Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco — Minutes

Date: 2021-08-11

Attendees

Present: Kyle Den Hartog, David Chadwick, Brent Zundel, Wayne Chang, Manu Sporny, Dave Longley, Drummond Reed, Oliver Terbu, Ted Thibodeau Jr.

Regrets: Ivan Herman

Guests:

Chair: Wayne Chang

Scribe(s): Brent Zundel, Manu Sporny

1. v1.1 and v1.2 Timelines

Wayne Chang: v1.1 is editorial, addresses errata
… v1.2 is to address substantive changes for errata
… we are managing these versions using two branches in github

Brent Zundel: Some more detail on that.
… W3C Process requires that revising a recommendation to make substantive changes, we don’t have to go through CR, but we do need a 60 day review period. Adding in end of the year publishing moritoria at W3C, the very last day we can submit that we want to publish would be December 20th, 60 days before that is October 20th, given our internal process for review, which means beginning of October is earliest point as a WG to have a v1.2 version created to statically work on.
… we have 2 months if we want to proceed with 1.2 substantive corrections. A v1.1 does not have the same requirement for review because 1.1 changes will all be editorial.
… We can submit those at any time, because of time constraints, what I expect us to do is to get as much v1.1 work put together as we can, evaluate what 1.2 work we have the time to address/include, and incorporate all of those changes into a single document. There are some additional process constraints… we’re not supposed to submit more than 1 correction to a REC in 6 months. We can fold all v1.1 stuff into v1.2
… We are in the process of doing a v1.1.
… We need to decide how much of a v1.2 in that timeframe.
… I think we’re all agreed that we want to do both.
… v1.1 will be merged into v1.2 – if we run out of time for v1.2, we can leave v1.2 to a future WG to work on.
… The extent to which we can do a v1.2 is constrained by the fact that we have 2 months to do that in.

Kyle Den Hartog: based on currently triaged issues, we only have 4 that are v1.2, so I think we can do that

2. Next VCWG Charter

Brent Zundel: I did begin drafting a new Charter for a VCWG – the people that I have spoke to so far that are interested in participating have items that they’re interested in would make the new WG be a new fully fledged VCWG (non-maintenance) WG.
… We need to gather items that ought to be in scope, so I can incorporate those into a charter draft. That’s the goal of this conversation.

Kyle Den Hartog: +1 for display modes

Manu Sporny: we need v2 of the spec to be in scope
… also linked data proofs for VCs
… linked data integrity spec
… can take language from Linked Data Signature charter proposal for that
… also revise JWT language in spec
… all in service of being able to define BBS+ globally
… it is boring plumbing, but plumbing we need to get in place
… if we need to fix one thing, I would focus on that
… new features for V2 are important but secondary
… if we’re doing general linked data stuff, do we want to get concrete for e.g., ed25519?

Dave Longley: reminder that we mentioned some things in the spec itself for the next version like this: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/blob/bd758b1b11659c154d349a5189bfa194adb07edd/index.html#L1681-L1684

David Chadwick: what is the scope of the new working group? The original couldn’t do protocols. Are they in bound now?
… for JWTs, we didn’t have problems implementing JWTs, but I understand that others have had issues.
… there may be some misunderstandings we can address editorially

Kyle Den Hartog: the usage of registry seems quite dormant. It would be useful to use the registry to manage contexts and extensions similar to DIDs

Manu Sporny: ooh yeah, very good point Kyle.

Manu Sporny: +1 to registry
… I think protocols are still out of scope. VC HTTP API, DIDComm, etc are all being incubated.
… they should be ready in a year and by then we can re-charter to add those mature things. Otherwise I think they will be seen as too immature to add now

Wayne Chang: +1 protocol out of scope

Wayne Chang: that’s a whole can of worms and required expertise

Kyle Den Hartog: +1 to out of scope for now, I think it would slow us down quite a bit

David Chadwick: one point, verifiable data registries: I would like to describe how VDRs can be used and built using web infrastructure and not blockchains and DIDs
… as far as protocols, OpenID is using VPs, so we may want to put something into the spec about that

Manu Sporny: the other thing that came up, the commentary on TRAIN and trust lists, delegated trust. Those are all very important things to discuss and put forward solutions for
… one criticism is that we don’t have spec language for these things. There is no global solution, but there is a solution. adding that shouldn’t be that heavy a lift.
… but now the list of features is getting very long. Too much for a re-chartered group to do.
… I think we should say we may produce Notes for these things
… but hesitate to say we want to produce a recommendation for them

Wayne Chang: I think one short thing to add would be how to get open badges to work with version 2 of VCs

David Chadwick: there is a standard for trust lists, an ETSI standard that we can refer to for how to use them with VCs
… just need to document this

Dave Longley: one item we could consider is revocation lists or other ways of revoking VCs.

Kyle Den Hartog: bound and unbound credentials, or even closer to what Stephen has mentioned, making holder binding a feature could be added

Wayne Chang: anything else?

3. Review vc-data-model PRs

3.1. Structured Credential Data Model and Business Rules [was Bound and Unbound Credentials] (pr vc-data-model#788)

See github pull request #788.

Kyle Den Hartog: I’ve looked at this and think this is may be editorial.

Manu Sporny: I let my feelings be known on the issue. what seems to be suggested is a fairly significant re-write.
… we need to explain the concepts, but the approach is confusing
… two things: Stephen’s request is reasonable and I’ve asked him to put in an issue for it
… Michael’s is more involved than v1.1

Kyle Den Hartog: Just want to clarify here - I think technically speaking this can already be addressed with no normative statements. I think its possible to describe purchase orders as an editorial only change. If we go for Michael’s larger conceptual change it’s definitely necessary to move to V2

Brent Zundel: I noted in the issue, from my perspective as a Chair, though the language introduced to the spec doesn’t change any normative changes, it does substantively change the specification. I don’t think it’s in scope in v1.1 Maintenance at all. The overarching thematic introduction of these new ideas in this way is a substantive change and should be deferred to a v2.

Kyle Den Hartog: wanted to clarify, the larger conceptual things are V2, but the idea of not having a holder bound to things would. Particualrly Stephen’s ideas could be part of v1.1

Manu Sporny: Agree that we should try to get Steven’s concerns into v1.1.

Wayne Chang: what are next steps? Stephen’s concerns should be put in a new issue, the rest would be part of V2

Kyle Den Hartog: I can write a comment on the PR to state that

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: DavidC, if you could tidy up your last comment, it is really unreadable, makes it difficult to follow the thread

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/788#issuecomment-896783897

3.2. removes mention of termsOfUse with verifiable presentations (pr vc-data-model#787)

See github pull request #787.

Kyle Den Hartog: this needs to be closed after back and forth conversations. I found a way to fix this and will add a PR for that.

Brent Zundel: should close once we have a PR merged

Wayne Chang: I’ll add a note for that

3.3. Recode graph diagrams (pr vc-data-model#786)

See github pull request #786.

Wayne Chang: someone has done an angelic job fixing this and making it more readable. Grateful to Chaals for this.

Manu Sporny: I’m afraid that he might have updated auto-generated code. It is really good work, but it may be overwitten
… not sure to backport this into the google draw program we used.

David Chadwick: tallted Done

Wayne Chang: I’ll let the discussion continue, but will add a comment about needing to incorporate it into the source image

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: If we’re not using this sort order … https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc

David Chadwick: *kdenhartog Yes I replied to his email rather than going to git

3.4. working on #777 (pr vc-data-model#785)

See github pull request #785.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: this is self explanatory. Just did a bit of patch work. Changes readme and spec html

Wayne Chang: we will merge as soon as we hit the 14-day mark

Wayne Chang: sorry q?

Kyle Den Hartog: I’m going to take Ted’s readme changes and merge them into main as well

Brent Zundel: +1 to kdenhartog

Manu Sporny: +1 to merge

3.5. adds properties for AlumniCredential and DisputeCredential for valid JSON-LD examples (pr vc-data-model#783)

See github pull request #783.

Wayne Chang: multiple approvals here

Kyle Den Hartog: small updates to examples so the example contexts are proper
… so they work as expected

Manu Sporny: this is a change to the example context, which nobody on the planet should be relying on for production. So updating it is not a problem

David Chadwick: this means you could put nonTransferrable into the example context?

Manu Sporny: yes, if we had consensus to do that, but I don’t think we do
… if we agree as a working group that we want others to follow that model, then we could do that, but it would only exist in the example

David Chadwick: its already in an example, so that is why it should be in the examples context

3.6. Clarified subtitle of Data Model (pr vc-data-model#780)

See github pull request #780.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: fairly self-explanatory, good discussion.

Manu Sporny: I’m fine w/ it being in there…

Wayne Chang: once the 14-day period is up we can merge

3.7. Add issuer ID to verificationMethod URI (pr vc-data-model#773)

See github pull request #773.

Wayne Chang: this is a correction in the example section that adds keys for an issuer.

Wayne Chang: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aopen+-label%3Av2+sort%3Aupdated-asc

Manu Sporny: this was a while ago . . .
… this is fine. We don’t really need it, but we expect maybe SaaS systems, so it’s fine

4. Issues

Wayne Chang: we’ve excluded issued triaged as V2
… a bunch of deferred we could address now

4.1. Bootstrapping Simple WoT Verifiable Claims (issue vc-data-model#32)

See github issue #32.

Brent Zundel: raised 4 years ago, some good discussion, but not seeing what action we can take now, is it errata, and is it editorial or substantive?
… Should we defer to v2 and label it explicitly?

Wayne Chang: I’ll add the V2 label so it no longer shows up in the list of issues we address here
… also add comments to the issue if you’d like

4.2. Add a summary text as meta information (issue vc-data-model#248)

See github issue #248.

Kyle Den Hartog: Seems like a context change to me, I think we defer to V2

Wayne Chang: old issue, about adding summary text to VCs. decided to defer it. Any comments on this? I think deferring to V2 makes sense.

Dave Longley: “name” and “description” have been requested already for V2, this is just “description” again

Manu Sporny: this is definitely V2 as it would result in a context change
… other issues ask for short titles and descriptions.

Kyle Den Hartog: +1 to this is the same thing as “description

Wayne Chang: I’ll add V2 label now

4.3. Add display hints to data model, for example: information to use a Web Component (issue vc-data-model#42)

See github issue #42.

Wayne Chang: dlongley can you talk about this one

Dave Longley: we’ve already said this may be part of V2

Wayne Chang: we can move that to V2

Wayne Chang: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/57

Wayne Chang: add roles to data model for next draft sounds V2

Kyle Den Hartog: +1

Manu Sporny: we’ve tried really hard to keep the language constrained, we don’t want to open that up again. I think we should close.

David Chadwick: close it

Wayne Chang: I’m fine with closing, any objections?

4.4. need MIME type guidance (issue vc-data-model#421)

See github issue #421.

Wayne Chang: this issue asks for mime types to be better described in the data model

Manu Sporny: this is V2 because it is a formal registration that would require a full group

4.5. On the Ecosystem Overview (issue vc-data-model#80)

See github issue #80.

Manu Sporny: +1 to close

Wayne Chang: I recommend closing this issue, there hasn’t been discussion for a while and I feel that the terminology has been shaken out. Any objections to closing?

4.6. Avoiding confusion by renaming ‘credentialSubject’ (issue vc-data-model#480)

See github issue #480.

Wayne Chang: this would add a huge breaking change, renaming a major component

Manu Sporny: +1 this would be a huge breaking change.

Dave Longley: +1 to close

Manu Sporny: +1 to closing

Wayne Chang: probably good to close, but we’d need to see broad support for changes like this in the new working group to re-open

4.7. Tracking Issue: Interoperability (issue vc-data-model#632)

See github issue #632.

Wayne Chang: I think this is out of scope for us and probably also for V2
… I move to close

Manu Sporny: +1 to close

Kyle Den Hartog: I think this is because Tony had raised a bunch of issues and this is a way to track those, so I think we can close it

Wayne Chang: We should also link to incubating protocols

5. next meeting

Wayne Chang: we got through all of the defer issues, great work. now all issues have been triaged.
… what are next steps? I’m willing to meet again next week to continue and to continue working on the charter.
… I propose that we meet at the same time

Kyle Den Hartog: If we can not have a 3am call every week, that would be better

Manu Sporny: +1 to that, bad to have an editor waking up in the middle of the night

Dave Longley: 4pm ET => 8am NZT i think (at least right now)

Brent Zundel: how about 2pm ET

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: this is a very helpful tool – https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

Wayne Chang: if everyone is okay with 4pm ET, I propose we meet at that time next week.
… we appreciate your flexibility

David Chadwick: 9pm UK works for me