W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > December 2021

Re: DID Formal Objection Status Update (Dec 2021)

From: Heather Vescent <heathervescent@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 07:59:22 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+C6qMxz0X3K5o=b5czLn_iejHX_DNrX3VeMY-xQbASX1fxrOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io>
Cc: "Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web)" <mwherman@parallelspace.net>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>, W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Chiming as co-chair to support Mike's comments here and request thread
participants to remember that we are a W3C community following W3C
processes and bound by W3C agreements.

May I suggest we all pause on this thread until 2022.


On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 6:36 AM Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io> wrote:

> No.
> Speaking as a chair of this Community Group...
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 8:09 AM Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <
> mwherman@parallelspace.net> wrote:
>> At the risk of being repetitious, we need to be following the
>> #OpenToInnovation principle:
>> https://hyperonomy.com/2019/03/12/internet-protocols-and-standards-not-only-need-to-be-open-but-more-importantly-open-to-innovation/
> We are a W3C Community group.
> "We NEED to be following", the following:
> https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/charter/
> https://w3ctag.github.io/design-principles/
> https://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/
> And have other good guidance here:
> https://tag.w3.org/findings/
>> Also, from a systems architecture perspective, we need to have:
>> i)                 A DID Identifier/Method specification that is
>> separate from…
>> ii)                a DID Protocol specification (e.g. something like
>> “DID Trusted Transport Protocol” aka “didttp”).  …that is, something
>> analogous to HTTP that natively understands/supports DID Identifiers/Methods
>> …the same way DNS and HTTP are separated and have separate naming and
>> protocol specifications, respectively.
>> The current DID-CORE specification tries to conflate the 2 and I believe
>> that’s a root cause of the current situation we find ourselves in.
> Please take the above topic(s) up with the DID WG (not the CCG) when it
> recharters (assuming this happens) after the FOs, that is assuming
> membership in the WG.
> In general, "need" is a very strong word, and I find an assertion that
> anyone, especially a W3C Community group or Working group "needs" to follow
> any arbitrary self created content completely out of line.
> Please either move the topic of this thread to something constructive or
> propose a work item and discuss in github issues if something being
> suggested is inline with the work item criteria outlined in the charter:
> https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/charter/
> If anyone on this thread is an "Invited Expert" for a W3C Working Group,
> and as this is a W3C mailing list I would recommend reviewing the agreement
> here: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/06-invited-expert.html
> especially section 2.4 which outlines criteria around items that may be
> considered promotional activities.

Heather Vescent <http://www.heathervescent.com/>
Co-Chair, Credentials Community Group @W3C
President, The Purple Tornado, Inc <https://thepurpletornado.com/>
Author, The Secret of Spies <https://amzn.to/2GfJpXH>
Author, The Cyber Attack Survival Manual
Author, A Comprehensive Guide to Self Sovereign Identity

@heathervescent <https://twitter.com/heathervescent> | Film Futures
<https://vimeo.com/heathervescent> | Medium
<https://medium.com/@heathervescent/> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/heathervescent/> | Future of Security Updates
Received on Tuesday, 21 December 2021 15:59:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:25:25 UTC