Re: Verifiable Claims Task Force Summary of Concerns

Hi List,

There's a technical problem that I don't see how you can get around
and that is the fact that there already is a user credential system
in browsers (x.509 client certificates) which Google and Mozilla
have recently declared that they are going to remove support for:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2015Sep/0000.html
Microsoft have already removed their counterpart to <keygen> in "Edge".

However, if there is no browser interface, the chance of achieving
consensus on format and function seems pretty slim, and would maybe
even be of limited utility since signed PDFs are already in "circulation".

It might also be of interest knowing that Microsoft have done several
high-profile efforts in this space but none them panned out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Card
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-Prove

To sum up, I would start with the browser integration and see where it goes.

Thanx,
Anders
continuing the quest for easier ways extending browsers

On 2015-11-19 05:50, Manu Sporny wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please make sure you read this email before the Nov. 23rd meeting
> regarding the Verifiable Claims Task Force.
>
> I'd like to end the meeting on Monday with a firm decision on where to
> have the discussion around the Verifiable Claims (aka credentials,
> attestations) work. I'm concerned that the participants in the
> discussion won't have enough background on the proposal and we'll end up
> further delaying the ability to have a conversation around this work.
>
> In an attempt to prep the group for success, this email is a primer for
> the discussion that led to the current Verifiable Claims Task Force
> proposal:
>
> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/VerifiableClaimsTaskForce
>
> After integrating input from the Web Payments IG, the Credentials CG,
> and W3C staff, these options have been identified as having a
> *vanishingly small chance* of achieving consensus:
>
> 1. Perform the Verifiable Claims research as the Credentials CG (citing
>     the contested non-neutrality of the group).
> 2. Perform the Verifiable Claims research as a new Community Group
>     (citing redundancy with the Credentials CG's goals).
>
> These options seem to have the *greatest chance* of achieving consensus:
>
> 1. Create a Verifiable Claims Task Force in the Web Payments IG with an
>     open invitation to participate to an inclusive set of invited
>     experts.
> 2. Create a Verifiable Claims Task Force in the Credentials CG that is
>     narrowly scoped to discuss the items in the proposal.
>
> Either approaches above can be used to complete the deliverables in the
> Verifiable Claims Task Force proposal, so here are the main points of
> contention at the moment:
>
> Verifiable Claims Task Force in the Web Payments IG
>    * Pros
>      * Perception of a neutral environment
>      * Only needs a Web Payments IG straw poll to make the decision
>    * Cons
>      * Potential IPR issues for W3C non-members, do we waive IPR to get
>        broad participation?
>      * Potential non-participation if only W3C members can participate
>    * Ideas to counteract cons
>      * Waive IPR requirements to participate in the Task Force.
>        Documents will be produced by Credentials CG under CG IPR policy
>        by people that have already signed off on CG IPR policy.
>      * Invite any participant that wants to be involved and is not
>        disruptive to the work of the group (constructive criticism is
>        ok, trolling is not)
>
> Verifiable Claims Task Force in the Credentials CG
>    * Pros
>      * No restrictions on participating in the Task Force
>      * Supporting systems (mailing list/telecon/minutes) already setup
>        and operating
>      * Clear IPR policy
>      * Limited scope to address non-neutrality perception
>    * Cons
>      * May not address non-neutrality perception
>    * Ideas to counteract cons
>      * Specifically invite people that have raised concerns about the
>        work to document their concerns and focus on their input
>        specifically (specifically, do not argue against their input)
>
> If you have any other ideas or thoughts about either option, or the
> proposal itself, please send them to the list so we can get as much
> discussion as possible done before the call on Monday.
>
> -- manu
>

Received on Thursday, 19 November 2015 06:15:33 UTC