Re: W3C Credentials CG Call Tues: mobile DL deck

Seems to me like ISO is in direct conflict with Principles #2 and #12.

On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 7:29 PM Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com>
wrote:

> The ToIP definition of "design principles" is "a proposition or value that
> informs, guides, and constrains the design of a product, service, or
> system". ToIP is almost finished with a set of design principles for
> the ToIP stack — we should be ready to talk about them at IIW — but in
> terms of SSI, the work done a year ago on the Principles of SSI
> <https://trustoverip.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/ToIP-Principles-of-SSI.pdf>
> are what I had in mind.
>
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 4:03 PM Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>