- From: Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2021 12:17:09 -0700
- To: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
- Cc: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@verifiablecredentials.info>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGJp9UZCib4akzRjT+vn-bBdBWAFKp3hPnYxa7Qh9=Rdztx4oQ@mail.gmail.com>
“They” is “us” On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 12:07 PM Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com> wrote: > That ISO is funded by gov entities makes the use of pay-for standards even > worse. It really make as little sense as putting laws behind a paywall. > > I'm not saying we should write ISO off. I am saying that, like IEEE, they > can be asked to open the standards that they want to be supportive of > modern privacy and security practices. In other words, if they really did > want to harmonize with VCs and DIDs they would open up the relevant > standards. > > - Adrian > > On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 3:01 PM David Chadwick < > d.w.chadwick@verifiablecredentials.info> wrote: > >> On 09/10/2021 18:05, Dmitri Zagidulin wrote: >> >> I think the IETF, W3C or DIF models are preferable, in terms of >> accessibility and adoption. >> >> I also agree that the IETF and W3C are preferable in terms of adoption, >> primarily because they require two interworking systems to exist before the >> standard can be published. This acts as a natural brake on gold plating, >> which many ISO standards have suffered from. >> >> But ISO standards can also become ubiquitous e.g. X.509, without which >> the secure web would not exist. So we cannot write ISO off. >> >> Kind regards >> >> David >> >> You pay for membership, but not for access to the spec. How is it >> possible to call something an open standard, when it’s behind a significant >> paywall? >> >> (That said, Andrew — I am intensely grateful that both you and David >> Chadwick are participating in the mDL WG, so it is in no way a criticism of >> the work. I am merely bewildered at the ISO approach.) >> >> On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 11:53 PM Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I’m curious. For the not “pay-for-standards” - where does the money come >>> from? >>> Because someone is paying for the collaborative work spaces… >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 2:01 PM Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> *_______________* >>>>> >>>>> [image: Image] >>>>> >>>>> *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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>> Andrew Hughes CISM CISSP >>> In Turn Information Management Consulting >>> o +1 650.209.7542 m +1 250.888.9474 >>> 5043 Del Monte Ave,, Victoria, BC V8Y 1W9 >>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/5043+Del+Monte+Ave,,%C2%A0Victoria,+BC+V8Y+1W9?entry=gmail&source=g> >>> AndrewHughes3000@gmail.com >>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-hughes-682058a >>> Digital Identity | International Standards | Information Security >>> >> >> -- Andrew Hughes CISM CISSP In Turn Information Management Consulting o +1 650.209.7542 m +1 250.888.9474 5043 Del Monte Ave,, Victoria, BC V8Y 1W9 AndrewHughes3000@gmail.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-hughes-682058a Digital Identity | International Standards | Information Security
Received on Saturday, 9 October 2021 19:17:35 UTC