12B/ Veres One (did:v1) Rubric Evaluation

From IIW

Veres One (did:v1) Rubric Evaluation

Wednesday 12B

Convener: Joe Andrieu

Notes-taker(s):  Erica Connell

Tags for the session - technology discussed/ideas considered:

Veres One, DID Rubric Evaluation, DID methods, DIDs,

Discussion notes, key understandings, outstanding questions, observations, and, if appropriate to this discussion: action items, next steps: 

Link to Joe Andreiu Slide deck: http://legreq.com/pres/v1.rubric.iiw.2021.04.21.pdf

Link to Evaluation Rubric: http://legreq.com/media/rubric.v1.2021.04.20.pdf

  • What we did

    • Reviewed current W3C draft

    • Found criteria that express Digital Bazaar’s rationale

    • Identified potential new criteria to cover new elements

    • Refined criteria to better address Veres One distinguishing features

    • Shared with cohort

    • Engaging cohort for additional feedback and insights

  • What we learned

    • Rubric still in infancy

    • Need structure-variable questions

      • 1.3 Separation of Power

      • 4.6 Consensus layers

    • Enforcement (initial draft of real questions)

    • How do we talk about trade offs from one wallet maker to another?

      • Evaluations are focused on the method

    • What about adversaries?

      • C. Allen identifies 27 adversaries (including forgetting password)

      • Particular methods are designed to address particular adversaries

    • Questions and criteria are young, still a learning curve

      • Learning the rubric

      • Learning each method

    • Need better tools for community engagement

      • Criteria discussion

      • Custom rubric development

      • Shared rubric evaluations

  • Questions/Comments:

    • Looks like NIST (Common Criteria)

    • Others have encountered the same challenges

      • Sometimes questions do not match to use cases

      • Multiple evaluators have differing opinions on how to answer questions

        • Helped discussion

      • There may be value in comparing evaluations

    • How much effort for this evaluation?

      • Rough estimate: under $10k for billable time

      • But there was familiarity with there system, so learning curve was already largely met

    • Tricky, esp with governance

      • How the blockchain is constructed

      • How things are agreed on for protocols, etc

      • And therefore hard to answer certain questions

    • Ad industry has been developing this stuff for the last 18 months.

      • Cookies are going away, so new developments (these kinds of rubrics)

      • Focused on who gets to do business and under what terms

      • How disconnected technologies and concerns of the single sign on problem and the media measurement problem addressed in advertising is.

    • Privacy Rubric could be developed? That evaluates privacy, not DID methods

    • Privacy interest group had a hard time with how DIDs go (learning curve issues)

      • Shouldn't have a privacy problem baked it, but that assumption skirts the heavy stuff

      • “Web shouldn’t have an identity layer”, but single sign on is an important aspect

      • Ad world is moving to a single sign on kind of approach in the absence of cookies

      • There are lots of opportunities here to take the tech into a practical use area

    • Invitation to take this work and campaign it a little more across the W3C

    • Props for the titanic work to get this out, and same for DID:web

      • Governance framework, for example

    • Needs to be a living document for it to be useful to the community at large

      • Criteria will not be static

      • Community-wise decentralization ala wikipedia is a possibility

    • The learning curve cannot be eliminated, yet there is opportunity to streamline some other aspects of putting this together to make future evaluations easier

Notes from Chat:

11:31:06 From Erica Connell to Everyone : http://legreq.com/pres/v1.rubric.iiw.2021.04.21.pdf

11:36:36 From Erica Connell to Everyone : https://w3c.github.io/did-rubric/

11:37:40 From Erica Connell to Everyone : http://legreq.com/media/rubric.v1.2021.04.20.pdf

11:37:56 From Eric Schuh to Everyone : https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot9-prague/blob/master/draft-documents/decentralized-did-rubric.md

11:43:24 From Erica Connell to Everyone : http://legreq.com/media/rubric.v1.2021.04.20.pdf

12:00:11 From Joe Andrieu to Everyone : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Criteria

12:20:27 From Joe Andrieu to Everyone : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVK5G9DIKf8

12:26:45 From ns to Everyone : oh Hi, I'just hopped in because I was curious - I was one of the evaluators that worked on the did eval with Markus Sabadello. Thanks for the great talk :)

12:26:54 From Dmitri Z to Everyone : oh excellent!

12:26:59 From Dmitri Z to Everyone : we’re looking forward to reading that!

12:29:27 From ns to Everyone : It was an interesting challenge. Like Walid said its hard to fit all these different designs and sometimes methods targeted at some particular use case into the rubric.

I think this is an ongoing process and its great that different people are working on this coming from different angles

Retrieved from "https://iiw.idcommons.net/index.php?title=12B/_Veres_One_(did:v1)_Rubric_Evaluation&oldid=23723"