- 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>
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 protocol. 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 CTO Digital Bazaar, Inc. http://digitalbazaar.com
Received on Thursday, 18 February 2016 16:04:07 UTC