RE: W3C Credentials CG Call Tues: mobile DL deck

“In other words, if they really did want to harmonize with VCs and DIDs they would open up the relevant standards.”
>> Just to recall the conversation started (oh so many emails ago) b/c of recognition that ISO 18013 was poised on the precipice of mass adoption with no consideration of DIDs/VCs.
I had hoped this discussion would emphasize the importance of “us” working to harmonized with “them”, Not expecting “them” to have any intrinsic motivation to harmonize with “us”.
As I’ve also mentioned, there is a W3C liaison C status with ISO – I can assure you “they” simply expect you to use that for any need for harmonization, not “us” sitting by the phone waiting for “them” to call.

Best regards,
Jim

From: Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 9, 2021 2:17 PM
To: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
Cc: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@verifiablecredentials.info>; W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Subject: Re: W3C Credentials CG Call Tues: mobile DL deck

“They” is “us”

On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 12:07 PM Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jim.stclair@lumedic.io> | 228-273-4893<tel: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<mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 1:00:12 PM
To: dzagidulin@gmail.com<mailto:dzagidulin@gmail.com> <dzagidulin@gmail.com<mailto:dzagidulin@gmail.com>>; Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:AndrewHughes3000@gmail.com>
https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-hughes-682058a

Digital Identity | International Standards | Information Security