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

Re: DID Formal Objection Status Update (Dec 2021)

From: Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <mwherman@parallelspace.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 23:25:56 +0000
To: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>, W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <MWHPR1301MB209409FED252742C3419CECEC37C9@MWHPR1301MB2094.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
To clarify 2 points,

1. The Trusted Digital Web is not today and never plans to be a commercial platform, product, or service ...at least from my perspective/for my benefit. That being said, if other developers, consultants, or consulting companies are able to make a ton of $$$ on top of the TDW, that would be an awesome measure of success for the platform.

2. I'm not promoting Microsoft. I have no current affiliation with Microsoft (other than being a regular Office 365 and Visual Studio customer). A couple people questioned the use of the Microsoft Developer and Stratis Platform tools and technologies to build the TDW platform and I obliged by explaining when, and with what I was using where.

I've been building apps, services, and solutions on Microsoft Windows for 36 years, yes 36, since 1986. It's the only platform I know well/intimately ... it's the only platform I use. That's all there is to it.

Hopefully, this puts an end of these 2 discussions.

Best wishes for the holidays,
Michael Herman
Founder
Trusted Digital Web


Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>

________________________________
From: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021, 9:13 a.m.
To: W3C Credentials CG
Subject: Re: DID Formal Objection Status Update (Dec 2021)


On Dec 21, 2021, at 03:45 AM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com<mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> wrote:

Couple of issues with this

1. W3C is supposed to be vendor neutral, any endorsement (ie w3c stamp or branding) of proprietary protocols would represent a change, and perhaps require careful optics

Nothing about DIDs includes "endorsement (ie w3c stamp or branding)",
including the DID-related Registries.  Inclusion there only requires
satisfaction of the listed requirements, which do not include "not
being associated with any vendor".

If you meant something else, maybe some more words would help.


2. Proprietary, for profit, protocols by their very nature are so, by being centralized, even when they have distributed databases.  That's will lead to misleading claims

The rubric exists because users (at all levels, from individuals to
small enterprise to large enterprise to government, etc.) have many
different factors to consider, which sometimes may lead to valuing
a particular feature provided by a "centralized" DID method which
is not provided by more "decentralized" DID methods.  I put those
two words in quotes because, again, they have different meanings
to different users, hence the rubric for analysis and comparison
along all the various axes.


On top of that, there's massive regulatory overhang

Uh, what?  Bare declarations like this are impossible to evaluate,
nor discuss.  Again, therefore, more words, please.

Be seeing you,

Ted






--
A: Yes.                          http://www.idallen.com/topposting.html
| Q: Are you sure?
| | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
| | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

Ted Thibodeau, Jr.           //               voice +1-781-273-0900 x32
Senior Support & Evangelism  //        mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com
                             //              http://twitter.com/TallTed
OpenLink Software, Inc.      //              http://www.openlinksw.com/
         20 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 322, Burlington MA 01803
     Weblog    -- http://www.openlinksw.com/blogs/
     Community -- https://community.openlinksw.com/
     LinkedIn  -- http://www.linkedin.com/company/openlink-software/
     Twitter   -- http://twitter.com/OpenLink
     Facebook  -- http://www.facebook.com/OpenLinkSoftware
Universal Data Access, Integration, and Management Technology Providers
Received on Tuesday, 21 December 2021 23:28:18 UTC

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