VC WG Telco — Minutes

Date: 2021-09-08

See also the Agenda and the IRC Log

Attendees

Present: Brent Zundel, Charles Lehner, Dave Longley, Wayne Chang, David Chadwick, Drummond Reed, Dmitri Zagidulin

Regrets:

Guests:

Chair: Brent Zundel

Scribe(s): Charles Lehner

Content:

Brent Zundel: We are going to do some announcements, talk briefly about charter, and then we will come to PR review.
… After PR review, we are going to triage some issues.
… Then we will do a review of the v1.1 issues
… Actually I’m going to switch those - we’ll do v1.2 first
… The reason is because, really, the time crunch we are facing. We need to have something ready by the beginning of October, to send out for wide review. That is only if we have substantive changes.
… At this point I am not aware of any substantive changes that have been merged anywhere.
… So if we want to get any substantive changes into this revision, that’s the October 1st deadline.
… For editorial revisions, the v1.1 stuff, there is no requirement for review.
… The substantive changes require review… October 1st cutoff.
… So this is the last time for changes… too submit to Credential Community Group..
… Ideally, by our next meeting we would have any substantive changes in
… to make a static copy to submit for review (60 days)
… If we don’t need to do that, we can focus on editorial changes.

1. VCWG at TPAC

Brent Zundel: We plan to continue to have a meeting at TPAC. We sent out an email saying we scheduled a meeting for the 26th and 27th of October.

Brent Zundel: https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2021/GroupMeetings

Brent Zundel: Here is the link ^
… In that block, you’ll find the VCWG meetings and links to the times and all of that.

2. Next VCWG Charter

Brent Zundel: We spent quite a bit of time in this group working on the draft for a new charter.
… We can have a discussion here about this, if folks feel it would be profitable.
… I just want to give a heads-up that due to significant overlap between the Verifiable Credentials Working Group and the Decentralized Identifiers Working Group, the possibility that the DID WG may be operating under a full charter for longer than we anticipated means that we may not have sufficient participation in a VCWG for it to do everything that we were hoping it would in that draft charter.
… Happy to take questions on that
… Heads up, our current charter expires in September. We were initially planning a more fully scoped VCWG to begin January some time, but the announcement of that group and the charter and everything has been put on hold in light of the stuff surrounding publishing the DID Spec.
… For those who aren’t familiar, there have been some formal objections that need to be addressed.

David Chadwick: I think that the revised charter should concentrate solely on Verifiable Credentials, and not have any DID work.
… If there is a DID WG, anything DID should be in that.

Brent Zundel: I completely agree - but most if not all the participants in the DID WG are also participants in the VCWG.
… So it’s community and worker overlap, not topical overlap.

David Chadwick: I misunderstood… That explains it.

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls

3. Review PRs

Brent Zundel: We have 13 open PRs. Open PRs that are version 1 dot 1 (v1.1) we have nine (9) of those. The others are deferred to version 2.

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3Av1.1

Brent Zundel: better link ^
… All of these have been marked with the 14-day merge label. We’ll just run through them very quickly, to give you an opportunity to ask questions and stuff like that.
… Starting at the top:

3.1. Credentials and Verifiable Credentials (pr vc-data-model#808)

See github pull request #808.

Brent Zundel: Credentials and Verifiable Credentials - David’s raised this, it’s responding to an issue.
… I think there’s only one question here. David, Ted made a suggestion, actually several, and you approved all of them but one. We weren’t sure if that was an oversight or because you didn’t agree with the change.
… If you agree, we can commit the suggestion with Ted’s approval and get smooth sailing on this PR

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/808/files#r698749046

David Chadwick: OK, I thought I had agreed with all these changes. Manu suggested a change today and I’ve agreed with his change as well. I didn’t realize there was one from Ted outstanding. What was it specifically?

Brent Zundel: Here is a link directly to his comment ^
… I assume it had been inadvertency overlooked

David Chadwick: [reads the comment/changes]
… Ah, okay. Right, I don’t agree with that change, because I don’t think holders do assemble credentials. I thought holders only assemble Verifiable Credentials into a Presentation, and then they made that into a Verifiable Presentation.

Brent Zundel: Excellent, we can move on. The notes from this meeting will automatically populate as a comment into that PR.

David Chadwick: Yes, I disagree with that change, but would like others to comment as well.

Brent Zundel: Folks would like to contribute: we encourage comments there.

3.2. update text of section 4.10 figure 9 to use floating dates (pr vc-data-model#806)

See github pull request #806.

Brent Zundel: With that, we can move onto PR 806
… This is updating the text… to use floating dates
… It’s the diagram that’s been changed - just something that needs review.
… I urge folks to check it out and give their approvals on that.
… Any questions on that before we move forward?

3.3. add issuer and issuanceDate to examples (pr vc-data-model#805)

See github pull request #805.

Brent Zundel: Moving on to PR 805
… Issuer and issuanceDate - our examples didn’t have issuer and issuanceDate
… So this PR adds issuer and issuanceDate to every example.
… I believe in the end they were all caught.
… If you have not yet approved this pull request, I encourage you to jump in and take a look at it.

David Chadwick: I agree with it. I’ve also raised a separate issue. It’s part of the Credential and Verifiable Credential issue.
… I think we should remove the proof property from all, and make them all Credentials. By putting a proof property in…
… We ought to remove that, because proofs are not in credentials, only in some verifiable credentials.
… There is a section totally dedicated to proofs, and that’s where it should be introduced - and no problem using it in that section.
… But in other sections, it should not be there, especially when it’s "proof": ...
… The reason is that originally we thought all credentials would have proof - but then with JWTs, there was a disagreement that Manu did not want it

3.4. clarify that credentialStatus isn’t required without normative changes (pr vc-data-model#804)

See github pull request #804.

Drummond Reed: What David is describing makes sense to me - I’m not as close to the spec… but it makes sense…

Brent Zundel: PR 804 - Credential Status isn’t required.
… This is just a one-line change. If folks have not, jump in and approve it. It adds the “if present”…

David Chadwick: I don’t understand why adding the word “may” makes a normative change.

Brent Zundel: It’s adding the word “if present”
… credentialStatus is not a required property. Adding “if present” makes it clear we are talking about something that may or may not be there.
… It’s just a simple editorial … change

David Chadwick: But it seems it makes a v1.1 change…

Brent Zundel: It’s a poorly-titled PR really. It’s clarifying credentialStatus isn’t required, without making any normative changes.

David Chadwick: I’m just reading the PR… I do not understand why inserting the word “may” is a substantive change to fall in v1.2 not v.1

Dave Longley: I think the suggestion was to change “must” to “may” and that would be a normative change… that’s different

David Chadwick: I agree, “must” is right - I thought it was saying credentialStatus …
… it absolutely must be a must. Now I understand it, we don’t want to change it to “may” - it would be wrong semantically

3.5. update example 45 to use credentialStatus and valid JSON-LD (pr vc-data-model#803)

See github pull request #803.

Brent Zundel: Moving onto PR 803
… Update example 45 to use credentialStatus and valid JSON-LD
… Some straightforward editing of one of the examples.

3.6. update evidence example and add note for explanation (pr vc-data-model#802)

See github pull request #802.

Brent Zundel: Any questions on that before we move forward?
… Number 802. Again updating another example… the example for “evidence”
… It kind of simplifies the example and adds a note describing what the example implies.
… Again, looking for explicit approvals there, or comments if folks have questions.
… Just a few more of these…

David Chadwick: You want us to put a tic on it, plus one or something like that?

Brent Zundel: Yes… if folks give their approval explicitly, it gives us confidence that when merging it we’ll not run into problems

3.7. update reference links to CCG and LDP Registries (pr vc-data-model#801)

See github pull request #801.

Brent Zundel: Issue 801… Stale links
… Looks like other than some line-length concerns, this has been approved… pretty straightforward
… Two more, then we can move on to the more interesting issues.

3.8. Clarify that if the credentialSubject id is present, the value of the id is an identifier associated with a credential subject (pr vc-data-model#800)

See github pull request #800.

Brent Zundel: Number 800. Clarify that if the credentialSubject id is present, that the id is an identifier associated with the credential subject.
… There was a long conversation in an issue associated with this topic.
… Issue 792 - on the PR itself and going back and forth
… Unfortunately, this PR needs to be rebased. It looks like it’s doing more than it is.
… Really it’s just the index.html file that has a note added to it.

David Chadwick: It’s difficult to work out what the changes are now, isn’t it?

Brent Zundel: It carries some changes… the only change this PR is really suggesting is down in the index.html section

David Chadwick: I’m looking now at the diff. Which section should I look at to find…

Brent Zundel: All the way down at the bottom… the files

David Chadwick: I’m clicked on the diff and now looking at the spec… which section? 7.5 or…?

Brent Zundel: Identifiers section

David Chadwick: Got it, 4.2
… [reading]
… contains an id property, the value present is to be interpreted…. yeah, okay, right.
… And it’s in a note. That’s the only change.

Brent Zundel: Right.

David Chadwick: Isn’t there something about status of note?

Dave Longley: Are you referring to them being informative?

David Chadwick: Yes

Dave Longley: Yes, that’s generally the case

David Chadwick: Yes, looks fine then

Brent Zundel: I’ll make a suggestion to add the editorial fix
… One last PR
… This one I don’t want to talk about for long at all.

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

See github pull request #780.

Brent Zundel: This is, should we change the subtext of the data model.
… Does anyone have a subtitle they would like to throw out now, that would end up in a comment in the PR?
… If you aren’t familiar with this conversation, feel free to jump in and make comments in the PR.

David Chadwick: Let’s move on…

Brent Zundel: Okay, next.

4. Triage Issues

Brent Zundel: See Issue’ list

Brent Zundel: This link filters to look at any that are not given a 1.1, 1.2 or defer-v2 label.
… We’re going to start with 797
… The only thing we are looking to do here is to make a determination of what labels to put on it.

4.1. [PRINCIPLED OBJECTION] The VC data model specification 1.0 is not implementable in the ways it appears to be intended based on the text of the current specification document (issue vc-data-model#797)

See github issue #797.

David Chadwick: Michael said he is going to close it. He said this will be closed out if and when the VC Guide…. okay.

Brent Zundel: Yes, which is a CCG work item
… I’m not sure if tracking the work item there is the place for it to happen. I’m not sure how tracking it here helps.

David Chadwick: The thing is the work item has not been approved yet (has it?) I think Michael is saying once it’s approved, we can move on…
… It can’t mean closing it out once the guide is completed… that’s going to be months, isn’t it.

Brent Zundel: So this doesn’t get a label, and we’ll look at it next time

David Chadwick: I think so

4.2. Remove proof property from most examples (issue vc-data-model#811)

See github issue #811.

Brent Zundel: Next, issue 811

David Chadwick: Right, this is mine that I raised earlier in this meeting.
… If people agree, we can remove the "proof": ... except for the section that talks about proof.

Brent Zundel: The conversation earlier, nobody objected to that.
… So I would move on with the PR. I’ll throw a label on it.
… Now we can look at the last one - also yours, David.
… v1.1 or v1.2

4.3. Clarify schema (issue vc-data-model#812)

See github issue #812.

David Chadwick: I hope it’s v1.1. But I’d like feedback from the group,
… on what they thought the schema property was meant to convey.

Brent Zundel: I guess it comes down to, do you feel this issue is resolvable with editorial changes?

David Chadwick: Yes, I think it is… there’s an issue I can point to, here…

David Chadwick: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-json-schemas/issues/51#issuecomment-912983546

David Chadwick: I’m not participating in this work, but watching…
… If you click on that, you will see it says…
… Obviously some people are using credentialSubject…

Dave Longley: My thought has always been that it applies to the entire VC. People can add properties in other places in a VC and would want to use a schema that way.
… If not done that way, could specify to processor that it’s only meant to apply to the subject…

David Chadwick: That was my understanding… just wanted to tighten the wording so it’s 100% clear

Brent Zundel: I agree with that interpretation, and that PR that resolves it would be appropriate for v1.1
… Alright, those are all the issues that hadn’t yet been triaged.
… With what time we have, we’ll look at issues labeled v1.2.

5. Review v1.2 Issues

Brent Zundel: See 1.2 issues

Brent Zundel: This is a change for folks to say yes I definitely want to be the one to do that.
… There are four of them.
… Kyle is the assignee on any of them… If anyone in this group would make a PR… these substantive changes we really need in a week if to be included in the revision.

5.1. RFC 3339 vs ISO8601 vs XSD Date Time (issue vc-data-model#782)

See github issue #782.

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/782

Brent Zundel: RFC 3339 vs ISO8601 vs XSD Date Time
… At one point, the specification did use ISO8601 dates. In a conversation with the W3, internationalization group came in I believe, and said, hey, you should really be using RFC 3339.
… So what needs to happen here is a recommendation or determination of what needs to go forward.
… We can have a conversation… I think the best thing would be if a PR shows up to make a recommendation, and we can have the discussion there.

5.2. ZKP implementation - why proof and schema mandatory within derived VC? (issue vc-data-model#726)

See github issue #726.

Brent Zundel: Alright. The next issue we are looking at is #726.
… We talked about this issue in a meeting quite a while ago.
… No, this is not that one.
… “ZKP implementation - why proof and schema mandatory within derived VC?” - marked as v1.2 because it would require a normative change in the ZKP section…
… basically changing a MUST to a MAY. Right not it says there must be a credentialSchema.
… But there are credentials that may not require a credentialSchema the way CL signatures do.
… Do folks agree with that? If a PR was raised, would folks agree? Would anyone here want to make that PR?

David Chadwick: This should be done by ZKP implementers, since they know what they are talking about.

Brent Zundel: which means it probably should be me, if it’s going to be done.
… I’ll assign myself to get it done this week

5.3. URIs or URLs for ids (issue vc-data-model#748)

See github issue #748.

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/748

Brent Zundel: URIs or URLs for ids. We specify things as URLs in the spec
… There is some confusion there. Ted has suggested that yes, they should be changed to URI.
… We would need a PR that goes through and makes those changes.
… There doesn’t seem to be consensus that this is something that needs to be done for sure.
… But there’s a discrepancy, essentially… That discrepancy is confusing.
… Anyone want to make a PR?

David Chadwick: I have a comment. The standard is saying something should be a URI… This is not a breaking change.
… If anyone using v1.0 is using a URL, they’re still conforming if it’s a URI, since a URL is a URI.

Brent Zundel: If an implementer is insisting that a credentialStatus is a URL and not a URI, and doing type checking like that, then their implementation would be flagging v1.0 URLs as incorrect.

David Chadwick: Right, that would break implementations. I withdraw my comment.

Charles Lehner: I can do it, considering I opened the issue.

Brent Zundel: I will add you to the assignee list, and look forward to seeing the PR.

Dave Longley: I don’t know if anyone can tell looking at syntax whether something is a URI or URL… might not be something you could implement… given that, it might not be a substantive change.

Brent Zundel: I appreciate that comment.
… I’m open to - if folks feel the issue is mislabeled - relabeling it; that’s no problem.
… The decision to label it as a substantive change was an editorial decision.
… What do folks here feel, is it possibly appropriate? … We should err on the side of caution…

Dave Longley: I don’t feel very strongly either way, but thought it was worth making that comment.

David Chadwick: I would not object to it in v1.1
… You’ve got a problem if it can’t get in next week - if Charles gets the flu, we’re sunk…

Brent Zundel: It also has to do with - if we are asserting that this is an editorial change, we don’t have to submit for editorial review.
… Because there were normative statements… will leave it 1.2 for now.

Dave Longley: +1 to being conservative and doing 1.2

Dave Longley: no reason to jeopardize 1.1 on account of it

5.4. Can a credentialSubject be only a string value? (issue vc-data-model#762)

See github issue #762.

Brent Zundel: Next one, 762. Can a credentialSubject be only a string.
… Right now, no normative language says it must be an object. Could it just be a string?

Dave Longley: A string in JavaScript is also an object.

Brent Zundel: Yes, so no big deal.

Wayne Chang: I’ll comment on the thread and see if he responds

David Chadwick: No comment needed, the value of a credential subject is defined as a set of objects. So I think there is no change needed - certainly not 1.2.
… The spec categorically states the value is defined as a set of objects… that’s pretty concrete - in section 4.4

Wayne Chang: I retract that statement. In IETF, they are defined with curly braces, but in JavaScript they are an object

David Chadwick: I think it’s clear, the credentialSubject is a set of objects. We have examples, a marriage certificate… has a set of subjects

Brent Zundel: I think it could be… either an object or an array of objects.
… Perhaps a PR here could clarify it in an editorial way.

David Chadwick: I think this is a 1.1.

Dave Longley: +1 to a 1.1 change if its to say its an object or a set of objects

Brent Zundel: Alright, I’m going to change the label.

David Chadwick: All we need to do is clarify it can be a string value

Brent Zundel: … Having that sentence would clarify.

6. Review v1.1 Issues

Brent Zundel: See v1.1 issues

Brent Zundel: What’s been interesting is the number of substantive errors that we’ve uncovered - substantive changes in response to errata - has been pretty editorial - interesting.

6.1. Inconsistencies between Figures and examples (issue vc-data-model#727)

See github issue #727.

Brent Zundel: First one to look at is issue 727.
… “Inconsistencies between figures and examples”
… This issue shows we have all these examples, and we have all these figures, but there’s not uniformity between them.
… The example text and the figure text are often representing different credentials.
… If there were a way to unify those and improve the consistency, that would be fantastic.
… Any comments? If anyone wants to try to fix it, let me know so we can assign it to you.
… Otherwise we’ll move forward.

6.2. Holders and Identifiers (issue vc-data-model#105)

See github issue #105.

Brent Zundel: #105. Holders and identifiers.
… There’s been a conversation since 2018 on this.
… It’s been going on for a while.
… Is this an issue that still needs resolution?
… If so, what do we feel that resolution ought to be?

David Chadwick: This is also tied up into later discussions we’ve had about holders and subjects.
… Holders are not properly represented in the document…
… There is reference to holders but not what they are…
… Maybe we could say subsumed by… one of the other issues about holders

Brent Zundel: Would it be appropriate to close this issue and note that conversation is continuing…

David Chadwick: I think… Issue 789…

Brent Zundel: subsumed by https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/789 closing

Brent Zundel: And we are out of time. Thank you everybody.
… Next week will be at our earlier time, a little friendlier for you David.
… I will let folks know on the mailing list, we’ll be meeting more regularly.

David Chadwick: This meeting was meant for New Zealand, for Kyle, wasn’t it.
… He definitely won’t be at the next one - four hours earlier

Brent Zundel: We can only do our best and hope
… Thanks, appreciate the work. Hope for more clarity next week.