[Openid-specs-ab] A call for clarity.

Oliver Terbu o.terbu at gmail.com
Wed May 5 16:00:43 UTC 2021


Thanks a lot for the feedback looking forward to learning more about your
perspectives and concerns. As was discussed on yesterday's SIOP Special
call all attendees were unanimously in favour of raising the draft for
adoption as a work item under the Connect working group and we're hoping
for feedback from others too. A list of all attendees can be found in the
meeting minutes of the last SIOP Special call here:
http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/2021-May/008227.html

I also want to highlight that the draft has other authors as well, Torsten
Lodderstedt, Adam Lemmon, Kristina Yasuda and Tobias Looker, all from
different companies.

Thanks,
Oliver

On Wed, 5 May 2021 at 17:39, Tom Jones via Openid-specs-ab <
openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> wrote:

> This is a call to avoid dragging the muddle from verifiable credentials
> into OpenID specs. The works of the W3C ccg have deliberately conflated all
> of the actors in an identity ecosystem under the impression that such a
> muddle will create something called "herd privacy". They have deliberately
> chosen to be anarchic and amoral principles under a misguided idea that if
> they avoid clear labels for things, then they will be "in compliance" with
> the GDPR. This is wrong-headed. It is only by the actions of strong legal
> and standards organizations that human beings can assert their rights
> against governments and corporations.
>
> I tried to reread the VC spec to see if I could draw some clarity from it,
> but it just became increasingly clear that the point of that spec was not
> clarity, but deliberate confusion. The mixing of attributes and claims is
> complete, no line can be drawn between them. The mixing of credential and
> presentations is complete. The very idea that a birth certificate is a
> collection of claims is flat wrong. It is a legal assertion of a binding.
>
> I want to take a strong stand for clarity and against the adoption of the
> CCG muddle presented by Oliver's draft. It is a bad way to start a
> standards process.
>
> ..tom jones
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20210505/168889bf/attachment.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list