Re: VC HTTP API specification structure

We seem to be talking past each other. I am making an outcome argument and
the group is making a process argument.

One solution could be as simple as working on a use-cases document
before we revisit the document structure discussion.

However, ignoring delegation and authorization at this stage will cause
irreparable harm to innovation in self-sovereign technologies.

Adrian


On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 4:52 PM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> On 5/2/21 4:19 PM, Adrian Gropper wrote:
> > This thread is primarily to
> > support my suggestion that we work on three separate documents.
>
> We polled the three separate documents proposal again during the last call
> and
> it had a large number of "-1"s. It is extremely unlikely that the group
> will
> agree to that course of action. I expect any proposal to be put forward
> suggesting that course of action to fail:
>
> https://meet.w3c-ccg.org/archives/w3c-ccg-vchttpapi-2021-04-29-irc.log
>
> [2021-04-29T19:56:16.930Z]      <manu>  POLL: Create 3 VC HTTP API ReSpec
> specifications (e.g., Issuing, Verification, Presentation) in addition to
> the
> existing OAS file.
> [2021-04-29T19:56:21.593Z]      <Orie>  -1
> [2021-04-29T19:56:25.542Z]      <Juan_Caballero>        -1
> [2021-04-29T19:56:26.015Z]      <manu>  -1
> [2021-04-29T19:56:32.159Z]      <TallTed>       -0.9
> [2021-04-29T19:56:33.494Z]      <jtwalker2000>  -1
> [2021-04-29T19:56:36.679Z]      <dlongley>      -1
> [2021-04-29T19:56:39.718Z]      <dmitriz>       -1
> [2021-04-29T19:56:45.906Z]      <markus_sabadello>      -1
> [2021-04-29T19:56:46.917Z]      <mprorock>      -1
> [2021-04-29T19:56:54.938Z]      <Mahmoud_Alkhraishi>    -1
> [2021-04-29T19:56:59.305Z]      <Phil.L>        -1
> [2021-04-29T19:57:01.266Z]      <DavidC>        +1
> [2021-04-29T19:57:08.508Z]      <HeatherVescent>        -1
>
> > I tried to say in our initial call, it will be easier to do a privacy
> > analysis if we deal with Issuer, Verifier, and Holder APIs separately,
> > with or without authorization.
>
> While I agree that doing "privacy analysis" on separate, smaller documents
> is
> easier (as a general rule), it is not the case that it's impossible (or
> difficult) to do so on larger documents.
>
> It's also fairly simple to split large documents once it becomes clear that
> the document size has become a problem.
>
> I'll note that we don't have finalized use cases, finalized scope, or a
> specification upon which to base privacy discussions yet.
>
> Can you propose a concrete proposal on specification structure that is
> likely
> to gain more consensus than the one we put forward two calls ago (with you
> as
> the only detractor)?
>
> Again, the proposal with the most support so far is this one:
>
> PROPOSAL: Create 1 ReSpec specification in addition to separating the
> existing
> OAS files into modular components.
>
> -- 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
>
>