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

Re: VC-HTTP-API - A follow up on the RAR presentation

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2021 09:46:30 -0400
To: daniel.hardman@gmail.com
Cc: "public-credentials (public-credentials@w3.org)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <967455ec-0df3-011d-57e3-c126055fe577@digitalbazaar.com>
On 7/8/21 6:55 AM, Daniel Hardman wrote:
> I gave a concrete example of why the VC HTTP perpetuates a power asymmetry 
> when I came to this group on April 30 with slides and 20 minutes of
> commentary about it.

For those that want a refresher, video of the presentation starts 10 minutes in:

https://meet.w3c-ccg.org/archives/w3c-ccg-vchttpapi-2021-04-29.mp4

We don't yet know if Adrian's position is exactly the same as yours or if it's
different. That's why I didn't assume it was. I'm trying to get Adrian to
clearly articulate it (noting where I'm having a disconnect with his
explanations).

If his position is exactly the same as yours, I would have expected him to
point to your slide deck and refer to your presentation. I expect that he
didn't do that because there are nuances here that matter, and I'm trying to
deeply understand Adrian's position and not paper over those nuances by
lumping him in with your viewpoint.

----------

> The group dismissed my counter-proposal without a vote, and its engagement 
> with my argument was relatively light.

Are you aware that your presentation led some in the group towards suggesting
that we should be agnostic to the payload that the VC HTTP API sends in
presentation exchange?

I personally think that's a good idea... that's what we did in CHAPI, and I
think we should do it here as well so that we can support multiple protocols
(QueryByExample/QueryByFrame, DIDComm, PeX) over a "dumb pipe". We can't
expect that we're going to get the protocol right the first time out... or
that the industry is going to agree to just one protocol.

As Juan noted in his response to you, your presentation was one of the data
points that led to a possible change in direction. Your characterization as
the group "dismissing" it is just not accurate... we're still chewing on it.

The jury is still out on what will happen... we still haven't gotten to that
portion of the discussion on the VC HTTP API, but I'm personally on board with
a number of the things you said in your presentation (but, clearly not all of
them). Time will tell where the rest of the group is on this... but that's why
we didn't vote on anything after your presentation... ideas need time to breathe.

I expect this will come to a head when we start talking about presentation
exchange via VC HTTP API... and I expect we'll dive into that shortly after
the authorization discussion.

In any case, some of your ideas resonated with the group... you may have
missed it while lurking. :)

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021)
https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
Received on Friday, 9 July 2021 13:47:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 9 July 2021 13:47:06 UTC