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

Re: W3C Credentials CG Call Tues: mobile DL deck

From: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2021 17:56:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CANYRo8jyCfMNvU_J2HmJso8GtFXcRHkwbGk3iTLyWAZwf5SW-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000@gmail.com>
Cc: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@verifiablecredentials.info>, "Jim St.Clair" <jim.stclair@lumedic.io>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
I don’t think I implied any motives. Government has a tense relationship
with self-sovereign anything. They are the ultimate sovereign. That’s not a
motive.

I’m skeptical of government influence on SSI and mDL standards. Is that
wrong of me?

-Adrian

On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 4:00 PM Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000@gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1
> It would help greatly as well if speculation about motives in the absence
> of information could be toned down. There’s no experience quite like
> cooperating with others who openly suspect ulterior motives. If you take my
> meaning.
>
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 12:43 PM Jim St.Clair <jim.stclair@lumedic.io>
> wrote:
>
>> “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>
>> 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
>>
>> *_______________*
>>
>>
>>
>> *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,,
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/5043+Del+Monte+Ave,,+Victoria,+BC+V8Y+1W9?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>  Victoria, BC V8Y 1W9
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/5043+Del+Monte+Ave,,+Victoria,+BC+V8Y+1W9?entry=gmail&source=g>
>> AndrewHughes3000@gmail.com
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/5043+Del+Monte+Ave,,+%C2%A0+Victoria,+BC+V8Y+1W9?entry=gmail&source=g>
>> 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
> <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
>
Received on Saturday, 9 October 2021 21:57:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 21:57:23 UTC