W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > February 2020

Re: Naming EDVs for all (Was: Re: [MINUTES] W3C Credentials CG Call - 2020-01-21 12pm ET

From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2020 09:12:59 -0800
To: public-credentials@w3.org, Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
Message-ID: <3a9cf9a5-2889-1b5c-e12e-fb29b0a3aea5@sunshine.net>
Greetings Adrian and all,

On 2020-02-01 6:22 am, Adrian Gropper wrote:
> Mobility is THE question. ...[snip]..
> ...Mobility is a nice way to refer to the broader 
> perspective and it is confused by EDV. Mobility in the sense of access 
> away from the network certainly is not helped by EDV. Mobility in the 
> sense of having your digital credentials accepted by the vast majority 
> of services you interact with needs to not burden those services if we 
> hope for rapid adoption of SSI.
> 
> Does the EDV model help mobility in the adoption sense? Yes, to the 
> extent that wallets and agents are standardized. That is what we 
> should be talking about and EDV may not be a helpful concept.
> 

Interesting. Perhaps I misunderstood how EDVs will operate. Are you saying they are only for enterprise agents? And so can only operate in an always-on Internet, and must necessarily add complexity and privacy issues to SSI?

Or, as I had assumed, is "EDV" also going to be available to an individual person, who can set up their own EDV on their own device? In which case they can take their data in a thumb drive, and bicycle it across the country in its EDV? And whether they ever transfer that data into other (enterprise) EDVs is up to them?

If the former, I can accept all your arguments. But if the latter is also available, couldn't EDVs (or BitSafes, or whatever) be an integral part of SSI adoption? In which case, depending on the balance of standardization (and who is willing to pay for such standardization), might it not be worth doing (and naming) EDVs in a way that will satisfy both the enterprise uses and the individual local control uses? 


Steven Rowat

> 
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 8:15 AM Juan Caballero 
> <juan.caballero@spherity.com <mailto:juan.caballero@spherity.com>> wrote:
> 
>     BitLocker is taken, no? I just used it on my new windows laptop
>     last week.
> 
>     https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4530477/windows-10-finding-your-bitlocker-recovery-key
> 
>     -----------------
>     Juan Caballero
>     Communications, Research, Press
>     Signal/whatsapp: +1 415-3101351
>     Berlin-based: +49 1573 5994525
>     (sent from phone)
> 
>     On Sat, Feb 1, 2020, 1:57 PM Keerthi Thomas
>     <thomas.keerthi@gmail.com <mailto:thomas.keerthi@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>         Bitlocker is a trademark of Microsoft
>         https://trademarks.justia.com/775/98/bitlocker-to-77598061.html
> 
>         It's also stated on Microsoft website:
>         https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/trademarks/en-us.aspx
> 
>         On Sat, 1 Feb 2020, 12:44 pm Jim Goodell, <jgoodell2@yahoo.com
>         <mailto:jgoodell2@yahoo.com>> wrote:
> 
>             “Safe” can mean more than one thing, e.g. physical thing,
>             conditional state.
> 
>             “Locker” is a more concrete and unambiguous analogy. So
>             BitLocker, BitVault or DigitalLocker are good, except weak
>             on conveying mobility. But perhaps physical mobility isn’t
>             the important quality to convey anyway. It seems to me
>             more about ubiquity, always available, (via internet)
>             rather than the person carries it with them (like on a
>             flash drive)
> 
>             Might need to check if chosen name is registered trademark
> 
>             Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>             <https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/?.src=iOS>
> 
>             On Friday, January 31, 2020, 11:41 AM, Steven Rowat
>             <steven_rowat@sunshine.net
>             <mailto:steven_rowat@sunshine.net>> wrote:
> 
>                 On 2020-01-31 8:16 am, Adrian Gropper wrote:
>                  > IndiaStack uses Digilocker. It’s in the context of
>                 other
>                  > identity-linked services.
>                  > https://www.indiastack.org
> 
>                 Interesting. And I think the simplest description of
>                 what is being
>                 stored is "bits", so perhaps:
>                 Bit Locker
>                 or
>                 Bit Safe
>                 Bit Box
> 
>                 I'm unsure about 1 vs. two words. A single word would
>                 be nice, but
>                 there are at least two concepts needed, possibly
>                 three: portable safe
>                 data. Getting that in one word might be tricky unless
>                 it's camel case.
>                    :-)
>                 SafeDataBox
>                 BitLockBox
>                 BitBox
>                 BitSafe
> 
>                 But camel case won't fly for the general public I
>                 think, and anyway
>                 it's easy to forget the capital or miss it in a
>                 transcription.
> 
>                 Steven
> 
>                  >
>                  > I have tried to steer them in the direction of
>                 standards, so far
>                  > without much success.
>                  >
>                  > Adrian
>                  >
>                  > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 11:08 AM Steven Rowat
>                  > <steven_rowat@sunshine.net
>                 <mailto:steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
>                 <mailto:steven_rowat@sunshine.net
>                 <mailto:steven_rowat@sunshine.net>>> wrote:
> 
>                  >
>                  >    Hello,
>                  >    In the discussion of the Jan 21 CCG call, the
>                 section quoted at
>                  >    the end of this email shows to me that there's a
>                 general name
>                  >    discussion required around EDVs (Encrypted Data
>                 Vaults). "Wallet"
>                  >    is rejected because it has other uses. There's
>                 no consensus yet.
>                  >
>                  >    I believe this is like what happened around
>                 "Digital Identifiers",
>                  >    where the whole CCG list got involved, because,
>                 as Dave Longley
>                  >    notes at the end of the quote, the naming needs
>                 to satisfy the
>                  >    general public as well as developers and
>                 codewriters.
>                  >
>                  >    And I began to think up some possibilities for
>                 "safe storage" that
>                  >    already exist in the physical world, perhaps to
>                 get the ball
>                  >    rolling in such a discussion. These are:
>                  >
>                  >    Safe     [banks, homes]
>                  >    Safe Drop   [couriers]
>                  >    Safety Deposit Box    [banks]
>                  >    Deposit Box  [banks, post office]
>                  >    Lockbox   [real estate, travel]
>                  >    Storage    [rental lockers, computer storage]
>                  >    Strongbox   [rental lockers, banks, homes]
>                  >    Secure Sockets   [HTTPS, SSL]
>                  >    Trunk   [travel luggage]
>                  >    Suitcase   [travel luggage]
>                  >    Container    [shipping trade]
>                  >
>                  >    I believe both "safe" and "mobile" need to be
>                 implied, and I'm
>                  >    unsure whether the word "data" is best used or
>                 not. So at this
>                  >    point my own preferences would be combinations like:
>                  >    Data Lockbox
>                  >    Safe Box
>                  >    Data Safe
>                  >
>                  >    etc.
>                  >
>                  >    Other opinions?
>                  >
>                  >
>                  >    On 2020-01-29 8:19 pm, W3C CCG Chairs wrote:
>                  >      > Manu Sporny: ...We, as an organization, want
>                  >      >    to focus on portability, CHAPI, moving
>                 wallets, etc. simpler use
>                  >      >    cases. [scribe assist by Dave Longley]
>                  >      > Joe Andrieu:  I put myself on the queue - to
>                 push back on
>                  >      >    language around wallet vs. vault that
>                 Manu used. Naming is hard,
>                  >      >    attempting to be constructive.
>                  >      > Orie Steele: "Wallet" is a terrible name :(
>                 ... names are hard...
>                  >      > Drummond Reed: The DIF Glossary Project is
>                 drilling deep into
>                  >      >    community definitions of "wallet",
>                 "agent", and "credential".
>                  >      >    It's amazing how diverse some of the
>                 responses are.
>                  >      > Joe Andrieu:  ChristopherA and I wrote a
>                 topic for the last
>                  >      >    rebooting - spoke about how "Identity
>                 Wallets" and "Crypto
>                  >      >    Wallets" have similarities, trying to
>                 find similarities
>                  >      >    architecturally. Crypto wallets are not
>                 in your hardware
>                  >      >    wallet... a wallet is how you control
>                 access to your stuff, not
>                  >      >    the actual store that has it. A good
>                 crypto wallet could have
>                  >      >    Bitcoin, Ethereum, AltCoins, but the way
>                 that tech works is that
>                  >      >    the important stuff is not in the wallets.
>                  >      > Adrian Gropper: +1 To Joe's and Drummond's
>                 comments on "wallet"
>                  >      > Stephen Curran: "Wallet" in mainstream usage
>                 is the app you have
>                  >      >    on your phone. It's not the bit of the
>                 any "thingy" (agent,
>                  >      >    whatever) that stores things. Using that
>                 term is fighting a
>                  >      >    losing battle.
>                  >      > Joe Andrieu:  The interfaces that we use to
>                 get access to stores
>                  >      >    vs the stores themselves are important.
>                 We also need a good
>                  >      >    separation between those so we can move
>                 EDVs around w/o changing
>                  >      >    front-end wallet.
>                  >      > Dave Longley: There's probably also a naming
>                 issue here where the
>                  >      >    general public will understand "wallet"
>                 as all of the
>                  >    layers, but
>                  >      >    developers/technologists should
>                 understand there are more layers
>                  >
>                  >
>                  >    Steven Rowat
>                  >
> 
Received on Saturday, 1 February 2020 17:13:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 1 February 2020 17:13:11 UTC