- From: Heather Vescent <heathervescent@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 07:59:22 -0800
- 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>
- Message-ID: <CA+C6qMxz0X3K5o=b5czLn_iejHX_DNrX3VeMY-xQbASX1fxrOg@mail.gmail.com>
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. -Heather 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 <https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/> President, The Purple Tornado, Inc <https://thepurpletornado.com/> Author, The Secret of Spies <https://amzn.to/2GfJpXH> Author, The Cyber Attack Survival Manual <https://www.amazon.com/Cyber-Attack-Survival-Manual-Apocalypse/dp/1681886545/> Author, A Comprehensive Guide to Self Sovereign Identity <https://ssiscoop.com/> @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 <https://app.convertkit.com/landing_pages/325779/>
Received on Tuesday, 21 December 2021 15:59:47 UTC