Re: Privacy Review - Decentralized Identifier Specification v1.0

Hi Brent,

Apologies for the lack of feedback, this is a good nudge that we should have a better way of communicating “no blocking issues” to groups after doing reviews (most of our process assumes that some issues were found, and how to work with the group on resolving them). I’ll make a note to bring this up in our next PING / chairs call.

After discussing the review on the most recent PING call, our feeling is that there are no blocking privacy concerns in the spec. However, several PING members were concerned with how future specs will build on the DID work, and the potential privacy implications there.

We think the best approach here is to discuss these concerns, ongoing, as future specs build on the DID work, and so will discuss then. We're also available to work with your group on the upcoming specs before transition if it'd be helpful.

Thanks again and please let me know if we can help further.

Pete

> On Feb 19, 2021, at 3:07 PM, Brent Zundel <brent.zundel@evernym.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello PING,
> 
> I noticed that the DID Specification was on the PING agenda for discussion of the review a couple of weeks ago, but we haven't seen any issues raised or otherwise gotten any feedback. 
> I read through the meeting minutes and it didn't seem as though any issues were going to be raised as a result of the discussion, but we also haven't gotten word from PING that the review is complete.
> 
> We have scheduled our vote for transition to CR on March 9, and would like to have closure on PING's horizontal review of the Decentralized Identifier Specification v1.0 is complete so that we can proceed. And if there are issues PING would like to raise against the specification, we would like time to address them.
> 
> thank you,
> Brent Zundel, Co-chair DID WG
> 
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 6:26 PM Brent Zundel <brent.zundel@evernym.com> wrote:
> Great, thanks! 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021, 18:23 Pete Snyder <psnyder@brave.com> wrote:
> Hi Brent,
> 
> Yes, we have a reviewer looking at the spec now, and will be sharing their findings at the next PING meeting (Jan 21).  They’ll either file any issues that come up before hand or immediately after (deepening on the reviewers findings, confidence and PING discussion).
> 
> Hope that helps!
> Pete
> 
> > On Jan 6, 2021, at 9:39 AM, Brent Zundel <brent.zundel@evernym.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Just following up on this. Do you know if a reviewer has been assigned?
> > 
> > We are hoping to transition to CR in early February and would like as much time as possible to get PING feedback incorporated into our spec.
> > 
> > Grateful for your work and for PING's efforts to support privacy on the web, and looking forward to seeing feedback.
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > 
> > Brent
> > 
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 08:38 Christine Runnegar <runnegar@isoc.org> wrote:
> > Thank you Brent.
> > 
> > We have a PING call today, so I have added this request to the agenda.
> > 
> > Thank you also for the offer to join a DID WG weekly teleconference. We will keep this in mind.
> > 
> > Christine
> > 
> > > On Dec 16, 2020, at 11:29 AM, Brent Zundel <brent.zundel@evernym.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Greetings PING,
> > > 
> > > The DID WG is requesting horizontal review of the Decentralized Identifier Specification v1.0
> > > 
> > > We have also completed the Security and Privacy Questionnaire
> > > 
> > > We look forward to receiving feedback from you and invite you to open issues in our Github repository for that feedback.
> > > 
> > > We also welcome PING members to join one of the DID WG weekly teleconferences. Please contact the DID WG chairs if you would like to arrange this.
> > > 
> > > Thank you,
> > > 
> > > Brent Zundel, co-Chair DID WG
> > 
>

Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2021 22:24:59 UTC