReSpec doc of use cases with some more polish.
>>> To be clear, it's more that the document doesn't tell me what
>>>   problems it's addressing so I don't know if I care about the
>>>   solutions.
>>>   ... not sure if leading with the requirements will be the best.
>>>   Perhaps following the VC use cases approach could work.
>>> Heather Vescent: Also, I feel like all the work on the other use
>>>   case document was pointless. I don't see any of that work
>>>   reflected in this document. Which was my main concern when we
>>>   spent all that time way back then doing those. Why did we bother
>>>   doing all those if they don't funnel into here?
>>>   ... DIDs are challenging to talk about. Feedback is that use
>>>   cases haven't been helpful in leading to understanding.
>>> Ted Thibodeau: Challenge (problem), solution (DID), application
>>>   of solution (use case scenario)
>>> Heather Vescent: I was promised that back then, those use cases
>>>   would not be for naught, but it seems that this has happened.
>>> Mike Lodder:  Talking about cencorship and use cases, we could
>>>   talk about how in some countries it is not legal to access
>>>   certain types of data, e.g. GDPR. It may make sense for the DID
>>>   to split based on what it has access to. Cencorship may not
>>>   always be a negative.
>>> Joe Andrieu:  Interesting idea, probably at a different layer
>>>   than DIDs
>>> Mike Lodder:  Data access control, services could use cencorship
>>> Christopher Allen:  Two comments: one of the benefits of this
>>>   area is there are cryptographic problems such as selective
>>>   disclosure etc. that haven't been realized yet.
>>>   ... to the larger question, I want to go even further in
>>>   reducing use cases. The long-term educational claims use case
>>>   where you could have claims where keys and parties may change
>>>   over time, but the signatures don't change, even after 30 years.
>>>   ... another one: the travel one, crossing borders (we talked
>>>   about this at TPAC) different parties have different authority
>>>   over different parts of travel.
>>>   ... all these different identifier block this in different
>>>   ways. DIDs help unblock this.
>>>   ... less is more. The use cases are interesting, but we should
>>>   lead with what is driving adoption now.
>>> Joe Andrieu:  One challenge with these use cases is that they
>>>   bleed into VC use cases.
>>> Dave Longley: Sounds like "using a Verifiable Credential" is a
>>>   use case itself
>>>   ... enabled by a DID, but more focused on VCs.
>>>   ... we need to point out what DIDs uniquely make possible
>>> Jonathan Holt:  My issue isn't with use cases, but with the
>>>   charter.
>>>   ... Is DID specific to W3C community, action items, or credo?
>>>   ... so much of the DID happens in the realm of data
>>>   democritization and self-sovreignty. Concerned that the W3C will
>>>   end up being a members only club.
>>> Manu Sporny:  You raise a good point, we need to address that as
>>>   the WG takes form.
>>> Dave Longley: Protect
>>> Joe Andrieu: +1 To positive language
>>>   ... back to use cases, the language should be more positive,
>>>   e.g. censorhip-resistant over anti-cencorship.
>>>   ... want to underscore what Chris said. When we talk about DID
>>>   use cases we go high level, these are verifiable credentials.
>>>   ... the W3C AC is very well versed in focused charters. Hard
>>>   for them to link how this new identifier enables the high level
>>>   use cases.
>>>   ... need some glue in there now, otherwise it won't go well
>>>   with AC.
>>>   ... need to focus on use cases that only DID specific
>>>   ... have an identifier with cryptographic control, service
>>>   discovery, and auditability of key rotations.
>>>   ... this will help the AC focus on that DIDs enable that other
>>>   things don't
>>> Bohdan Andriyiv:  Want to draw attention to longevity of DIDs.
>>>   What differentiates DIDs from other identifiers is lifelong
>>>   characteristic of DIDs.
>>>   ... high stakes cooperation. Democracy, decentralized
>>>   government. Should have a use case for high-stakes long term
>>>   cooperation.
>>> Joe Andrieu:  One thing that would greatly improve that use case
>>>   is if the description outlines what actions the individuals would
>>>   take.
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy: I'm having a hard time reconciling the
>>>   feedback when I look at the EDU use case. On the one hand, I'm
>>>   hearing the use cases are too technical; on the other I'm hearing
>>>   they doesn't spell out the details enough. It would be helpful to
>>>   discuss specifics of 1 use case
>>>   ... the individual interactions that drive the scenario would
>>>   be useful
>>> Adrian Gropper:  I think the very important reason to do the use
>>>   cases, is the business case for self-sovereign identity.
>>>   ... the adoption model should answer the question: what should
>>>   the issuer, holder and verifier have to do about DIDs.
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy: Here's a different angle: of the use cases,
>>>   which one is closest to a "good" one by AC standards. What is it
>>>   lacking to make it better?
>>>   ... if we focus the use cases on service discover etc. we will
>>>   miss the business case.
>>> Manu Sporny: https://w3c.github.io/vc-use-cases/
>>> Joe Andrieu:  One of the things we have in the VC use cases
>>>   document. We have the mechanistic use cases about what the
>>>   individual entity can do, not the high level narrative.
>>> Manu Sporny: We called them User Roles, User Needs, and User
>>>   Tasks... I think it was very useful.
>>>   ... I think the pattern we have in the other document is
>>>   useful: problem domain and solution domain
>>> Joe Andrieu:  We have these 15 features, tried to break them down
>>>   into what they provide as key benefits
>>>   ... sensitive to need to phrase them more positively, but is
>>>   anything missing?
>>> Christopher Allen:  Keep on coming back to future proofing. Use
>>>   of identifiers in the past hasn't addressed this problem.
>>>   ... this isn't acceptable today. We're enabling new methods of
>>>   support for longevity and future proofing.
>>> Adrian Gropper: +1 To logevity as reason for SSI
>>>   ... this is an essential core value proposition
>>> Honest back-channel question, doesn't this just move the
>>>   assumptions on longevity to the resolution side?
>>> Which is the real problem with all legacy identifier systems too,
>>>   when you get down to it
>>> Kim Hamilton Duffy: I like the problem domain / solution domain
>>>   idea; I think it would help address my question above
>>>   (reconciling the too-technical feedback with the
>>>   not-precise-enough feedback)
>>> Joe Andrieu:  We have rotation, crypto future proof,
>>>   organizational end-of-life longevity. These are all attempts to
>>>   capture the future proofing.
>>> @Manu right but that means that it assumes the network will
>>>   continue to run and the government structure won't fall, right?
>>> Manu Sporny: Yes, correct...
>>> Christopher Allen:  But they're not specifically called out as
>>>   future proofing.
>>> Manu Sporny: @Justin_R, but some of these networks have a more
>>>   decentralized way of operating... and that's not the /only/
>>>   benefit.
>>> Jonathan Holt: I'm curious about the link to the "scantily clad
>>>   woman", how was that a use-case as I don't see it
>>> Joe Andrieu:  So we should separate economic from ???
>>>   sustainability
>>> @Manu ok, as long as I'm understanding the assumptions behind the
>>>   claims here
>>> Joe Andrieu:  Not sure where the link to the scantily clad woman
>>>   is
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wz8sakevXzO2OSMP341w7M2LjAMZfEQaTQEm_AOs3_Q/edit#heading=h.70an1a4kg74q
>>> Manu Sporny:  I deleted it. tried to stop the bleeding.
>>> Oh ffs really, an image??
>>> (I missed that one)
>>> Joe Andrieu:  Want to embrace: that's why we open it up, even if
>>>   we get crazy stuff. Hopefully we're feeling better about the doc.
>>> Joe Andrieu: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-wg-charter/issues/9
>>>   ... Issue with the charter itself. Request to put at least one
>>>   use case in the charter itself.
>>> Manu Sporny:  Let's chat offline.
>>> Manu Sporny: @Justin_R, you get more things w/ DIDs... not just
>>>   the possibility of a more decentralized identifier network or
>>>   governance structures... other things are key rotation tied to a
>>>   long lived auditable identifier.
>>> Moses Ma: Bye everyone
>>> Joe Andrieu:  Thanks all, we will be quickly iterating.
>>> Manu Sporny: @Justin_R, so people tend to say "what does the
>>>   *one* thing DIDs do?" -- and it's not just one thing, it's a
>>>   combination of things... that because it does that combination of
>>>   things, certain things are enabled.
>>> Manu Sporny: @Justin_R, like, you can have key rotation w/ no
>>>   auditability... and while that's helpful (you can rotate keys),
>>>   you don't know when people did the rotation, so you can't go back
>>>   in time and check signatures from 15 years ago (as a hand-wavy
>>>   example)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
> Kim Hamilton Duffy
> CTO & Principal Architect Learning Machine
> Co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group
>
> kim@learningmachine.com
>