Re: Chartering work has started for a Linked Data Signature Working Group @W3C

Would you rather have this discussion in the AC mailing list when the charter 
is discussed?  That's my fear.

As far as I can tell, the algorithms in Linked Data Proofs 1.0 have not gone 
through a thorough computer security review.

A resolution for me would be that these algorithms have indeed gone through 
such a review and the results examined by other computer security experts.

peter



On 5/24/21 10:36 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> I would greatly appreciate a discussion of the possible flaws in that
>> document.  This discussion does not appear to be happening, which I find
>> worrisome.
> Ok, then let's have this discussion, even if it takes weeks or months to come
> to any sort of conclusion. I don't want any accusation that we didn't discuss
> these things (even though variations of these discussions have happened in
> other forums over the years).
>
> I will assert that these sorts of discussions should happen in a W3C WG; as
> that's the purpose of a W3C WG. That they're happening w/o involving the other
> communities that have been using these specifications and technologies is
> problematic.
>
> Before we have this discussion, however, I'd like to understand what a
> resolution to the discussion would look like to you, Peter, Melvin, and Dan.
> Specifically, if we note any issues that are of concern for Linked Data Proofs
> in the document as issues (using language that you draft), and it's clear that
> there is a path forward (or the feature could be dropped without endangering
> the entire specification) would you be willing to move forward with the
> document as an *input* to the WG?
>
> -- manu
>

Received on Monday, 24 May 2021 15:23:15 UTC