VC WG Telco — Minutes

Date: 2021-06-14

See also the Agenda and the IRC Log

Attendees

Present: Ivan Herman, Manu Sporny, Brent Zundel, David Chadwick, Michael Kupjetz, Kyle Den Hartog, Markus Sabadello, Gregory Natran, Gerhard Oosthuizen

Regrets: Daniel Burnett, Wayne Chang

Guests:

Chair: Brent Zundel

Scribe(s): Michael Kupjetz, Brent Zundel

Content:

Brent Zundel: Agenda Review, Round of introductions, scope of this group and approximate timeline, issues and PRs (as in the repo)

1. Welcome

Ivan Herman: See Group’s current charter

Brent Zundel: meeting once a month, or less - as per the charter, our timeline will come to an end December 2021
… maintenance of the verifiable credentials model, fix bugs
… what we will be submitting is a “proposed revision”, updates to a recommendation - once ready it can be sent out for review

Ivan Herman: new process for everyone, terms may differ but the idea is correct

2. introductions

Brent Zundel: Introductions (go through the attendees list)

Michael Kupjetz: I’m a colleague of Gregory’s. I work on Digital Identity, more on technical side, but also on some standards stuff.

Ivan Herman: Introduction

Gregory Natran: Introduction

David Chadwick: Introduction

Kyle Den Hartog: Introduction

Manu Sporny: Introduction

Markus Sabadello: Introduction

Gerhard Oosthuizen: Introduction

Brent Zundel: before jumping into issues with PR - what are we hoping each member will contribute moving forward
… members can contribute - pull requests, raise issues, comment on issues raised by others, propose specific changes to text of the recommendation
… editors for the process are manu and kdenhartog
… most of the work will happen between meetings, using GitHub

3. Review vc-data-model Issue Classifications

Brent Zundel: See relevant issue list

Brent Zundel: There are 56 open Issues - there are a number of labels attached, many marked “defer” (done by the original working group)
… some Issues marked with “PossibleErratum”, some are also marked with the “maintenance tag” (the fix is for the maintenance group)
… Today - take Issues one at a time, and triage to determine if the labels are accurate - or if this should be addressed by the maintenance working group

Ivan Herman: to specify for the group what “defer” means - if we recharter our working group later with more possibilities than we have here, we can pick up the deferred issues

David Chadwick: question - what group decided on the classification ?

Brent Zundel: many Issues previously classified by editors, other team members, previous groups

3.1. Define SHACL constraints

See github issue #76.

Manu Sporny: suggestion to defer Issue #76

Ivan Herman: I have found some problems recently on the RDF aspect of the model, and there are some problems on how the data models are expressed - SHACL would reflect those - more to the topic than just editorial

Manu Sporny: I will add defer-v2

Brent Zundel: suggestion for new label, other than “deferred” for issues like @issue 76 - “deferv2”

3.2. Issuers may express a Time to Live on the credential

See github issue #164.

Brent Zundel: previous group felt it should be deferred

Kyle Den Hartog: +1 seems to be an extension at this point

Manu Sporny: Agree with brent that it should be deferred

Brent Zundel: comment - a new feature, out of scope for the group
… no objections - issue 164 marked deferred

3.3. 3 Types of Claims

See github issue #47.

Brent Zundel: recommending changes to the proof property

Manu Sporny: we have asked for feedback, none has been received, recommended to close if not actioned

3.4. Holders and Identifiers

See github issue #105.

Brent Zundel: is this to resolve/fix a bug in the spec, or add to it?

David Chadwick: there is ambiguity when subject does not equal holder

Brent Zundel: describes an error which needs to be corrected - this issue can be labelled “Editorial”?

kdentartog: a bug but not necessarily “fixable”, should be part of “Editorial” - some changes to the text

Manu Sporny: agreed, non-normative change - expectation of subject/holder/identifiers

Brent Zundel: do we formally mark this as erratum?

Kyle Den Hartog: agreed, believe it is

Manu Sporny: the text no longer exists in the spec, may no longer be an issue

David Chadwick: already some proposal in the issue, we could clarify in the text

Brent Zundel: next steps - raising a PR which addresses concrete changes to the spec

3.5. Does pseudo-anonymity require the issuer to cooperate

See github issue #209.

Gerhard Oosthuizen: Hi everyone. Unfortunately have to drop off. Nice meeting you. Will do some pre-reading of issues before our next session to be able to contribute more.

Kyle Den Hartog: +1 to that Brent

Manu Sporny: Agree with that text that brent just said

Brent Zundel: it would be appropriate to add text to the Zero Knowledge proofs section

David Chadwick: maybe the scope of this issue is larger, to what extent can an issuer control the discloser a holder has

Brent Zundel: assign brent to the issue, an idea of how to move forward with it

Manu Sporny: agreed with the original text - but consider one use case: witness issuers

Manu Sporny: +1 to giving brent a shot at the text :)

Gregory Natran: in response to DavidC, caution to preventing users from disclosing, the information is theirs and there may be consequent issues with restrictions on the holder/subject

Brent Zundel: to throw conversation into a new PR and can continue the discussion
… anything that is not “deferv2” or “erratum” - please add a comment to the issue to describe what you feel the proper classification should be

4. PRs

Manu Sporny: See see list of PR-s

Manu Sporny: new PR review process for 2021 we need to agree on

Brent Zundel: discuss where PRs will be merged to, direction of PRs, make a determination if we are going to merge or if review is needed

Manu Sporny: there are 2 targets to merge to - version 1.1 branch - majority of work is targeted there

Michael Kupjetz: version 1.1 - small editorial changes, erratum

Michael Kupjetz: version 2 - significant changes or upgrades

Manu Sporny: largely upcoming calls will focus on version 1.1 - open PR describing the process

4.1. Add PR review process for 2021 (pr vc-data-model#774)

See github pull request #774.

Manu Sporny: Wayne’s PR, some suggestion were made in the comment, they have not been processed
… pr 774 is ready to go in, unless there are objections on this call
… this is the agreed upon process, and has been out for review - suggest to merge

David Chadwick: clarify - what is version 1.2 (in PRs)

Brent Zundel: quick editorial changes are set for version 1.1 and can go out a.s.a.p. - substantial changes, bugs, etc. are in version 1.2

Ivan Herman: +1 to DavidC

Michael Kupjetz: everything else in version 2

Brent Zundel: any question?

Manu Sporny: will merge pr 774 once the update has been made, comment added

4.2. verificationMethod URI is incorrect in a couple of the examples (pr vc-data-model#772)

See github pull request #772.

Manu Sporny: simple note classification from Ted, purely editorial
… rewording some language related to “JWT claim”

Brent Zundel: switch labels from “PossibleErratum” to “Errata”
… note to the team - the labels work in some automated processes

4.3. (editorial) various clarified phrasings (pr vc-data-model#723)

See github pull request #723.

Manu Sporny: various clarified “phrases” - related to “JWT claims”
… some details need to be review to make sure this does not impact, after it is determined it may/may not be merged
… pr 723 is ready to go

5. AOB

Brent Zundel: encourage team members to jump in and review the issues and labels
… Thank you for attending the meeting - open to feedback from team members