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

Re: Scope of PDS/IdH/EDV Discussion (Re: Invitation to Personal Data Hubs, Identity Hubs, EDV Roadmap Discussion)

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2019 17:13:24 -0500
To: "Michael Herman (Parallelspace)" <mwherman@parallelspace.net>
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>, Rouven Heck <rouven.heck@consensys.net>, 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>
Message-ID: <689ff2c2-5175-4e2a-d7b4-bab11f2eaa53@digitalbazaar.com>
Getting more concrete, this is only a suggestion on what seems like it
might work given the collaboration conversations I've had with folks
over the last 3 months between DIF, Aries, and W3C CCG. Using the
template in the previous email...

The communities involved in this discussion have decided to collaborate
on a specification for a foundational layer for personal data stores,
specifically a data model, syntax, and minimum viable HTTP-based
protocol. The intent is to eventually standardize the work at W3C under
W3C's Royalty-Free Patent policy. The Identity Hubs and Encrypted Data
Vaults documents will be used as use case, requirements, and technical
input for the collaborative effort. Regular calls will be hosted under
the W3C Credentials Community Group under the aforementioned IPR policy.
Each community contributing work to the effort can, at any time,
withdraw from the effort and/or continue work on their draft.

Given the above, it's important to understand what's not included in the
work and why we're not including it yet.

* The protocol work is higher-level, adjacent to VCs and DIDs, and
  scoped to HTTP, making W3C a natural place for that part of the work
  to happen. Other protocol work, like communication over DIDComm,
  Bluetooth, CoAP, etc. should continue to be incubated at DIF and

* There is no mention of stuff like authentication, notifications, or
  replication. That work may happen in parallel in all three groups,
  it's too early to tell. We're going to try to abstract those layers in
  a way that doesn't cause us to have to make that particular decision
  on where that work should happen now.

* There is no assertion that work should stop elsewhere. The DIF
  Identity Hubs folks should feel free to keep moving their spec
  forward. For example, protocols running over Bluetooth, CoAP, etc.
  Advanced replication protocols may also need to be moved forward in
  parallel and that shouldn't be blocked by this work. This only works
  if people feel free to walk and stay at the table because their
  problem is being solved... that is, the collaboration is generating
  value for everyone involved.

Will we all be able to agree on everything above? Probably not. Will
there be principled objections to what's laid out above? I don't know,
that's why we're having the call. Will we be able to get enough momentum
during the call to get to consensus, even if the plan isn't perfect? I
hope so.

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
Received on Saturday, 16 November 2019 22:13:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:55 UTC