- From: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
- Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2021 17:56:57 -0400
- 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>
- Message-ID: <CANYRo8jyCfMNvU_J2HmJso8GtFXcRHkwbGk3iTLyWAZwf5SW-w@mail.gmail.com>
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