Re: Support for Verifiable Claims

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> 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
>

I don’t understand why I keep hearing from folks on this list asking “if
there were only commitments”. My company, Blockstream, is working on it, as
is Educational Testing Services, Pearson, and at least 15 other companies,
including a new identity group at Microsoft who clearly is not talking to
their AC. We even have begun interoperability discussions at
#RebootingWebOfTrust and #IIW conferences in the last two weeks. I know
that the list of the multiple company commitment to this proposal has been
sent, but have may not have been read.

We need composability and interoperability, and a WG facilitates this,
especially as one of the health care organizations wanting to use
Verifiable Claims needs to implement to standards org specifications, which
are being delayed.

— Christopher Allen