- From: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 19:02:51 -0400
- To: drummond.reed@evernym.com
- Cc: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, "Jim St.Clair" <jim.stclair@lumedic.io>, "dzagidulin@gmail.com" <dzagidulin@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <CANYRo8gvOWM7vKkg=AY77nX599Rx5d8hnUaMK7K6AfWk9O2ewg@mail.gmail.com>
What’s the link between SSI and our “design principles? On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 6:56 PM Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com> wrote: > I have to agree with Jim here. Whether we like them or not, the ISO mDL > specs are a reality we have to deal with. And as I think the presentation > of the UL team shows (I wasn't able to attend the CCG edition but they gave > the same presentation to the ToIP Ecosystem Foundry Working Group two weeks > ago), they are actively seeking to figure out how to co-exist/interoperate > with the W3C VC specs. > > So +1 to productive engagement that does NOT sacrifice our design > principles. > > =Drummond > > On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 2:39 PM Jim St.Clair <jim.stclair@lumedic.io> > wrote: > >> “As it stands, ISO collaboration seems like a good way for W3C and IETF >> to lose our way. “ >> >> …or get left behind. It’s up to the community to decide. >> >> >> >> 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:* Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com> >> *Sent:* Friday, October 8, 2021 3:58 PM >> *To:* Jim St.Clair <jim.stclair@lumedic.io> >> *Cc:* Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>; Credentials >> Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>; dzagidulin@gmail.com >> *Subject:* Re: W3C Credentials CG Call Tues: mobile DL deck >> >> >> >> Pay-for standards should have no role in SSI because they are >> inaccessible to community-supported F/OSS. >> >> >> >> IEEE has tried to split this baby with their privacy-inflected 7000 >> series. It’s a potential solution for ISO. As it stands, ISO collaboration >> seems like a good way for W3C and IETF to lose our way. >> >> >> >> - Adrian >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 3:11 PM Jim St.Clair <jim.stclair@lumedic.io> >> wrote: >> >> “+100 >> Pay-for-standards was a great idea..twenty years ago.” >> >> …yeah, except we’re sitting here realizing our standard is being >> displaced by this new standard using the 20 year old model, so…. >> >> >> >> 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:* Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Friday, October 8, 2021 1:00:12 PM >> *To:* dzagidulin@gmail.com <dzagidulin@gmail.com>; Credentials Community >> Group <public-credentials@w3.org> >> *Subject:* Re: W3C Credentials CG Call Tues: mobile DL deck >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> On 2021-10-08 19:46, Dmitri Zagidulin wrote: >> > David Chadwick wrote: >> > >> > > At the same time I advised the W3C VC WG about mDL and suggested >> that we could utilise their well developed protocols as we had none. But >> again that request fell on deaf ears. >> > >> > I suspect part of the issue here is just culture clash. All of us (most >> of us?) want as much wide interop as possible, and to respect prior art. >> However, for any given W3C WG member, the idea of paying $200 or whatever >> it is to just LOOK at the ISO spec... that's a hard sell. >> >> +100 >> Pay-for-standards was a great idea..twenty years ago. >> >> Anders >> >> > Dmitri >> >> >>
Attachments
- image/png attachment: image001.png
Received on Friday, 8 October 2021 23:03:15 UTC