Re: Secure Data Hubs specification released

I don't believe it is useful to any community--Aries, DIF, the CCG, or the
greater SSI ecosystem--to have a new spec that eliminates some obvious use
cases and causes people to start over on implementation--only to end up
satisfying less requirements than current implementations target. This
topic is being raised 18-24 months after serious standardization work began
in other channels, and the scope of the spec draft is a step backward. This
isn't a recipe for alignment around interop.

What would be useful would be to adopt the specs that have already been
written, instead of proposing new alternatives--unless there is some
deficiency in what has already been spec'ed and implemented. Let's explore
such specifics before we evaluate the merits of a chartered work item that
appears to be redundant, in an SDO that isn't necessarily the right home.


On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 7:38 AM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> On 7/2/19 2:30 AM, Carlos Bruguera wrote:
> > Great initiative! My assumption is that this specs attempt to
> > "standardize" all these separate lines of work for secure identity
> > data storage?
>
> The goal of the Secure Data Hub spec is to standardize
> encrypted-in-transit-and-at-rest storage of structured data (JSON
> documents, Verifiable Credentials, etc.) and binary blob data (pictures,
> video, etc.).
>
> DIF Identity Hubs may or may not use Secure Data Hubs as a low-level
> storage layer. The hope is that they do, but it is going to take
> alignment to make that happen.
>
> > Are DIF Hubs, for example, expected to stay compliant with these
> > specs (or are the specs already being considered to be compatible
> > with the ongoing work on DIF Hubs)?
>
> We need to explore that. We have studied the Identity Hubs specification
> in great detail and are proposing Secure Data Hubs as a way of achieving
> some, but not all, of the goals of the Identity Hubs work.
>
> > I cite the DIF Hubs specific example because I already perceived it
> > it as an initiative to reach some sort of "common ground" for agent
> > interoperability among different identity platforms (if I my
> > understanding is correct)... On this note, A particular feature of
> > DIF Hubs is that they intend to implement a protocol for data
> > replication among different agents: is this being considered for
> > Secure Data Hubs, or would that be left outside this scope?
>
> Yes, encrypted data replication (and data portability) is considered for
> Secure Data Hubs.
>
> Secure Data Hubs are intended to be a component of the overall system
> we're creating, not the final solution. Secure Data Hubs are useful
> without Decentralized Identifiers and Verifiable Credentials... for
> example, as an encrypted repository for word processing documents,
> family pictures, etc. So, while they're intended to fit into the
> Verifiable Credentials ecosystem, they're useful by themselves (just
> like Verifiable Credentials are designed to be used with DIDs, but are
> capable of using any identifier, including URNs, traditional URLs, etc.)
>
> Hope that clarifies the intent... did the above answer your questions?
>
> -- 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
>
>