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

> On 5/25/21 8:19 PM, Harry Halpin wrote:
>> Now, basically Peter is *absolutely* right and my recommendations in this
>> article still stand (TL;DR 1. Go to the IETF 2. Don't try to add 
>> signatures to RDF as a free-standing work item).
> 
> You seem to make very worthwhile points, and I certainly respect your 
> professional perspective, however . . .

These points have been made before and responded to both in person and across
various mailing lists (and again, finding the links are difficult as it
depends on the point/concern and when/where the response was added). If others
on this mailing list would like to engage in a productive way, I'm happy to
repeat the counter-points to Harry's assertions.

I'll note that there are 400+ members in the Credentials Community Group, 62
members of the W3C Verifiable Credentials Working Group, and 98 members of the
Decentralized Identifier Working Group. A non-trivial number of these
individuals have a security, privacy, computer science, and/or mathematics
background.

Harry's assertion is effectively that he's right and they're all wrong... I
hope everyone can see the issue with that position.

>> Manu and his ilk,
> 
> That is just plain insulting.  You are not helping either yourself or the
> community with language like that.  If you cannot contribute respectfully
> to the discussion, then please refrain from posting.
> 
> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/

I will also note that this is the way Harry has chosen to engage for the
better part of a decade. This behaviour may be new to others on this mailing
list, but it's quite familiar to me. I have been on the receiving end of a
number of personal and professional attacks from Harry over the years both
when he was W3C Staff, and it's only gotten worse since his departure from W3C.

I would love for more engagement from IETF CFRG (note that they are listed in
the coordination groups in the LDS WG Charter). When I have tried to engage in
the past, I have found that Harry has done some pre-work to poison the well
and make the engagement far more difficult.

All of this is unfortunate, because I do believe that a number of things that
Harry is requesting are important -- proper and deep security review on the
proofs, as many eyes on the solution as possible, and an overall deep vetting
on the algorithms. It's just unfortunate that Harry continues to engage in a
way that is incompatible with the W3C CEPC.

> On 5/25/21 8:19 PM, Harry Halpin wrote: I apologize in advance for not
> answering all the emails I will get from Manu and his ilk, but honestly, I
> do not have all the spare time.

Let's make this easy on everyone, then. I won't be responding to Harry's
abusive and misguided exchanges.

I will, however, respond to anyone that chooses to engage in a civil manner
and is curious about specific counter-points to Harry's assertions.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches

Received on Wednesday, 26 May 2021 14:14:40 UTC