[Openid-specs-ab] A call for clarity.
jmiller at pingidentity.com
Wed May 5 17:40:52 UTC 2021
Tom, I understand and appreciate this perspective, and have very similar
On the call yesterday I expressed concerns around the title of Oliver's
draft being "W3C Verifiable Credentials Objects" due to that strong
association, but I don't believe the actual protocol framework proposed in
the draft is specific to anything from the CCG, it just supports
encapsulation of it. In fact, the repo is named "vp-token-spec" and the ID
name is "openid-connect-4-verifiable-presentations-00" which I think is a
much more appropriate label for the contents.
I am quite interested in having a simple presentation protocol that
leverages OIDC, and this is the best starting draft that I've seen yet.
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 9:38 AM 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
_CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged
material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use,
distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately
by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your
computer. Thank you._
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Openid-specs-ab