Re: [GNAP] Human rights perspective on W3C and IETF protocol interaction

Leif Johansson <> Thu, 06 January 2022 12:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE7E63A090C for <>; Thu, 6 Jan 2022 04:16:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.813
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.813 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.714, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g7fqtYd9iA89 for <>; Thu, 6 Jan 2022 04:16:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C869D3A0908 for <>; Thu, 6 Jan 2022 04:16:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id bm14so8668563edb.5 for <>; Thu, 06 Jan 2022 04:16:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MPM07cwD8t67q3uYzLu+x2r4VL3abrQglAHgOFrN1FY=; b=F/c2tEKnJSY7Kr2xmyEHQWC0vU0acqoqopDSYJsXDwQSK3NnnXV3hnEXpMnsHrX1Ts WCW7sHta3+rQHCVn3JGuBBoEzeUsxPvq0lNfCP9PjDJNf04B1fIuWu1O2lsD+8CM0iKJ jtIx5WDNx0p3fw0dVY2Extlu/s0cJQ4CufIlEixg9pbtvx+Kijx13aV90QpgRJKULBBP dI02eiRFNmkahPjpewxuO1ZNdiiLv6kFnTOb4MM938uvXYX+/1voiTFrCq+G2zR7iaLY U16OPCfLRxObzZU9qrxuhBTbLf9+4qxSFg/x7v+fsAI/uUfpUIaXuJDLy9xUR8yrF1a4 alZQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=MPM07cwD8t67q3uYzLu+x2r4VL3abrQglAHgOFrN1FY=; b=yls5jWha+AHwjSteKxCdtKy8h6DGCzIrVYwdvRFiSVCz9p9NoNHS/MWA39LyAWXZoR vDBXluSyfTBotkWt2mTiIOFhYy7TR7/H3+j+huBgy8WeV8Lg+x84s0Es67sTiIvDgbNg OtHt0MQRPwdP47/WrMaqPRZXITxR/QihbLoQiZXkYDuEXTkCBy30hXHDR05NNlaJfcvW xIse5TcfuhbzsC3gTSu70h8IskgWl5UWIJ7Dw4h6NDksuHZ0Kwx4MW+il/RSz3CdKFAq RFUycqgyIT1PZBWnZ02oHgz/h452hyxErcYNNDdLJKmeEpV8lRYdkEMzATHgJtZ0P0dK vDOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532j+VV9HhTnWjaDl8hSd5O0dXopbEy3vkCnJU+HZzMrjHDcH66J 7IGA7fYLYKpXe7+sPALL66dc6g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzIiDqkik25jKZVLMr9JqbOrXkqacU+uqVEE+qTjypMsnxGmRwYXf8Zx3d9P/A7eLpvgDfHsg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:2709:: with SMTP id y9mr56120453edd.346.1641471368233; Thu, 06 Jan 2022 04:16:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id ds1sm451975ejc.97.2022. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Jan 2022 04:16:07 -0800 (PST)
To:, W3C Credentials Community Group <>
References: <>
From: Leif Johansson <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2022 13:16:06 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [GNAP] Human rights perspective on W3C and IETF protocol interaction
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: GNAP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2022 12:16:17 -0000

On 2022-01-05 03:02, Adrian Gropper wrote:
> This is a new thread for a new year to inspire deeper cooperation between W3C and IETF. This is relevant to our formal objection issues in W3C DID as well as the harmonization of IETF SECEVENT DIDs
> and GNAP with ongoing protocol work in W3C and DIF.

With my chair hat on, and given that this was cross-posted outside the IETF GNAP WG:


these are complex and important topics. In the interest of making progress and in
order to help our editors sort through the discussion please consider the following:

1. Try to propose text. It is easier to talk about and form consensus (or not) when
discussing specific proposals for inclusion in existing Internet Drafts than when having
a purely conceptual discussion. A conceptual discussion can still happen but it will
be easier to have if somewhat more focused.

2. Sometimes when the thing you want to express is hard to condense into a few
paragraphs of text for an existing I-D, consider writing a short separate Internet
Draft. This does not mean you disagree with everything else or even intend for the
Draft to become an RFC, it is simply a convenient way to focus a discussion in the IETF.

This was meant as as advise on how to progress towards rough consensus.

Please carry on.

	Cheers Leif