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

>… can you clarify if your intent, 6 years ago or today, is to link control to possession of the VC …

This question, as phrased, implies that I had the ability to flawlessly forecast the future 6 years ago AND that intent remains static in the face of new information, feedback, lessons learned, and technology advances.

Neither of which is true!

Adrian, respectfully, I am not going to get any more drawn into the discussion on delegation, precisely because as I noted below:

  *   We expect you all to work out in the open in the global standards/incubation communities (e.g. W3C CCG etc.) in developing open APIs that meet the needs of a global implementer community to ensure both visibility of the work AND technical review and input on the work.
  *   Our sense and intent here is to have the potentially competing interests of implementers be reconciled thru this open work and discussion to reach a common outcome that benefits both us AND the broader and global technical community.
The only reason that I engaged just now was that in this and some of the other conversation threads on this topic, there have been aspersions made regarding Government motives in the VC/DID ecosystem as it relates to privacy, and I wanted to set the record straight on our *demonstrated* support ( https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MeeP7vDXb9CpSBfjTybYbo8qJfrrbrXCSJa0DklNe2k/edit?usp=sharing ) for individual agency, consent and control enabled by un-linkable presentations and prevention of “phone home” architectures that we hope will result in a competitive marketplace of diverse, interoperable solutions that are in the public interest.

Best Regards,

Anil

Anil John
Technical Director, Silicon Valley Innovation Program
Science and Technology Directorate
US Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC, USA

Email Response Time – 24 Hours

[https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/svip]