Re: Attempts to block work (was: Re: VC HTTP Authorization Conversation)

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-gnap-core-protocol-05.html#name-compared-to-oauth-20

- Adrian

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 5:47 PM Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
wrote:

> I’m not arguing for UMA. I mentioned it because the problem it’s designed
> to solve, as an extension of OAuth2, is real and I was challenged, in jest,
> about panhandling for a better cup of coffee.
>
> There’s a reason those of us that worked on and implemented OAuth and UMA
> for about a decade are now working on GNAP. I am not qualified to explain
> the technical issues but I have linked to the explanation that is an
> appendix to the GNAP draft 5 doc.
>
> OAuth2 is fine for what it does and I have not argued against it. All I’m
> saying is that self-sovereign protocols raise privacy issues that UMA and
> GNAP are designed to address.
>
> W3C may decide to address the privacy issue somewhere other than  VC-HTTP.
>
> Adrian
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 5:36 PM Jim St.Clair <jim.stclair@lumedic.io>
> wrote:
>
>> By way of background, here’s the work done by Kantara on UMA:
>>
>> https://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+FAQ
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> *_______________*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Jim St.Clair *
>>
>> Chief Trust Officer
>>
>> jim.stclair@lumedic.io | 228-273-4893
>>
>> *Let’s meet to discuss patient identity exchange*:
>> https://calendly.com/jim-stclair-1
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Brian Richter <brian@aviary.tech>
>> *Sent:* Friday, June 11, 2021 4:13 PM
>> *To:* Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
>> *Cc:* Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>; Manu Sporny <
>> msporny@digitalbazaar.com>; W3C Credentials CG (Public List) <
>> public-credentials@w3.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: Attempts to block work (was: Re: VC HTTP Authorization
>> Conversation)
>>
>>
>>
>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
>> click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
>> the content is safe.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ok I'll speak up. I've heard references to UMA many times now and have no
>> idea what it is or where to find out more. At least with GNAP a google
>> search returns relevant results. UMA comes back with uma thurman and a defi
>> crypto token I doubt you're referring to..
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 2:09 PM Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> The privacy issue I’m raising can be handled with UMA.
>>
>>
>>
>> - Adrian
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 4:46 PM Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Adrian,
>>
>> Nobody can stop GNAP from being worked on, only you.... can *please* stop
>> asking every DIF / ToIP / W3C / OIDF working group to help fix it :)
>>
>> Since it already has its own dedicated working group here:
>>
>> https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-core-protocol
>>
>> and its own dedicated mailing list here:
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>>
>> I'm not sure why we need every possibly related conversation to be an
>> advertisement for the fact that GNAP needs more contributors...
>>
>> Certainly that is the message I am getting.
>>
>> Current contributor counts here:
>> -
>> https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-resource-servers/graphs/contributors
>> (2)
>> - https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-core-protocol/graphs/contributors
>> (9)
>>
>> Time spent on standards and in working group calls costs money... and is
>> an investment, one which you / GNAP / GNAP contributors are not entitled to
>> receive in unlimited amounts from every person who attempts to attend
>> working group calls in the W3C, DIF, ToIP, OIDF or really anywhere other
>> than IETF-GNAP-WG....
>>
>> You have asked for $1 here, $3.50 there... At a certain point, if you
>> persist, you are an @type of GnapPanHandler2021 ; )
>>
>> Obstructing working groups composed of members who could potentially help
>> GNAP grow seems a terrible strategy for growing contributors.
>>
>> https://youtu.be/GEl8IBv98vg?t=228 (GNAP humor to diffuse tension /
>> frustration)
>>
>> Smurf jokes aside, I hope IETF-GNAP-WG gets more contributors and matures
>> quickly, and I have nothing against the wg or spec...
>>
>> Since concrete proposals were requested, here are some to consider:
>>
>> OS.PROP.0: The W3C CCG VC-HTTPI-API WG and IETF-GNAP-WG agree to joint
>> IPR protected development of the GNAP specification  (this is what you
>> appear to be insisting on)
>> OS.PROP.1: The W3C CCG VC-HTTPI-API DRAFT recommends using
>> IETF-GNAP-DRAFT.
>> OS.PROP.2: The W3C CCG VC-HTTPI-API DRAFT does not mention
>> IETF-GNAP-DRAFT.
>> OS.PROP.3: The W3C CCG VC-HTTPI-API DRAFT recommends not using
>> IETF-GNAP-DRAFT
>> OS.PROP.4: The W3C CCG VC-HTTPI-API DRAFT forbids using IETF-GNAP-DRAFT.
>>
>> OS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 1:53 PM Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> To keep things in @context, I’m not trying to block work on OAuth2. I’m
>> asking for GNAP to be done simultaneously.
>>
>>
>>
>> - Adrian
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 1:00 PM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/10/21 11:00 AM, Adrian Gropper wrote:
>> > I indeed am attempting to block work on VC-related protocols until "we"
>> as
>> > a community deal openly with this issue
>>
>> Given the number of concerns I'm getting related to the "I indeed am
>> attempting to block work" statement above, let me try and clarify why
>> that is
>> not a useful strategy in communities that follow standards-body process,
>> like
>> this one. Please take a moment to read about how W3C determines consensus:
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#Consensus
>>
>> As you can imagine, W3C has a process to deal with individuals that
>> attempt to
>> block work. That process is described in detail above and is very
>> effective at
>> 1) ensuring that everyone is able to have their point of view considered,
>> 2)
>> provide concrete proposals to be considered, and finally 3) make
>> decisions and
>> move on.
>>
>> We are doing #1 and #2 above right now, and we will get to #3 very soon
>> now..
>>
>>
>>
>> I suggest that people involved in the discussion 1) spend their time
>> attempting to clearly lay out their position, and 2) put concrete
>> proposals
>> forward that will result in the least amount of dissent.
>>
>> Attempting to block work without proposing workable concrete
>> counter-proposals
>> will not be tolerated and will be dealt with accordingly.
>>
>> -- 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/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *ORIE STEELE*
>>
>> Chief Technical Officer
>>
>> www.transmute.industries
>>
>>
>>
>> <https://www.transmute.industries/>
>>
>>