Re: Secure Data Hubs specification released

>
>
> > If a goal of this effort is to produce meaningful interoperability
> > instead of providing a competing standard that undercuts many
> > person-decades of standardization and implementation work, I suggest
> > that we recast the spec as one aligned with DIDComm.
>
> This is the only concern that I have as it comes across as an ultimatum.
> I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.


Sorry. I've been up for chunks of the night with a headache and nausea, and
I'm not writing as clearly as I prefer. It wasn't meant at all as an
ultimatum, just a bid to consider an idea.


> The only hesitation I have is that
> DIDComm presumes that you have to use DIDs with the system, and just
> like with VCs, it's possible and is the default mode of operation...
> it's not the only mode. We're trying to reach folks outside of the DID
> ecosystem with the work as that will be important when we take this
> stuff standards track. Again, we'd rather cast a wider net than just the
> DID ecosystem. Anyone with a public/private key should be able to use
> this system to protect their data.


Who is the "we" in this paragraph?

It feels like you're asserting this requirement is a foregone conclusion. I
see how it could broaden adoption, but the architectural cost of having a
non-DID-based security and communication mechanism is profound. Do other
CCG members believe it is a worthwhile tradeoff? The alternative, of
course, would be to say that people outside DID-land can use a spec, at the
cost of picking up a dependency they aren't familiar with...