Re: Different Verifiable Credential protocols?

On 2020-04-10 8:42 am, Daniel Hardman wrote:
> Manu and Orie:
> 
> The question isn't the theoretical definition or possibilities. It's 
> the mindset of the group.

But in terms of deciding whether to vote yes for this charter, are you agreeing that the possibilities you envision as necessary for the next steps (and I'm not arguing against those), are, in fact, covered under the new charter?

I would like to be clear on this, because, as you point, out, the mindset of the group is a separate thing from the charter. 


Steven

> 
> I have repeatedly tried to get the group to think beyond HTTP, and 
> encountered friction. If the group wants to adopt the broader 
> definition, that's fine. But let's really adopt it. Let's not say the 
> scope is really broad, but turn around and view most of our 
> interesting topics (EDV, CHAPI, polyfills, issuer API, verifier API) 
> through HTTP lenses, as if it's okay to have one standard for HTTP, 
> and then we can get around to the other transports later, or with 
> separate standards. Let's quit proposing to describe our standards 
> with Swagger docs. Let's quit thinking that synchronous 
> request-response is adequate to model our interactions. Let's quit 
> ignoring Aries RFC 0036 and 0037, which provide a format-independent, 
> standards-compatible means to exchange credentials that is HTTP 
> compatible but not HTTP dependent. Let's quit claiming that the 
> asymmetric security model of standard HTTPS deployments is consistent 
> with the decentralized ethos of DID-based security. Let's 
> quit treating DIDComm as an irrelevancy. Etc.
> 
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 9:26 AM Orie Steele 
> <orie@transmute.industries> wrote:
> 
>     +1 If you want to see a demo of a progressive web application,
>     which can be installed on your mobile home screen, works offline,
>     and uses a camera to scan QR Codes, and can sign and verify see:
> 
>     https://did-key.web.app/
> 
>     I've been experimenting with using service workers to intercept
>     requests for webkms, so that webkms can be run fully in browser,
>     with software isolation for keys... it's totally hacky, but gives
>     you an idea of just how powerful PWAs can be:
> 
>     https://github.com/OR13/react-pwa
> 
>     And here is a P2P implementation of the Game of Go, built with
>     OrbitDB / IPFS / WebRTC...
> 
>     https://g0.or13.io/
> 
>     Using Web RTC Rendezvous servers are particularly interesting to
>     consider wrt VCs / DIDs... because you can show up on a web page
>     (as is the case with the go demo), announce yourself as an
>     identifier, and then immediately switch to e2e encrypted
>     communication between peers... I don't have a demo of that with
>     dids, but it's on my weekend project list for a couple months...
> 
>     OS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 10:06 AM Manu Sporny
>     <msporny@digitalbazaar.com <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:
> 
>         On 4/10/20 10:31 AM, Daniel Hardman wrote:
>          > Should we understand by this that presenting credentials
>         via QR code,
>          > via BlueTooth/NFC, via sneakernet, and so forth is out of
>         scope?
> 
>         I'll note that Web-browsers can get access to the camera phone
>         and scan
>         QR Codes:
> 
>         https://github.com/schmich/instascan
> 
>         and Web Bluetooth is released in many of the latest/popular
>         browsers:
> 
>         https://caniuse.com/#feat=web-bluetooth
> 
>         ... and WebNFC just went into Origin trials in Chrome:
> 
>         https://developers.chrome.com/origintrials/#/view_trial/236438980436951041
> 
>         There continues to be confusion around the colloquial use of
>         the word
>         "Web", which among developers, is mired in the historical
>         protocol that
>         spawned the Web -- HTTP. The colloquial use is often outdated
>         and wrong.
> 
>         The W3C is about the "Web Platform", which is not limited to HTTP.
>         Wikipedia has a decent definition here:
> 
>         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_platform
> 
>         ... but here are the other protocols that are not HTTP that
>         are viewed
>         as being part of the Web platform:
> 
>         * TLS
>         * Geolocation (and by extension, the Global Positioning System,
>            protocols and data formats)
>         * Web Sockets (which are not HTTP!)
>         * Web Of Things (IoT, CoAP, etc.)
>         * WebRTC (and a whole bunch of IETF specs on signalling
>            and media encoding/transmission protocols)
>         * Web Bluetooth (Bluetooth and its data formats and protocols)
>         * NFC (again, data formats and protocols)
>         * Media Capture API (audio and video formats and protocols)
> 
>         The W3C is not solely about HTTP, and you learn that pretty
>         quickly when
>         you go to a W3C Technical Plenary, or participate in various
>         standards
>         groups at W3C. I understand that it's difficult for many to
>         participate
>         in that way. Fundamentally, the Web Platform is a bridging
>         technology,
>         connecting all of these disparate data formats and protocols
>         into a
>         cohesive application development environment.
> 
>         So communication of Verifiable Credentials over NFC,
>         Bluetooth, WebRTC,
>         Web Sockets, QR Codes... IMHO, all very much in scope.
> 
>         -- manu
> 
>         -- 
>         Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
>         Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>         blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
>         https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches
> 
> 
> 
>     -- 
>     *ORIE STEELE*
>     Chief Technical Officer
>     www.transmute.industries
> 
>     <https://www.transmute.industries>
>

Received on Friday, 10 April 2020 16:30:52 UTC