Re: [EXT] Re: LS from GSMA EIG to W3C

On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 6:35 PM Paul Bastian <paul.bastian@posteo.de> wrote:

> To give some perspective, you should follow this thread [1] at the eIDAS
> ARF. It seems GSMA suddenly woke up and realized they need to be part of
> it. I've given them seven reasons why BBS+ is currently not favored for the
> PID, but they seem not to understand.
>
Hmm, my read on that thread is a bit different. There are a number of
legitimate criticisms of SD-JWT as applied to the PID and a call for better
technical solutions. I note that there are individuals from the IETF CFRG,
not just GSMA (who have deep expertise in cryptography), that are
criticising SD-JWT and calling for BBS+-based solutions.


> So I assume they are privacy advocates at any cost or they might have a
> hidden agenda.
>
Presume good faith; getting an official liaison statement out of GSMA is
not a trivial thing to do -- it almost certainly went through multiple
approval processes so we can't just cast the request aside based on a
presumption of a "hidden agenda". One could say that SD-JWT or ecdsa-sd's
"hidden agenda" is tracking people using signature fingerprints -- which is
not conducive to a productive discussion.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
https://www.digitalbazaar.com/