Re: Privacy Review - Decentralized Identifier Specification v1.0

Thank you!

On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 3:24 PM Pete Snyder <psnyder@brave.com> wrote:

> 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
> > >
> >
>
>