Re: W3C Credentials CG Call Tues: mobile DL deck

Agreed. I'd say the ISO mDL approach has issues with #3 and #8 as well.

On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 4:35 PM Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>