Re: Publication of VC API as VCWG Draft Note

Manu,

It seems that you have contributed ~90% of the edits for VC-API over the past 18 months, and so I think it's fairer to characterize it as your/Digital Bazaar's specification, instead of attempting to publish this note under the auspices of the community/entire WG.

OpenID4VC work has multiple active contributors from different organizations large and small, concerns addressed across a variety of use cases, and strong guarantees around IP protection and openness.

Yet we have been still seriously considering your proposal regarding VC-API.

So I strongly recommend that before you start casting doubt upon intents of other companies and organizations, that you exercise the same degree of constructive criticism upon your own championed solutions.

Best,
Kristina


[Image.png]
________________________________
From: Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2022 3:11:46 PM
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Publication of VC API as VCWG Draft Note

I'll also note, and this is probably completely unrelated :P, that
both Microsoft and MATTR are working on APIs related to Verifiable
Credential issuance and presentation in the OpenID Foundation and that
might be factoring into these objections:

https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-4-verifiable-credential-issuance-1_0-05.html<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fspecs%2Fopenid-connect-4-verifiable-credential-issuance-1_0-05.html&data=05%7C01%7Ckristina.yasuda%40microsoft.com%7Cc9ec4454275744d8b44608daca83df32%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638044965009028752%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=36p1Ch3qES0i%2FfXWpHviRsvd3mhPIddZ7Tt3fvbUvmI%3D&reserved=0>

Nah, that couldn't be it. :P

For the record, I object as well, and I am NOT working on APIs related to VC issuance. However, my objections to this API work were raised a couple years ago, two employers aago, so they're not news, and I don't expect them to make any difference now. I'm just bringing them up so that the record doesn't show objections only from MATTR and Microsoft.

The fact is that, although such a document is non-normative, it gets bundled with normative items in the minds of many, and the normative distinction is unlikely to be emphasized by VC-API proponents in their narratives. Publishing such a note is thus a political move by its proponents. The fact that opponents react politically is not surprising and doesn't mean their motives are any less noble than its proponents. Proponents are working on APIs related to VC issuance -- these -- and very much want their APIs to be painted with an official W3C brush.

--Daniel