W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments-ig@w3.org > February 2016

Re: Comments on VCTF Report

From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:03:42 -0500
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56C5EB5E.6070805@digitalbazaar.com>
On 02/17/2016 08:56 PM, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> [snip]
> My sense from reading the materials and your response, is that there
> was not consensus from the interviewees on where to start work. You
> wrote "No one said don't proceed with work in this area.” and "No one
> said data model and syntax shouldn’t be worked on.” I would hope for
> support for a particular direction from the interviewees, not just
> lack of opposition.

There was broad consensus with the problem statement and that we should
work on something at W3C. The something we discussed with interviewees
was data model+syntax for verifiable claims and a protocol for issuing
and sharing them. There was disagreement on the protocol idea with two
different camps: one expressing that existing technologies could be
reused and another expressing that existing technologies are definitely
insufficient to solve the problem.

With regard to the data model+syntax, there were explicit statements of
support and only one interviewee, Dick Hardt, mentioned that coming up
with another way to express a claim isn't necessary -- therefore putting
an emphasis on working on a protocol (or "privacy-protecting
architecture"). Dick Hardt felt very strongly that existing technologies
did not solve that problem:

Manu Sporny: When we didn't have user centric there -- a lot of
assertions were made that the tech is already there, like OpenID
Connect, SAML, etc. and those techs exist and can express, present,
receive verifiable claims.

Dick Hardt: I don't think so.

Dick Hardt: Having worked on a number of those technologies I don't
think they do it at all. They do it for like one or two claims right?
But it's not a broad thing where I can go to any random site and share a
wide variety claims with them... I can go to a site and prove I have a
google or facebook account, but none of the interesting things I just
talked about.

So his position was that we should work on a protocol/architecture and
not a syntax, but that position didn't square with other feedback.

So given these findings:

There is consensus that work should be done at W3C to address the
problem statement, where potential work items are data model+syntax and

For data model+syntax, there were statements of support coupled with
minimal push back.

For protocol, while most interviewees supported working on a protocol,
several others pushed back.

It follows that:

Of the potential work items, there is consensus to work on a data
model+syntax, but not on a protocol.

Our plan moving forward, therefore, was to recommend working on a
charter that started small with work items that included a data
model+syntax and to research and document whether or not existing
technologies could work for protocol/architecture or if they needed to
be augmented with new ones.

We would then share this draft charter with the interviewees to collect
their thoughts again. I liked your suggestion in a later mail
recommending that we also share CG use cases that we felt were within
the bounds of consensus and get their feedback on them. I agree we
should do that and can do so when we present the draft charter to them.

Dave Longley
Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Received on Thursday, 18 February 2016 16:04:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:49 UTC