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

Re: W3C Credentials CG Call Tues: mobile DL deck

From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2021 01:06:54 +0000
To: "dzagidulin@gmail.com" <dzagidulin@gmail.com>, Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000@gmail.com>
CC: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <MN2PR02MB699210DFEFCFA2265520EAF1CDB49@MN2PR02MB6992.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
> I think the IETF, W3C or DIF models are preferable, in terms of accessibility and adoption. You pay for membership, but not for access to the spec.
>
Correct.  So only those people who can pay for membership are able to participate in the development of the standard.  How is restricting the participants in the development of the standard “open”?  Seems much more restrictive than ISO’s open participation model…

ISO also has a much more extensible liaison model than other organizations to enable members of organizations like the W3C, etc. to participate on equal footing with “native” members…

Leonard

From: Dmitri Zagidulin <dzagidulin@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 1:07 PM
To: Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000@gmail.com>
Cc: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Subject: Re: W3C Credentials CG Call Tues: mobile DL deck
I think the IETF, W3C or DIF models are preferable, in terms of accessibility and adoption. 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

_______________

Error! Filename not specified.

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<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalendly.com%2Fjim-stclair-1&data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Ca55357c0a6634f32330d08d98b47372d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637693960299611222%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=4k8BA1pnNWAbiMHzqUeCsb8n%2FspYIGItr2yAETeb0uY%3D&reserved=0>

________________________________
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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fmaps%2Fsearch%2F5043%2BDel%2BMonte%2BAve%2C%2C%25C2%25A0Victoria%2C%2BBC%2BV8Y%2B1W9%3Fentry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg&data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Ca55357c0a6634f32330d08d98b47372d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637693960299621190%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=rK8gTJfDlaNj4R6tQXkP2OwX5b93JlgZ89g1Z9n%2FyvE%3D&reserved=0>
AndrewHughes3000@gmail.com<mailto:AndrewHughes3000@gmail.com>
https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-hughes-682058a<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fandrew-hughes-682058a&data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Ca55357c0a6634f32330d08d98b47372d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637693960299621190%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=l1JliEiJSN0MUo4gfgBDmpylVFIOKpqTZFbSdSGWnU0%3D&reserved=0>
Digital Identity | International Standards | Information Security
Received on Sunday, 10 October 2021 01:07:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 01:07:16 UTC