Re: Publication of VC API as VCWG Draft Note

+1 Brent
CCG is likewise awaiting this staff feedback

Mike Prorock
mesur.io

On Sat, Nov 19, 2022, 16:56 Brent Zundel <Brent.Zundel@gendigital.com>
wrote:

> 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>
> 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
>
>
>