W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webid@w3.org > October 2017

Expressions of Interest (was: Re: DID Spec "Hardening" Proposal (was: Re: DID PR review deadline: October 24))

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:25:30 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok0W-cYPz0CM31T2=NFAJEjVeDVg9oo5wVDM=zMOBPA-cA@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>, public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "=Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@evernym.com>, Christian Lundkvist <christian.lundkvist@consensys.net>
Hi All,


I'm very nervous about presenting this to the list... Seems like an
enormous step, of which there is alot that can be done to improve it...
With that in-mind;

I've been working on the creation of an ISOC - special interest group -
chapter (which is in-effect a global chapter, that is able to work with /
engage local regional chapters world wide, alongside other stakeholders).

I acknowledge the brilliance of those involved with RWOT and IIW in
particular; whilst also believing, this is a more scalable (and inclusive)
pathway; as i'm also very concerned about how these works are done
(appropriately),

I've produced this document (one of many) that makes an attempt to describe
'why'; to some degree:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qq3sqfse6ib5z1c/20171022_fix_fake_news_draft_v5.pptx?dl=0
password: onlyhuman - my attempt seeks to get to the heart of the issues
re: liberty & freedom of expression, and how to address it. I have no
interest whatsoever in false claims. the vortex between the 'sound byte'
and reality, should not be harmful; nor, by law, is it generally, intended
to be.

Whilst it may need some explaining; the underlying consideration is that to
change the way the internet (and WWW) works today (inclusive of human
identity) we're going to need to do more than what W3C was designed to do.
In-turn, the hope is, that this scope of works by this proposed SIG (global
chapter) will assist in informing the 'work in progress' (WIP) within W3C
and other groups (states, multinationals and otherwise), as to 'get it
right'; in what i call, a 'human centric' manner (whilst others term it
'self sovereign'). This in-turn educates users on the works undertaken for
many years around what was called 'semantic web' and in-turn makes utility
of the 'priority dates' inclusive to that work, without confusion (&
unnecessary cost). Whilst TimBL has been working on RWW or what is now
commonly denoted as 'SoLiD' - these works have been on-going for a
long-period of time to develop what many would consider 'the impossible'.
We're here to deliver that, imho.

As tribute to him, and others, if nothing else; imho. defining solutions
for human identity on the infosphere has been left astray, and we need to
fix that for them, and for everyone.

My intention is to centre these global works out of Australia.
Respectfully, the reason for this is the common narrative that to do
anything that defines humanity - must be done in the USA - and the lack of
sustainability that narrative has in the real world; is diminishing to its
purpose, Whilst i will never define a meeting time that is solely directed
to your participation at 2am in the morning, the broader inclusive nature
pertaining to the spirit of this undertaking; as i've attempted to address
in the presentation, is in welcoming discussion as to progress towards
'setting it up'.

I'm aware, for instance; that 'respect network' historically; had at least
some of its funding via Australia, which reinforces the benefits of taking
this inclusive approach. We're all global citizens and none should be
expected to work at 2am as to be included in socio-economic considerations
for life; and/or the future of it, for others.

The scope of the presentation has been prepared upon the basis of
addressing 'fake news' which has some heritage, i will leave to be implicit
in nature. I foresee issues; such as, how to produce means that 'domain
names' may be registered like property (say for 100 years), version control
issues, and an array of other issues that are not simply the means of W3C
to resolve.
I also believe, different regions will take-on these sorts of
considerations differently; as such, ISOC is best-equipped to deal with
these sorts of differences, whilst ensuring we do no't overly fragment our
web (or its underlying infrastructure) as to provide human dignity
(/socio-economic participation) for all involved.

At present; i'm simply seeking expressions of interest by( those willing to
become) ISOC members. To learn more about internet society see:
https://www.internetsociety.org/ &
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_governance

It is my strong opinion, that human identity online - should be 'owned' by
the human entity it seeks to describe, whilst maintaining accountability
facets as to denote the differences between 'good actors' and the bad ones,
amongst the many attributes that pertain to life overall. These works have
been designed to improve the forum in which we inclusively have that
discussion, with dignity, as to ensure we grow the community having it;
suitably and appropriately.

Issues that may be covered within this group will extend to broader issues
such as 'identity graffiti' and the manner in which Augmented Reality
related technologies impact persons, amongst the many broader issues.
Obviously the manner in which we define 'things' to be 'verifiable claims'
is at the heart of all issues; trust,

& the foundations for both establishing and maintaining it.  Sometimes we
get it wrong to begin with, yet its' always about the 'observer' overall, i
think... ( not sure. perhaps it's about the money?)

Cheers.

Timothy Holborn
+61 4 13837492





On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 at 18:51 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

> looks good.
>
> I've been working on 'upping the ante' and believe it is important you (we
> all) are involved.  IMHO we have alot of stakeholders and we'll need to
> ensure we're equipped, as to be inclusive in these decision making
> processes.
>
> Q:  does a bridge mechanism exist for DIDs to URIs?  i see "
> https://hub.example.com/.identity/did:example:0123456789abcdef/" which
> suggests it does...
>
> note also (fyi): https://github.com/matrix-org/sydent
>
> *"If you want your server to participate in the global replicated Matrix
> ID service then please get in touch with us. Meanwhile, we are looking at
> ways of decentralising the ‘official’ Matrix identity service so that
> identity servers are 100% decentralised and can openly federate with each
> other. N.B. that you can use Matrix without ever using the identity service
> - it exists only to map 3rd party IDs (e.g. email addresses) to matrix IDs
> to aid user discovery." *  Source: https://matrix.org/docs/guides/faq.html
> which in-turn suggests, it might be a good POC target....
>
> FWIW; i'd like to see the broader 'internet stack' get involved in these
> sorts of 'problem solving' exercises.  I have been working on a plan around
> how to produce a suitable environment to do so, respectfully to all
> involved (whilst both unfortunately, and with difficulty - sometimes not
> expressed in the best possible way).  IMHO: we cannot value economic
> success upon our ability to provide others means of humanity.
>
> We're best placed, by economically benefiting through the virtue of having
> done so freely (or moreover, at our own expense).  Overall, i think this
> stuff changes the topology and i'm very wary about how we do that, even
> within this very small community (who seeks to influence the life of
> billions of people; and the environment for which they / we - collectively
> influence as a species).  IMHO stepping stones are reasonable assertions as
> milestones to a defined pathway; yet, i'm not sure we've done that.  If we
> have, please send me a URI...
>
> Will put my 'did' at ease ;)
>
> with best wishes.
>
> Tim.H.
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 at 18:01 =Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@evernym.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> The good news was that there was a TON of interest in the DID spec at Internet
>> Identity Workshop <http://www.internetidentityworkshop.com/> #25. I gave
>> three complete presentations on it and we had several other related
>> sessions.
>>
>> The bad news (well, not really) is that there was a ton of feedback.
>> People are really starting to care deeply about making sure the DID spec,
>> as the foundation for a global DPKI (decentralized public key
>> infrastructure
>> <https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rebooting-the-web-of-trust/blob/master/final-documents/dpki.pdf>),
>> is solid as a rock.
>>
>> On the Friday after IIW I had a long breakfast with Christian Lundkvist
>> of uPort where we discussed this and developed a proposal for how to handle *key
>> descriptions* and *service descriptions* in a data graph so simple it
>> can be serialized unambiguously in any modern format. Yesterday I wrote up this
>> proposal in this Google doc
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1amDNmBqu8uXKeEqdoZ2RMaaxiUlqUKyKoyi8YgGWG6M/edit?usp=sharing>
>> (publicly viewable by anyone with the link).
>>
>> This proposal also includes the recommendation that interoperability at
>> the DID layer is so crucial that *every key description* and *every
>> service description* should have a corresponding spec (even if fairly
>> lightweight).
>>
>> I have not had a chance to share this with Manu or anyone else yet
>> besides Christian (to make sure I got it right) and the Evernym DID team
>> (as a sanity check and to get input on how it helps with DKMS support).
>>
>> We can of course translate this into an actual PR against the current
>> draft spec—and we will do that when ready—but it seemed easiest to share it
>> in this format first for discussion.
>>
>> Talk to you tomorrow,
>>
>> =Drummond
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Timothy Holborn <
>> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Found a relevent IETF RFC[4] re: trust anchors[2]
>>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 at 18:09 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> very quickly.  was looking at the overview[1] and saw the concept "root
>>>> of trust <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_anchor>" which
>>>> hyperlinks to Trust Anchor[2].  I suggest either defining a new wikipedia
>>>> page for the term[3] rather than simply a redirect, or change the term used
>>>> in the spec doc.
>>>>
>>>> more l8r.
>>>>
>>>> Tim.H.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-spec/#overview
>>>> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_anchor
>>>> [3]
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Root_of_Trust&action=history
>>>>
>>>>
>>> [4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5914
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 at 17:49 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 at 08:20 Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/18/2017 01:50 PM, Kim Hamilton Duffy wrote:
>>>>>> > Manu -- what are your thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steven, at this point the only feedback we're looking for is only
>>>>>> technical in nature and even then, based on whether the text reflects
>>>>>> consensus at Rebooting the Web of Trust 5, which you weren't at.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this a RWOT spec?
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, it should be marked as such.   This CG can then make one
>>>>> inspired by it, if/as required.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therein, the spec should be moved to the RWOT repo?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, the spec isn't ready for your kind of valuable
>>>>>> feedback
>>>>>> yet... it would largely be a waste of your time to correct the large
>>>>>> swaths of the spec text that may be confusing for non-implementers
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> are buried in the details right now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I expect that we may need your review help in a few months time from
>>>>>> now. As always, thanks for offering and we will certainly take you up
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> it once it becomes a good use of your time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll review and have a look; and am not sure of the specifics, whilst
>>>>> noting important principles herein.
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO: it's important to be inclusive and the W3 IPR framework is not
>>>>> unintentionally misaligned in some way that is against the spirit of this
>>>>> structure.
>>>>>
>>>>> I  guess.  try not to oversimplify imho.  might end-up with unintended
>>>>> consequences. (technically speaking).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -- manu
>>>>>>
>>>>>> best wishes,
>>>>>
>>>>> tim.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
>>>>>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>>>>> blog: Rebalancing How the Web is Built
>>>>>> http://manu.sporny.org/2016/rebalancing/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Received on Tuesday, 24 October 2017 09:26:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:06:03 UTC