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
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.
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 <email@example.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.
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 3:11 PM Jim St.Clair <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
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….
From: Anders Rundgren <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 1:00:12 PM
To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>; Credentials Community Group <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: W3C Credentials CG Call Tues: mobile DL deckCAUTION: 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.
Pay-for-standards was a great idea..twenty years ago.