October 2016 - DG-BSC - mailman.kantarainitiative.org

Agenda for BSC telecon Tuesday, August 30 (shortly -- sorry for the late note!)
by Eve Maler 01 Nov '16

01 Nov '16

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-08+%28August+2016%… We meet *Tuesdays* for 30 minutes at 7:30am PT / 10:30am ET / 3:30pm UK / 4:30pm CET. We use Kantara Line A (US +1-805-309-2350, Skype +99051000000481, international options <https://www.turbobridge.com/international.html>, web interface <https://panel.turbobridge.com/webcall/>, more info <https://www.turbobridge.com/join.html>, code 4022737) and http://join.me/findthomas for screen sharing. See the DG calendar <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Calendar> for our full meeting schedule. Previous meeting minutes are here: July <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-07+%28July+2016%29…> . Agenda: - Confirm timeline, scope, and approach, or revise in specific - Assign action items for report next steps *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl *ForgeRock Summits and UnSummits* are coming to <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *London and Paris!*

5 11

Notes from BSC telecon Tuesday, October 18 (posting for Thomas from last week)
by Eve Maler 30 Oct '16

30 Oct '16

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-10+%28October+2016… Attendees: ScottS, Kathleen, Matisse, Thomas, JohnW AIs for Report: - Text from contributors - Terminology and definitions Report to dos: Kathleen working on HL7. Jim Hazard has been talking in UMA legal, with many similarities with FHIR work. Question is what will the Smart Contract look like, what will it do. Adrian also writing up text. Kathleen: reach out to Jim for text. Also Adrian has text from the ONC Blockchain Challenge <https://oncprojectracking.healthit.gov/wiki/display/TechLabI/Blockchain+Cha…> . Thomas: anything missing from the Report? Kathleen: need a definition of SC. Scott: yes, we’re not quite there. Also expand to a list/taxonomy of definitions and terminologies for the report. Potential Liaisons: groups that members of BSC are involved and list of relevant orgs looking at SC - HL7 - GA4GH: Global Alliance four Genomic Health - CommonAccord - GTRI: Georgia Tech Research Institute - OTTO: Open Trust Taxonomy for OAuth - Federated Authorization - Smart Contracts Alliance - Kantara’s liaison with JTC1/ISO (Identity Assurance & Management) - UMA WG - CIS WG - New ISO group on blockchains (ISO TC307) - Sovrin - JLINC protocol – JSON-LD may be used for SC. - BlockchainCanada.org *AI:* Thomas: start email thread on definition of SC. *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl *The ForgeRock Identity Summit* is coming to <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *Paris in November!*

2 1

Notes from BSC telecon Tuesday, October 25
by Eve Maler 25 Oct '16

25 Oct '16

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-10+%28October+2016… Agenda: - Report <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Report+from+the+Blockch…> writing – Sovrin Foundation questionnaire answers discussion Attending: Eve, Thomas, Matisse, Kathleen, SteveO, Thorsten *Meeting logistics:* Just a reminder: No meeting this Thursday. Also, when we take up meeting again next week, UK and Europe clocks will have changed, but US clocks won't have, and US Pacific is our normative time zone (see timeanddate.com <http://www.timeanddate.com/time/dst/2016.html> for "summertime skew" details...). Please keep an eye on and/or subscribe to our calendar <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Calendar>! *New book:* Don't miss Thomas's new book, called Trust::Data: A New Framework for Identity and Data sharing <https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Data-Framework-Identity-sharing/dp/153911421X/…>! Wow. Congratulations! *Sovrin answers:* You can find them in your inbox or in the email archive <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/dg-bsc/2016-October/000289.html>. See also the paper <https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rebooting-the-web-of-trust-fall2016/blob/…> Thorsten mentioned in email. Overall, Eve's question for each use case, differentially, is: How much does limiting the risk of a "pure public blockchain technology" approach impact the goals of the use case, and particularly in our case where the use case goals are for empowerment? E.g., for some fintech use case where you want to speed up business and protect against legal risk, maybe limiting the "distributedness" of the blockchain to your enterprise – that is, inside your firewall – could be fine. But for other use cases, that could seriously harm you goal. So for today, given that Sovrin has a goal of self-sovereign identity, have they been able to successfully mitigate risk while enjoying/providing the benefits of blockchain ("walked the line correctly")? "Self-sovereign identity" sounds like an extension of the previous notion of "user-centric identity". Thomas's CoreID paper caused some people to accuse him of being a communist for proposing a blockchain identity system that enables anonymous credentials. Eve's question is: What ecosystem that involves both individuals and services could function without at least some (probably the lion's share of) use cases of *identified* sharing? There are some "anonymous authorization" (Shibboleth) and "claims-based access control" (UMA) use cases, indeed. (And notice that these use cases didn't require blockchain to be solved) But quite often, (empowered) service operators do need to know who they're dealing with among (currently disempowered) individuals. See Latanya Sweeney's research <http://latanyasweeney.org/work/identifiability.html> on the ability to re-correlate individuals from a few attributes; hence Eve's skepticism about ZKP approaches (which Sovrin criticizes as well). Users also have real incentives to share data with services in many cases because otherwise the services can't function. Are there any services accepting Sovrin credentials yet? These are apparently called "stewards". We looked at the Technical Foundations <https://www.sovrin.org/The%20Technical%20Foundations%20of%20Sovrin.pdf> paper. The observer/validator/governance paradigm seems well thought out. Thomas noted that the widening circles of nodes looks like what Ripple has. The governance model could perhaps be a model/template for other use cases as well. Not depending on IdPs sounds like a big benefit. People have been become persona non grata on various services that function as IdPs (such as being shadowbanned or outright banned on Twitter), or have been monitored by government IdPs. However, the reality of many service providers is that they rely heavily on these 30 social IdPs <https://rpxnow.com/docs/providers#microsoftaccount> for a lot of what they do, both the user population and the information provided by these service sources. ("Social login" is when they rely totally on the incoming IdP for information, and "social registration" is when they explicitly collect additional information and do separate login thereafter.) What is the value proposition for these RPs? Also, how would legacy "federated SSO" work (a la SAML or OIDC) in this new world? *AI:* Everyone please continue to review the questionnaire answers (two sections left to go) and provide thoughts in email. We can send our questions to the Sovrin folks after our review is complete. *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl *The ForgeRock Identity Summit* is coming to <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *Paris in November!*

1 0

Fwd: Questionnaire for the Sovrin Foundation for the BSC report
by Eve Maler 25 Oct '16

25 Oct '16

Hi folks-- Following is the material I was supplied by the Sovrin Foundation folks in answer to the questionnaire. Hopefully we can use this as a discussion topic on the next call (unless there's a more pressing set of material ahead of it). *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl *The ForgeRock Identity Summit* is coming to <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *Paris in November!* ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Eve Maler <eve.maler(a)forgerock.com> Date: Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 4:42 PM Subject: Re: Questionnaire for the Sovrin Foundation for the BSC report To: Phil Windley <phil(a)windley.org> Belated ack/thanks for this! I'm going to send it to our DG for question and comment as we work through it. What we publish may be a combination of quoted sections, paraphrases, commentary, and so on, and since we do our work in the open anyway, of course we'll invite and welcome comment back on the draft. *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl *The ForgeRock Identity Summit* is coming to <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *Paris in November!* On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Phil Windley <phil(a)windley.org> wrote: > Here’s some answers to the questionnaire. Let me know if something doesn’t > make sense or needs more explanation. > > *Deficits and benefits of how the problem space was/is being solved* > > The Internet was built without a standard, explicit way of identifying > people or organisations. So websites simply began offering their own local > accounts with usernames and passwords, and this has been the predominant > solution ever since. > > But the Internet has expanded hugely, and people use more and more > services daily. This silo-based approach, where users must maintain > identities for every site they interact with, has become untenable. It is > not just a usability disaster for individuals, it also creates a multitude > of data honeypots for hackers—the breach of which compromises trust in all > Internet services. > > To solve this problem we have tried to connect different identity silos > together in various federated models. However these have produced > inadvertent side effects such as concentrating control around a small > number of providers, correlation of personal data through multiple > seemingly unrelated transactions, increasing data leakage through > inadvertent sharing, and raising privacy concerns, all while not actually > giving the individual real control. At the same time, there is a growing > economic inefficiency when organisations all around the world have to > collect, store and protect the same sort of personal data in their own > silos. It is reaching a tipping point. > > The next evolution of the Internet will be the creation of a common > identity layer that allows people, organisations and things to have their > own self-sovereign identity—a digital identity they own and control, and > which cannot be taken away from them. Self-sovereign identity is the > natural evolution of an ecosystem which has moved faster than its > supporting capabilities. > > *Proposed benefits of the new solution space* > > To create the long-missing identity layer of the Internet, a new, trusted > infrastructure is required which enables identity owners to share not only > identity, but also verified attributes about people, organizations and > things, with full permission and consent. > > For identities to be truly self-sovereign, this infrastructure needs to > reside in an environment of diffuse trust, not belonging to or controlled > by any single organisation or even a small group of organisations. Nobody > can “turn the lights out”. Distributed ledger technology (DLT) is the > breakthrough that makes this possible. It enables multiple institutions, > organisations and governments to work together for the first time by > forming a decentralised network much like the Internet itself, where data > is replicated in multiple locations to be resistant to faults and tampering. > > When combined with distributed key management and peer-to-peer sharing of > encrypted claims, DLT is what finally makes self-sovereign identity > possible. Within this identity layer, mechanisms for discovery, routing of > requests, secure exchange of information and management of consent, under > the full control of the identity owner, finally becomes possible. > > The Sovrin Identity Network has been design specifically to deliver a > globally scalable self-sovereign identity solution. But to be truly > self-sovereign, it cannot be owned by anyone. Similarly, to be fully > trusted, and to avoid the pitfalls of other initiatives in the distributed > ledger space, Sovrin needs a lightweight governance layer. To achieve this, > the developers of Sovrin have given away the source code to the Sovrin > Foundation, a not-for-profit organisation whose role is to provide a thin > layer of governance to Sovrin while not owning or managing any > infrastructure. The Sovrin Foundation ensures the effective distribution of > the decentralised network and ensures that the network itself functions in > the best interest of its users. > > *Different approaches being taken in the new solution space, e.g. if other > approaches are being taken outside of Sovrin* > > Early examples of identity solutions using distributed ledger technology > used ledgers built for other purposes such as the Bitcoin ledger, or > general purpose ledgers such as Ethereum. While these capabilities are able > to provide fairly simple proofs that something took place on a certain date > & time, they are not dedicated to the particular nuances of the identity > ecosystem such as non-correlation, revocation and anonymous zero-knowledge > proofs. > > They also lack governance. For example, the need to secure the network by > using hashing power has resulted in a concentration of Bitcoin mining in > China. Who are these miners, do we trust them, do they jointly exert too > much influence. What governance is in place? The recent forking of Ethereum > has also shown the consequences of a lack of governance and direction. > > Sovrin is the first public-permissioned distributed ledger. It is publicly > accessible by anyone, but in order to run one of the nodes which validates > the integrity of the network, you need to be permitted to and you must > abide by certain rules which include the Sovrin Trust Framework. > > Non-distributed ledger solutions are attempting to paper over the problems > with silo-based identity. Examples are federated identity models such as > the gov.ukVerify system, which uses attribute sharing hubs and identity > providers to move information from one silo to another, but without giving > the identity owner real control. Personal information management solutions > are going a step further, in enabling identity owner control of their data, > but are still somewhat lacking in portability and therefore remain as silos. > > *Strengths, weaknesses, risks, and open issues being seen in practice* > > The ability for an identity owner to assert multiple verifiable claims > about their identity, anonymously if required, and without possibility of > correlation, is central to the architecture of Sovrin. With discovery > capabilities to ensure that party A can confirm the identity of party B, > and vice versa, direct party-to-party data sharing can take place with no > need for intermediaries and with full evidence of consent. > > By replacing intermediaries with protocols, immediate digital identity > verification can take place with no 3rd party involvement. There are too > many benefits to list, bur here are a few that we are working on: instant > employment screening; frictionless bank KYC, identity for the stateless, > fast online checkout, globally portable digital identity for travellers, > and vaccination recording for developing countries. > > Challenges to adoption of Sovrin are those typical of a two-sided market. > Both identity issuers and relying parties need to come on board. Sovrin > partners are taking a simple approach to this – the initial partners will > be both issuers and relying parties. They will provide new identity > services for their users to be utilised within their own ecosystem. These > islands of functionality will expand and intersect with other islands, and > individuals will find that they can use their identity information from one > issuer with a completely different relying party. In other cases, > coalitions of organisations which are all trying to solve the same problem > are coming together to create an ecosystem where they can all use Sovrin to > their mutual benefit. > > The other major challenge is an educational one. Trying to explain > self-sovereign identity to a layman is difficult. Because people have been > brought up to understand that the only way the internet works is to give > their details to many different organisations repeatedly, they cannot > conceive of a better way. Being able to get across the power of every > individual having their own digital identity which they control and own and > which cannot be taken away, is a new concept which needs to be communicated > effectively. > > *Whether other technologies and techniques are being brought to bear (you > can see a list of technologies and techniques we are analyzing in > our report > <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Report+from+the+Blockch…> TOC)* > > Sovrin enables/uses the following > - Public-permissioned distributed ledger technology based on the > Plenum Consensus Protocol, involving multiple specialised legers (identity > ledger, config ledger etc) > - Verifiable claims > - Anonymous credentials > - Revocation, anonymous if required > - Distributed and cryptographic identifiers > - Link contracts & consent receipting > - Persistent P2P messaging endpoints > - Key discovery, management recovery & rotation > - Portable off-ledger private data storage e.g. IPFS/BigChainDB > etc. > - Identity, relationship and reputation graphs > - 3rd party attested and self-attested claims > > > On Oct 11, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Eve Maler <eve.maler(a)forgerock.com> wrote: > > Hi Phil-- Thanks for being willing to help the Blockchain and Smart > Contracts group understand what Sovrin is doing in the context of our > analysis efforts! > > If you look at the first paragraph of our draft report's introduction > <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Report+from+the+Blockch…>, > you'll see a statement of our scope: > > - Solving use cases for *empowering traditionally disempowered parties* > (such as individuals) > - taking part in *transactions* (such as entering into contracts and > information-sharing agreements) > - with *parties that traditionally hold greater power* (such as > companies and large countries) > - in the context of *decentralization technologies and techniques* > (such as blockchain and smart contracts) > - and their mixture with *identity* (both in the course of conducting > business/legal transactions and to solve digital identity use cases). > > Our Discussion Group is time-boxed to six months, and so we plan to go > into only as much depth as can be covered in this time frame. (We started > in July!) > > With all of this in mind, could you please comment on the following > aspects of Sovin? > > - Deficits and benefits of how the problem space was/is being solved > - Proposed benefits of the new solution space > - Different approaches being taken in the new solution space, e.g. if > other approaches are being taken outside of Sovrin > - Strengths, weaknesses, risks, and open issues being seen in practice > - Whether other technologies and techniques are being brought to bear > (you can see a list of technologies and techniques we are analyzing in our > report > <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Report+from+the+Blockch…> > TOC) > > Many thanks! If you have any questions, or would like to discuss responses > in a phone call, don't hesitate to let me know. > > > *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging > Technology > Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl > *ForgeRock Summits* are coming to <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *London > and Paris!* > > >

2 2

Meeting only on Tuesday Oct 25 during this week
by Eve Maler 23 Oct '16

23 Oct '16

Hi folks-- I'm sorry about any confusion around meeting times during my lengthy absence. Thomas and I have coordinated for this new week, and we're both available on Tuesday and not available on Thursday, so we've decided the best thing to do is *meeting for an hour on Tuesday Oct 25 only* (asking Kantara staff by bcc to please remove the calendar entry for the 27th). I've just sent the Sovrin questionnaire answers to the list, so that's one possible agenda item, and I saw that Jim sent his answers (possibly already discussed?). I'm still tardy on my UMA section content, but at least we won't be hung up for discussion topics. Thanks again for your forbearance. *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl *The ForgeRock Identity Summit* is coming to <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *Paris in November!*

1 0

Another indicator of peak blockchain
by John Wunderlich 20 Oct '16

20 Oct '16

The title alone is sufficient: Walmart and IBM Are Partnering to Put Chinese Pork on a Blockchain <http://fortune.com/2016/10/19/walmart-ibm-blockchain-china-pork/> Sincerely, John Wunderlich @PrivacyCDN <https://twitter.com/PrivacyCDN> Call: +1 (647) 669-4749 eMail: john(a)wunderlich.ca -- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

1 0

NIST / ONC workshop on blockchain in healthcare
by Scott Shorter 14 Oct '16

14 Oct '16

Hi all, Here is the agenda with links to the presentation, from the NIST/ONC workshop on blockchain in healthcare. As Ross mentioned Drummon Reed gave a good presentation on decentralized identity. https://oncprojectracking.healthit.gov/wiki/display/TechLabI/Use+of+Blockch… Regards, Scott

1 1

Kathleen's report text
by Scott Shorter 13 Oct '16

13 Oct '16

Hi all, I just reviewed the notes from today’s call and I noticed that Kathleen sent some text to Eve and myself for review - I have not received that so please resend. I don’t have Kathleen’s email so I’m sending to the list generally. Thanks! - Scott

1 0

Thursday call
by Scott Shorter 13 Oct '16

13 Oct '16

Apologies folks but I need to take care of a family medical issue and will be unable to chair the call today. - Scott

2 1

Draft template to use for case study participants
by Eve Maler 11 Oct '16

11 Oct '16

I just sent this to Phil W. for Sovrin. Here is a generic version for others assigned to case studies to use, if they like... ==== Hi [*name*]-- Thanks for being willing to help the Blockchain and Smart Contracts group understand what [*name of group/effort/company*] is doing in the context of our analysis efforts! If you look at the first paragraph of our draft report's introduction <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Report+from+the+Blockch…>, you'll see a statement of our scope: - Solving use cases for *empowering traditionally disempowered parties* (such as individuals) - taking part in *transactions* (such as entering into contracts and information-sharing agreements) - with *parties that traditionally hold greater power* (such as companies and large countries) - in the context of *decentralization technologies and techniques* (such as blockchain and smart contracts) - and their mixture with *identity* (both in the course of conducting business/legal transactions and to solve digital identity use cases). Our Discussion Group is time-boxed to six months, and so we plan to go into only as much depth as can be covered in this time frame. (We started in July!) With all of this in mind, could you please comment on the following aspects of [*name of group/effort/company*]? - Deficits and benefits of how the problem space was/is being solved - Proposed benefits of the new solution space - Different approaches being taken in the new solution space, e.g. if other approaches are being taken outside of [*name of group/effort/company*] - Strengths, weaknesses, risks, and open issues being seen in practice - Whether other technologies and techniques are being brought to bear (you can see a list of technologies and techniques we are analyzing in our report <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Report+from+the+Blockch…> TOC) Many thanks! If you have any questions, or would like to discuss responses in a phone call, don't hesitate to let me know. ==== *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl *ForgeRock Summits* are coming to <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *London and Paris!*

2 1