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

Tom Jones thomasclinganjones at gmail.com
Wed May 5 17:45:46 UTC 2021


That's essentially the same message I get from W3C when I point out a
problem. "Yes, but a consensus was reached." I want clarity of language.
Right now we just have a claim = some crap and credential = a pile of crap.
I want it to be really clear that a user's credential is private or even
secret data that human users want to protect and only send to sites where
they can understand the true name and true purpose of the sharing.  The
current language obscures all of that.

They

Be the change you want to see in the world ..tom


On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 9:00 AM Oliver Terbu <o.terbu at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/a7ad1bad/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list