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

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

From: Steve Capell <steve.capell@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2021 08:21:35 +1000
Message-Id: <6CB7CBD5-D28C-492A-B5C7-C2475626F947@gmail.com>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, daniel.hardman@gmail.com, "public-credentials (public-credentials@w3.org)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
To: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
+1 for each of Adrian’s 4 suggestions 

Steven Capell
Mob: 0410 437854

> On 10 Jul 2021, at 2:32 am, Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> To the extent anyone cares, my perspective is a synthesis of what Daniel and Justin said during the 4/29 meeting. I most associate with Justin's saying that GNAP and VC-HTTP API are "perfect" for each other and will spawn many beautiful children. I'm also solidly with Daniel when he pleads at the end (39:10) that we not solve the problems of the paying sovereign ahead of the subjects because that's where the money is. Simply put, I see the perfect engineering marriage and SSI principle to be aligned and captured as the authorization / delegation design for VC-HTTP API.
> 
> Going next to the internal vs. external point (31:00) by Markus and others and Manu's recent PROPOSAL to 6. in this thread:
> 
> PROPOSAL: The VC HTTP API will support at least OAuth2 + client_credentialsfor all API calls that happen within the same trust boundary.
> 
> I object to this proposal because I believe it is artificial and for many of the other reasons that Daniel mentioned in his presentation. However, in the spirit of trying to find common ground and make progress, I urge Manu and others that want this proposal to do some or all of:
> Scope VC-HTTP API spec itself to purely internal uses
> Separate the Issuer API spec from the Verifier and Holder specs
> Suggest and follow up with W3C where the external authorization to VC access work will be done
> Adopt the cruise ship use-case as one core for the external VC-HTTP API.
> - Adrian
> 
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 9:49 AM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
>> 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 22:21:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 9 July 2021 22:21:54 UTC