On 09/10/2021 02:26, Drummond Reed wrote:
Agreed. I'd say the ISO mDL approach has issues with #3 and #8 as well.

I would say that ToIP and all DID systems have significant problems with #3. It is akin to saying that cars shall not require reliance on man made roads to get from A to B. Whilst it is a true statement, cars without roads lose 99% of their utility. It is the same with decentralised systems. Without any centralised or distributed systems they are currently unusable.

Drummond knows this and I believe that the wording of principle #3 has evolved from its original text to become the weaselly wording it is today.

Kind regards

David


On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 4:35 PM Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com> wrote:
Seems to me like ISO is in direct conflict with Principles #2 and #12.

On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 7:29 PM Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com> wrote:
The ToIP definition of "design principles" is "a proposition or value that informs, guides, and constrains the design of a product, service, or system". ToIP is almost finished with a set of design principles for the ToIP stack — we should be ready to talk about them at IIW — but in terms of SSI, the work done a year ago on the Principles of SSI are what I had in mind.

On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 4:03 PM Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com> wrote:
What’s the link between SSI and our “design principles? 

On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 6:56 PM Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com> wrote:
I have to agree with Jim here. Whether we like them or not, the ISO mDL specs are a reality we have to deal with. And as I think the presentation of the UL team shows (I wasn't able to attend the CCG edition but they gave the same presentation to the ToIP Ecosystem Foundry Working Group two weeks ago), they are actively seeking to figure out how to co-exist/interoperate with the W3C VC specs.

So +1 to productive engagement that does NOT sacrifice our design principles.

=Drummond 

On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 2:39 PM Jim St.Clair <jim.stclair@lumedic.io> wrote:

“As it stands, ISO collaboration seems like a good way for W3C and IETF to lose our way. “

…or get left behind. It’s up to the community to decide.

 

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: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 3:58 PM
To: Jim St.Clair <jim.stclair@lumedic.io>
Cc: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>; Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>; dzagidulin@gmail.com
Subject: Re: W3C Credentials CG Call Tues: mobile DL deck

 

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 exchangehttps://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