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

Re: Publication of VC API as VCWG Draft Note

From: Brent Zundel <Brent.Zundel@gendigital.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2022 23:47:50 +0000
To: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>, Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@gmail.com>
CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <PH7PR13MB5957B9E56FB26A8B6DEEE454EE089@PH7PR13MB5957.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
The chairs are conferring with our staff contact and W3M to determine what the options are for bringing the VC-API into the VCWG according to W3C Process and our charter.
Once those options have been clarified they will be presented, then the working group will decide what to do.

________________________________
From: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2022 4:37:29 PM
To: Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@gmail.com>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>; W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Publication of VC API as VCWG Draft Note

I objected to the VC-API early and often. I thought I was alone.

Adrian

On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 6:19 PM Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@gmail.com<mailto:daniel.hardman@gmail.com>> wrote:
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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fspecs%2Fopenid-connect-4-verifiable-credential-issuance-1_0-05.html&data=05%7C01%7Cbrent.zundel%40gendigital.com%7Cc287c270703c47e2c9e508daca87798a%7C94986b1d466f4fc0ab4b5c725603deab%7C0%7C0%7C638044980877698183%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=UayBm2H3K%2FkzDVJuQOMSoJ9hlvqGGUDpzJxALr0Mm00%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
Received on Saturday, 19 November 2022 23:53:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 19 November 2022 23:53:30 UTC