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

Re: The SSI protocols challenge [Was]: W3C DID Core 1.0 enters Candidate Recommendation stage

From: Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:25:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAjunnbV8ZypfDbe22p-yE=Sqzpdkabtnx6J8X+M_2sH_2ZnKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
Cc: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Inline.

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 2:42 AM David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
wrote:

> Hi Drummond
>
> thankyou for the clarification. We could also state that the converse is
> also true
>
> a. An SSI system shall not require reliance on a blockchain or other DLT
>
> but of course it may include them.
>
> Note that the W3C VC Data Model already states that VCs do not depend on
> DIDs and DIDs do not depend on verifiable credentials, so we do not need to
> include that in your principles.
>
> However, can you tell me how principle 11
>
> *An SSI ecosystem shall empower identity rights holders to protect the
> privacy of their digital identity data and to share the minimum digital
> identity data required for any particular interaction.*
>
> can be supported by long lived VCs that have a persistent DID for the
> subject ID, when this is a correlating handle that does the opposite of
> protecting the privacy of the data subject
>
David, I fully agree with you, which is why privacy-preserving VCs should
not be issued to persistent DIDs. They should be issued to blinded link
secrets using zero-knowledge proofs. This way you not only avoid identifier
correlation, you avoid signature correlation.

Of course neither can prevent correlation in the verifier requires that the
holder reveal a correlating identifier, such as a government ID number, but
at least that is *intentional* and *explicit* correlation, not
unintentional implicit correlation using the underly VC mechanics.

=Drummond



>
> On 22/03/2021 01:55, Drummond Reed wrote:
>
> David, I believe you're misinterpreting the third principle. It doesn't
> say that centralized systems can't be involved or can't issue a VC. It says
> only that an SSI ecosystem cannot make a centralized system the only option
> for representing, controlling, or verifying identity data (which is the
> case with centralized or federated identity systems).
>
> BTW, just to clarify, it also doesn't mean an SSI ecosystem can't
> *include* centralized or federated identity systems as a subset of the
> SSI ecosystem. Again, it just means that the centralized or federation
> systems can't be the only option.
>
> =Drummond
>
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 4:36 AM David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Steve
>>
>> I think you will have a hard time convincing anyone of the principles of
>> SSI when Sovrin's third principle states
>>
>> 3. An SSI ecosystem shall not require reliance on a centralized system to
>> represent, control, or verify an entity’s digital identity data.
>>
>> This is clearly impossible, since every VC Issuer that I know has a
>> centralised system in which they store, manage and update the user's PII
>> from which they issue their VCs.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On 20/03/2021 20:25, Steve Capell wrote:
>>
>> Hi Michael
>>
>> As a contractor to Australian government I deal with policy makers almost
>> every day and so I understand both the difficulty and the necessity of
>> conveying these concepts to non technical audiences.
>>
>> As a sufficiently technical reader, I liked your article. It’s the first
>> time I’ve seen that meta-model of the identity domain and, for me, it was
>> very helpful.
>>
>> However, sadly, I don’t think it will help the policy maker that is not
>> used to reading meta models. I usually have more success with storyboards
>> that contrast two architectures with real examples. Policy makers don’t
>> need to “understand the architecture”.  They need to be able to
>> conceptualise how it works through examples to that they can understand the
>> policy impacts and opportunities.
>>
>> I also need to convey these ideas - both to AU and UN sometime over the
>> next month or so. I’ll need to test my communication materials on non
>> technical people to ensure the message has worked - and also on expert SSI
>> community members to ensure that the message is right. For that latter
>> concern, please let me know if anyone in this group is willing to be a
>> sounding board
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Steven Capell
>> Mob: 0410 437854
>>
>> On 21 Mar 2021, at 4:47 am, Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web)
>> <mwherman@parallelspace.net> <mwherman@parallelspace.net> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> RE: In prep calls for the panel and other mentions of our work, the
>> “Self-Sovereign Identity” concept is treated as controversial. In a recent
>> major webinar about mandated protocols by the US regulators themselves,
>> they referred to “Distributed Identity”.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m trying to address the same issue wrt what is “Self-Sovereign
>> Identity” / “SSI” at its very core.
>>
>>
>>
>> Check out:
>> https://hyperonomy.com/2021/02/01/ssi-unconscious-contractions/
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m looking for additional people who share a similar perspective.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com> <agropper@healthurl.com>
>> *Sent:* March 20, 2021 8:58 AM
>> *To:* Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
>> *Cc:* W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
>> <public-credentials@w3.org>
>> *Subject:* The SSI protocols challenge [Was]: W3C DID Core 1.0 enters
>> Candidate Recommendation stage
>>
>>
>>
>> It is indeed a big deal and cause for celebration.
>>
>>
>>
>> From my perspective the next challenge is to get the protocols right from
>> a human-centered and community perspective.
>>
>>
>>
>> For an example of that challenge, on March 30 I’m on a Digital
>> Credentials panel at the ONC (US Federal healthcare regulator) Annual
>> Meeting. In prep calls for the panel and other mentions of our work, the
>> “Self Sovereign Identity” concept is treated as controversial. In a recent
>> major webinar about mandated protocols by the US regulators themselves,
>> they referred to “Distributed Identity” :-?
>>
>>
>>
>> Let us celebrate and consider the Fun times ahead....
>>
>>
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:16 AM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0 has reached the Candidate
>> Recommendation
>> stage at W3C. The current specification can be found here:
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/2021/CR-did-core-20210318/
>>
>> This is a major milestone in the W3C global standards process. It marks
>> the
>> start of a period of 1-4 months where the official W3C Working Group has
>> communicated that it is done with all features in the specification.
>>
>> The W3C DID WG has also communicated that the specification is stable
>> enough
>> to collect implementation experience from the global implementer
>> community.
>> Once the WG collects enough implementation experience, it may then make
>> final
>> adjustments before publishing the v1.0 global standard, which is expected
>> at
>> the end of September 2021.
>>
>> I have attached an image with an (unofficial) graphical depiction of the
>> DID
>> standards history and expected future timeline.
>>
>> Congratulations to everyone that contributed to get us to this point;
>> this is
>> a big deal and cause for celebration. :)
>>
>> -- manu
>>
>> --
>> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>> blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
>> https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches
>>
>>
Received on Monday, 22 March 2021 19:26:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 22 March 2021 19:26:04 UTC