W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > January 2022

Re: FedId CG at W3C and GNAP

From: Mike Prorock <mprorock@mesur.io>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 07:18:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGJKSNTjULu3mUqZ6vSTYcjrrRPAVPQXXmdqEW1fv-kiN-EF-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
Cc: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us>, Steve Magennis <steve.e.magennis@gmail.com>, Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>, Justin P Richer <jricher@mit.edu>, "W3C Credentials CG (Public List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
Putting chair hat on to clarify a few things.

> The chairs control the agenda
No.  This is a public mailing list.  The chairs typically do set weekly
meeting agendas, based on work items and issues driven by the community,
general community input and requests, etc

 as well as my participation in CCG,
No.  This is an open CG that participants self nominate (or are nominated
by their organization) for

in the sense that I will leave the group if requested.
I am sure at some point, folks have been asked to leave a community group.
In the CCG I could not see this occuring except for violation of the CEPC
or other binding principles/agreements (such as IPR).  The CCG has and
continues to go out of its way to encourage broad public participation.

This is not a helpful attitude to take, not the first time you have taken
it.  Please stop.

> I'm doing the best I can in my role. The chairs control the agenda
> over discussion of the "dual use" aspects of our protocol work.
A chair (myself) suggested splitting threads on GNAP as a technical item
potentially related to CCG work items, from the broader questions around
ethical implications of technology so that things don't get lost in the mix
by have these two topics intertwined.

This was guidance on how to keep the conversation going in a productive
manner since some folks have an interest in one or the other topic, none,
or both.  I SUGGESTED this split because they are two separate topics.
Mixing the two can cause issues.  I noted that there is some opposition to
GNAP *at this time* as many members of the community have voiced a desire
to focus on AuthNZ that is widely deployed *for now* in pre standard work
until GNAP gets further along.  Basically the concern I have is that that
opposition may cause a lack of engagement on the higher level topic.

GNAP, DIDs and VCs will succeed regardless.

I sincerely hope so.

VCs are clearly a thing and are seeing increased adoption, and have gone
through the standards process at W3C, though there is (as always) still
work to be done.

DIDs are going the the FOs right now, and as a member of that working
group, I hope they are adopted, a recharter occurs, and that they will
continue to improve.

GNAP looks cool.  It is also an IETF item, not a W3C one, and individuals
working on that item have commented on its status there (I believe you are
also working on that item).

Chair hat off.
As Orie asked in starting this thread: "Has there yet been discussion on
what some kind of OIDC built on GNAP instead of OAuth would look like?."
And what has been the level of engagement between you and others involved
in GNAP with FedID?

Maybe the answer to those two items got lost in the mix, and the
conversation evolved to one of just the ethics question.  I am not sure at
this point.  This is one of the reasons I suggested we be careful and
separate meta and broader level questions and answers, from those related
to specific tech.
Received on Monday, 10 January 2022 12:19:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:25:28 UTC