W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > October 2021

Re: W3C Credentials CG Call Tues: mobile DL deck

From: Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2021 12:17:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGJp9UZCib4akzRjT+vn-bBdBWAFKp3hPnYxa7Qh9=Rdztx4oQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
Cc: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@verifiablecredentials.info>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
“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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 19:17:36 UTC