Re: Facing Architectural Challenges in VC 2.0

On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 6:59 AM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

>  it comes across more as a "let's throw
> the baby out with the bathwater and start from scratch" than an
> attempt at a productive thread.
>

On the contrary, I'd love to see the VCs for JSON-LD community move
forward, in particular as I'd like to see more focus of a variety of issues
at the VP levels, more designs that leverage selective disclosure (in
particular mandating at minimum the use of the emerging Merkle Disclosure
LD proof), and focus deeper into requirements of the use of key material
and security of code.

It is what feels like a 5-year quixotic attempt to unify with JWT that I'd
like to move past, especially as even that isn't good enough, as advantages
of going beyond JWT integration to leverage modern cryptography, support
other kinds of structured data models and herd privacy, opportunities of
CBOR-based structures, etc. meet other needs. Maybe a VC 3.0 can solve them
all, but it doesn't feel like VC 2.0 has time.

I'm dreading having to go through each item in the "Facing
> Architectural Challenges in VC 2.0" point by point to demonstrate why
> some, but not all, of the points are a bit misguided. That's not to
> say there are some good points in there, but it's really frustrating
> to have solutions proposed that might address one concern, but fail to
> address the other concerns that VC 1.0, VC 1.1, and VC 2.0
> (presumably) do.
>

I really hope you'll articulate responses to my architectural points — but
I REALLY don't necessarily feel that you have to address them in VC 2.0.
However, the quest to achieve "one data model for all" in the limited time
VC 2.0 has feels misguided.

-- Christopher Allen