Re: Support for Verifiable Claims

(There are smaller W3C members like us who are unconvinced a VCWG makes
sense for the same reasons expressed by Mike, Chris, and Tantek, but
haven't said much on the AC list as we don't have anything particularly
novel to add.)

On Wednesday, November 2, 2016, David Wood <david.wood@ephox.com> wrote:

>
> Hi Michael (and Tantek and Chris),
>
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 5:50 AM, Michael Champion <
> Michael.Champion@microsoft.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Michael.Champion@microsoft.com');>> wrote:
>>
>> > We need to the Task Force/Community Group to drive a broad,
>>
>> >  fully formed market solution and recruit implementors to prove and/or
>>
>> >  evolve to meet the reality of the marketplace.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is probably the crux of the disagreement on this thread:  Should
>> W3C  start by building standards and recruit implementers to make it a
>> marketplace reality, or should W3C provide a venue where implementers and
>> other players in real markets collaborate to iron out their differences to
>> improve interoperability, accessibility, security, etc.?  I submit (and I
>> think Chris and Tantek agree) that the former approach might have been
>> successful in the early days of W3C, but there are few successful examples
>> of a standards-first approach in recent years.  That’s why we push for
>> incubation-first - -build communities, get rough consensus and running code
>> first, then standardize what is successful.
>>
>>
>>
>> If there is rough consensus and running code around the proposed
>> verifiable claims data model already, then I for one just need a clearer
>> and more succinct guide to it than what the WG proposal offers.
>>
>
>
> The issue of whether the W3C should lead or follow is certainly a core
> disagreement between both the Team and the membership. The impact is felt
> whenever a WG is proposed. We cannot pretend that is resolved, nor do we
> have any reason to think that it will be resolved.
>
> There is another, parallel, concern which was quite evident at TPAC: How
> much relative power should the larger members have over the choice of WGs?
> Chris may say that he only has one vote, but clearly his vote counts for
> more. I find it difficult to believe that a WG will be created over the
> voiced objections of Mozilla, Google, and Microsoft.
>
> However, has not Manu created the consensus necessary to stand up a WG?
> Your organisations may not choose to implement a Recommendation coming from
> that WG, but should you stand in the way of other Members choosing to
> pursue it?
>
>
>
>  *From:* Stone, Matt [mailto:matt.stone@pearson.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','matt.stone@pearson.com');>]
>>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 1, 2016 5:46 PM
>> *To:* Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwilso@google.com');>>
>> *Cc:* Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','msporny@digitalbazaar.com');>>; Tantek
>> Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tantek@cs.stanford.edu');>>; Michael
>> Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Michael.Champion@microsoft.com');>>; Mark
>> Nottingham <mnotting@akamai.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mnotting@akamai.com');>>;
>> w3c-ac-forum@w3.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','w3c-ac-forum@w3.org');>;
>> public-webpayments-comments@w3.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','public-webpayments-comments@w3.org');>;
>> Richard Varn <rvarn@ets.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rvarn@ets.org');>>; Drummond Reed <
>> drummond@respectnetwork.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','drummond@respectnetwork.com');>>; Nathan
>> George <nathan.george@evernym.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nathan.george@evernym.com');>>; Kerri
>> Lemoie <kerri@openworksgrp.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kerri@openworksgrp.com');>>; Nate Otto <
>> nate@badgealliance.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nate@badgealliance.org');>>; David
>> Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk');>>; Eric Korb <
>> Eric.Korb@accreditrust.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Eric.Korb@accreditrust.com');>>;
>> Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@blockstream.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ChristopherA@blockstream.com');>>; Phil
>> Archer <phila@w3.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','phila@w3.org');>>
>> *Subject:* Re: Support for Verifiable Claims
>>
>>
>>
>> Our challenge is one of balance. Particularly balancing between 1) the
>> dynamic and organic developent of a broad solution that speaks to a
>> strongly felt market need, i.e. portable, secure, trustworty personal
>> claims that are tamperproof and verifiable from the source and 2) codifing
>> and standardizing the knowlege we have and the progress we've made.
>> Standards that provide new entrants a starting point to facilitate either
>> adoption or contirbution to the larger problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> With the aide of the AC, we have focused the charter on delivering the
>> smallest possible unit of work that provides value to the marketplace--This
>> is about as far away from a WaterFall process as I can imagine.
>>
>>
>>
>> Existing technology standards have fallen short in a number of ways that
>> we have enumerated several times.  We stand at an inflection point that
>> boils down to this.  Either the existing standards solve this problem and
>> the 50+ small and enterprise companies, whose success is dependent upon the
>> free and frictionless transport of this kind of data are too dim to
>> actually cobble them together, or we have identified a true gap that needs
>> to be solved.  I haven't heard anyone doubt the tecnical aptitude of the
>> Task Force contributors, so I lean toward the latter.
>>
>>
>>
>> For many of us, this is a side job of a side job, nevertheless, we're
>> voluteering to facilitate the modern practice of mananging the tension that
>> exists in the balancing act above.  We need to the Task Force/Community
>> Group to drive a broad, fully formed market solution and recruit
>> implementors to prove and/or evolve to meet the reality of the
>> marketplace.  Simultanesouly, we must standardize the buildig blocks so
>> that the foundation of what we know and agree on can simply be a given.
>>
>>
>>
>> Let's not boil the ocean, let's show incremental success.
>>
>>
>>
>>  -stone
>>
>>
>>
>>  ==
>>
>>  Matt Stone
>>
>>  Pearson
>>
>>  501-837-5995
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwilso@google.com');>> wrote:
>>
>> I'll be (relatively) brief, as I'm deep in prep for a conference next
>> week.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) This is a far better laying-out of your case than I've seen before.
>> In particular, the "implementers" page you refer to twice in this message
>> is not referenced at all from the proposed charter; nor is the status of
>> the implementers, nor the incubated data model document.  All of those
>> would have strengthened your case, and I'm not going to listen to the audio
>> recording of your group meetings to get it, sorry.  It would be further
>> helpful to understand what implementers would be shipping, or how they
>> would use such a product; otherwise, it's like me saying "Chrome has two
>> billion potential users".  But that aside, all that context is useful, and
>> not easily (or at all?) findable directly from the charter proposal I
>> reviewed.
>>
>> 2) Neither myself, Tantek, Mike nor Mark have it in our power to allow or
>> disallow a VCWG to be formed.  We each only get one vote, same as anyone
>> else.
>>
>> 3) I strongly agree with everything Mike said in his latest message,
>> particularly
>>
>> I'd also be more receptive if someone explained how all the existing
>> standards do or do not fit together here.  David Ezell once explained that
>> you're proposing essentially a new architectural layer to glue them
>> together.  That sounds promising, but it's not obvious to me as a
>> non-specialist how this relates to the architecture diagram in the VC WG
>> proposal.  Nor is it obvious to me whether you’re proposing a generic data
>> model/syntax or one that is constrained to work with the Linked Data stack
>> (which I have gotten hints of in various scans of meeting minutes).
>>
>>
>>
>> In short, clarity and brevity counts.  I apologize if that sounds
>> irritating; but this is a side job of my side job, I'm sure it's not easier
>> for anyone else, and at the same time I've a commitment to trying to
>> improve the quality of /TR/ at the W3C, and that means being intentional
>> about what I agree the W3C should start WGs for.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','msporny@digitalbazaar.com');>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tantek, Chris, Michael, and Mark,
>>
>> In an attempt to summarize your concerns wrt. Verifiable Claims, each of
>> you effectively asked the following two questions:
>>
>> On 10/26/2016 08:12 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> > I would feel much more positively about this charter if 1) there were
>> > commitments to implement some product of the WG, and its deliverables
>> > were more concrete, and 2) it was explained why we NEED a WG here -
>> > i.e., what wall is the ecosystem hitting by doing work in an
>> > incubation?
>>
>> Michael and Chris, these questions were raised earlier this year by both
>> of you during the Web Payments IG review of the proposed Verifiable
>> Claims charter. I believe the Web Payments IG answered your questions at
>> that point by referencing some of the same information that will be
>> shared below. The question above sounds like the same question from both
>> of you. The VCTF will attempt to answer it again using information
>> shared with you previously in addition to more information we've
>> gathered since that discussion with you.
>>
>> Tantek and Mark, this may be the first time you're seeing this data, so
>> let us know if this is an adequate answer or if you remain concerned
>> about the questions raised regarding incubation and implementations.
>>
>> The questions each of you raised were a topic of discussion at our
>> first Verifiable Claims face-to-face meeting[1][2] and our most recent
>> telecon[3]. This email condenses all of the discussion on this topic in
>> an attempt to make it easier for each of you to see that we do have
>> future implementation commitments, we have current implementations, and
>> why we need a WG for the work to progress.
>>
>> On 10/26/2016 08:12 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> > I would feel much more positively about this charter if 1) there were
>> > commitments to implement some product of the WG, and its deliverables
>> > were more concrete,
>>
>> There are 14 commitments from Software Vendors to implement (in code) a
>> product of the WG:
>>
>> http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/implementers/
>>
>> There are commitments from Issuers, Repositories, Inspectors, and
>> Influencers to deploy a product of the WG:
>>
>> http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/implementers/
>>
>> The deliverables of the WG are concrete, and are listed in the charter:
>>
>> http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/charter/#deliverables
>>
>> One of the deliverables is a a data model and syntax, which has been
>> incubated for at least two years (some would argue 4+ years):
>>
>> http://opencreds.org/specs/source/claims-data-model/
>>
>> The specification (or some variation of it) has been (or is currently
>> being) implemented and deployed in real world scenarios by at least 8
>> organizations, some of whom are W3C members, some of them with millions
>> of customers (ETS and Pearson, for example):
>>
>> http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2016-11-01/#60
>>
>> I urge you to listen to the audio minutes from our last call (starting
>> at 27:30 going until 34:00) which has representatives from each
>> organization listed above asserting that they have implementations:
>>
>> http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2016-11-01/audio.ogg
>>
>> On 10/26/2016 08:12 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> > 2) it was explained why we NEED a WG here - i.e., what wall is the
>> > ecosystem hitting by doing work in an incubation?
>>
>> We need a WG because we desire broader interoperability.
>>
>> We have a spec, we have preliminary implementations, and desire the sort
>> of interoperability and signalling to other organizations that only a
>> W3C specification can provide. To paraphrase Matt Stone (Pearson) and
>> Richard Varn (ETS) from our most recent set of meetings: ETS and Pearson
>> have been trying to inter-operate for more than a decade and see the
>> Verifiable Claims work as a way to get these two large organizations and
>> their customers to inter-operate with the assurance that everyone is
>> implementing to the same standard. A standard that has gone through the
>> W3C Process is desired. There are many more organizations that desire
>> this outcome, as we've demonstrated[4] with our broad industry survey
>> data.
>>
>> My question to each of you, Tantek, Chris, Michael, and Mark is whether
>> or not this data allays your incubation and deployment experience
>> concerns to the point of allowing a W3C Verifiable Claims WG to be
>> formed?
>>
>> -- manu
>>
>> [1]http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2016-10-27/
>> [2]http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2016-10-28/
>> [3]http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2016-11-01/#60
>>
>> --
>> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org]
1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497
e: joe@cdt.org, p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871

Tech Prom, CDT's Annual Dinner, is April 20, 2017!
https://cdt.org/annual-dinner