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

RE: Publication of VC API as VCWG Draft Note

From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2022 04:06:07 +0000
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <SA1PR00MB13101BB48BDDC0E60AA704AEF50B9@SA1PR00MB1310.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
I believe Tobias hit the nail on the head when he said:
“I just believe it should follow the process of the SDO it's trying to be legitimized under and trying to shoehorn it in as a note to a WG who's charter expressly rules out of scope "API definitions" is not the appropriate path.”

If you want a standard, charter (or recharter) a working group to create it.  That’s the right way to do things.  That’s not a comment on the quality of the work.  It’s a comment on following the right process.

                                                       -- Mike

P.S.  Despite Manu saying “the detractors (all of whom are not implementers of the specification)”, Tobias self-identified as an implementer and he’s a detractor to the proposed publication as a VCWG note.

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2022 7:24 PM
To: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Publication of VC API as VCWG Draft Note

On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 6:11 PM Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@gmail.com<mailto:daniel.hardman@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Publishing such a note is thus a political move by its proponents.

We are documenting what is happening in the marketplace. We currently have 17 implementations of the VC API specification, at varying levels of interoperability, per the last JFF plugfest.

That is many more implementations that many W3C Recommendations and IETF RFCs achieve as official global standards.

This is the current reality and it is best if we document what's going on here, especially because we contemplated just that in the chartering of the VCWG:

[cid:image001.png@01D8FC51.A32856B0]

Variations of the VC API have existed since early 2020 and the VC API Work Item group at CCG has existed for well over a year with weekly scribed meetings and regular participants that are also implementing:

https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/ (search for "vcapi")

> 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.

The market mistaking the document as a normative W3C specification seems unlikely given this thread. Even if the proponents don't highlight that this is currently a non-normative document, I expect the detractors (all of whom are not implementers of the specification) will ensure that no one mistakes the document for an "official W3C Recommendation". I can't imagine customers looking kindly on any vendor that misrepresents the state of the open standards that they conform to and their current status in the standardization pipeline.

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/

Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021)
https://www.digitalbazaar.com/


image001.png
(image/png attachment: image001.png)

Received on Sunday, 20 November 2022 04:06:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 20 November 2022 04:06:27 UTC