Manu Sporny: I think the issue is Orie mentioned how you extend the json-ld context. It could go in the VC Implementation Guide. ✪
... Mixing all the topics together is the wrong thing to do.
... The general process is the same for most uses. There is general confusion, but I don't know what exactly is unclear.
... Different people have unique problem use cases.
... I don't know what the next action is.
Orie Steele: People encounter the json=ld through different groups. In a place where we need to onboard someone to json-ld, we could point them to the right place that explains each part. ✪
... I find it on github. Others may need a pointer to where the PR can be submitted.
Adrian Gropper: I consider these slides I presented to be public domain ✪
Joe Andrieu: We could possibly do this under CCG. It could alienate some. ✪
Jonathan Holt: I would like to get away from client/server and address peer/peer. ✪
... How would you address this?
Adrian Gropper: My answer would be to defer to OAuth and Justin_R ✪
... IETF work could address it.
Orie Steele: I'm in favor of formalizing this topic. IPR is not my expertise. A single umbrella could be W3C. I am active in DIF and Hyperledger. ✪
... Those communities move quickly without the rigor of W3C.
... Peer/peer can come later.
Dave Longley: Another side note wrt oauth: not sure how things get easily decentralized with oauth client registration ... a DID-based capabilities approach doesn't require this kind of registration and could potentially help with delegation concerns ✪
Dmitri Zagidulin: The client/server vs peer/peer is often brought up. Client server are roles that two parties play. It does not imply a larger server and a small client. ✪
Manu Sporny: IPR is a huge issue. We want it to be patent free for all to implement. ✪
Dave Longley: The broader oauth ecosystem is compatible with decentralization. and does not always require registration. [scribe assist by Dmitri Zagidulin] ✪
... We cannot participate in a discussion that does not have strong IPR.
... I appreciate Orie's comments. We want a broad tent.
... A neutral setting is preffered.
... Let's just call a zoom meeting with DIF, Aries, etc. to get us on the right path. We don't need IPR for that call.
... When done, we can consider a W3C task force or other path. Some items might be done in DIF, IETF etc.
... The conversation should be about how to work together.
... In addition to IPR there is also anti-trust to consider.
... Standards organizations help mitigate and shelter us from these risks.
Adrian Gropper: I think it is important to have those representing resource servers participating in the conversation. ✪
Orie Steele: +1 For getting resource providers to the table ✪
... I don't see this representation at Aries.
Joe Andrieu: Regarding the scope of CCG, some of our conversations lead to standards track, but we also want to have a safe space for other conversations. ✪
... I'm trying to invite Aries, DIF, and CCG and those involved in personal data stores.
Ted Thibodeau: Zoom is just a product/tool, parallel to webex. w3 calls sometimes use zoom. important to draw the lines of "open"/"uncommitted"/"no IPR agreement" stuff clearly ✪
Joe Andrieu: Yes and include agropper's service providers. ✪