VC WG Telco — Minutes

Date: 2021-11-17

See also the Agenda and the IRC Log

Attendees

Present: Kyle Den Hartog, Manu Sporny, Logan Porter, Dmitri Zagidulin, Shigeya Suzuki, Brent Zundel, David Chadwick, Gregory Natran

Regrets:

Guests:

Chair: Brent Zundel

Scribe(s): Kyle Den Hartog

Content:

Brent Zundel: Our agenda is straightforward, we’ll start off with vc data model wide review.
… then move into triaging and processing of PRs and issues.
… if we get through that all we’ll move into V2 issues and PRs to process.

Manu Sporny: quick touch on charter and mDL topic?.

Brent Zundel: yeah we can do that after wide review.

1. VC Data Model Wide Review.

Brent Zundel: Our v1.1 has been published and wide review needs to happen. We’ve reached out to some of them already.
… this is our first time going through this so we’re learning as we go along.
… this topic is about what needs to happen for this.

Manu Sporny: I failed to send the wide review announcements and I forgot until just now. I can still do that.
… we said we’d contact IMS global they no longer have a group from the looks of it.
… and other folks, I’ll give a try this week to take care of this.

Brent Zundel: is there anything else require beyond contacting the AC list?.
… I don’t see anything else in the process document that calls for horizontal review.
… so I think we’re good.

Manu Sporny: I don’t see anything as a requirement for horizontal review either.

Brent Zundel: How formal do we need to be about implementations for substantive changes?.

Manu Sporny: We couldn’t have transitioned without that implementation experience.
… for example rfc 3339 wasn’t ever tested and the substantive changes were about matching what was actually happening in implementations.
… for the other substantive changes we were loosening requirements to support new capabilities such as ZKP allowing for more things.

Brent Zundel: The process document specifically calls these “wide review” and I don’t see any information about wide review being required in the process.

2. VCWG recharter and mDL.

Brent Zundel: Next we’ll move to VCWG recharter and mDL.

Manu Sporny: During TPAC Microsoft mentioned that it’d be interesting to see work around mDL and helping to integrate VCWG and mDL.
… and 2 that there weren’t APIs that were really designed to move mDLs back and forth.
… we may want to put this work in scope for the VC 2.0 work as things we may look into (e.g. notes).
… nothing standards track at this point.
… purpose would be to support support in the mDL space.

David Chadwick: I looked at the current ISO draft and VCs are referenced in an appendix now.
… so it’s good news and it’s definitely going to end up in the standard now.
… unfortunately I don’t think I can send this draft to you at this point.
… maybe there’s a liaison agreement that we could use to share the draft with WG members.
… have we considered putting in a request to be a liaison group?.

Manu Sporny: the answer is yes it’s already setup.

David Chadwick: Then we may be able to see the current draft from ISO and share it only with WG members.

Gregory Natran: quick question, do we see this being tied into the stuff happening with apple and states moving to drive licenses?.
… Does this play in any sort of way?.

Manu Sporny: https://www.w3.org/2020/12/verifiable-credentials-wg-charter.html.

Manu Sporny: it’s tangentially related, but yeah that’s in the class of related things for the charter aspects we’re considering.
… the current charter lists the particular ISO group as a liaison.
… yes we could have a very direct relationship with them and this would be intended to do more harmonization work.
… this is good reason because we want to be able to officially respond to whats happening in that WG around VCs.
… and we don’t want to be on the outside on those discussions.

David Chadwick: Just to clarify that the current Apple/mDL stuff isn’t compatible with VCs.
… that’s not to say that if the next draft comes out then it may move that way.

Brent Zundel: what are our next steps?.

Brent Zundel: https://w3c.github.io/vc-wg-charter/.

Brent Zundel: I’ve noted 3 changes that could be made to our current draft charter.
… 1 and 3 are the same.
… we have some current external orgs listed that we say we’ll liaise with. We should add those to the draft charter since they’re not there.
… another is that we want to add another deliverable about mDLs as a note.

Manu Sporny: I agree with your list brent.
… we need to mention the liaise in the new drafts.
… and we need to include some deliverable note about mDL interoperability.
… we definitely don’t want to say that this is a recommendation document.

Brent Zundel: we should also add IMS global to the liaison groups for broad community review.
… next topic is PR review.

3. Review PRs.

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22v1.1+%28editorial%29%22+sort%3Aupdated-asc.

Brent Zundel: here’s the link for them.
… unless folks really want to do #780 we’ll skip it.
… put yourselves on q if you want to discuss otherwise we’ll move ahead.

Manu Sporny: reminder to everyone that there was an email sent out to the list.
… there was a lot of cleanup on main branch after cleaning up V1.1.
… and now V1.1 is now the main branch.
… and all editorial changes will be put on top of V1.1.
… and when Jan 19th or whatever roles around then everything in the V1.1 branch can be immediately applied to the recommmendation after the publishing of V1.1 substantive changes.

3.1. Added intended audience, purpose, goals/non-goals (pr vc-data-model#814)

See github pull request vc-data-model#814.

Brent Zundel: I believe we discussed this last time.
… we don’t have any response from Michael Herman who raised the PR.
… I think the consensus here is that without response from him that we should close this.
… we have active changes requested and no response with no activity since September.

Manu Sporny: How long do we wait for a non-response to close a PR?.
… we’ve waited 7 days and standard wait time has been 14 days.
… we re-ping him and see if there’s any action plan for this.

Brent Zundel: is there any issues with this course of action?.

David Chadwick: can we add a pending close label on it?.

Brent Zundel: yeah we can do that and I’ll ping Michael Herman now.
… pending close label added.

Manu Sporny: we should also remove the other labels if you’re ok with that.

Brent Zundel: I’m good with leaving V1.1 editorial but we can remove possibleErratum label.

Manu Sporny: Does Editorial label do anything for Errata document?.

Kyle Den Hartog: No only Errata label affects that document.
… I’m good with using only pending close, V1.1, v2.0, 14 day merge, Errata, and possibleErratum labels.

3.2. Add new Verifiable Credential views for example 4. (pr vc-data-model#834)

See github pull request vc-data-model#834.

Brent Zundel: the last thing we said is when a PR exists that addresses the problems. We’ll take a look at that PR now.
… then jump back to 817.
… so 834 addresses 817 potentially so we’ll take a look at this first.

Manu Sporny: we now have a display for a variety of examples including bare credential, w/ ld proofs, and w/ JWT proofs.
… the enhancements that people have asked for is better tabbing, highlighting active tabs, show intermediate form for JWTs.
… they’re all good asks and my suggestion is they’re all enhancements and we can address them in other PRs.
… this one addresses just example 4.
… there’s another PR which updates as many examples as possible.
… those are in PR 835.

David Chadwick: My suggestion is that we add another tab with the intermediate JWT tab.
… I’m willing to do that as well.
… I’d like to suggest that we add this intermediate tab as well.

Manu Sporny: it’s not as easy as just adding one.
… these are all auto generated which requires coding it up.
… it’s a decent bit of work.
… unless you already have something that can generate the intermediate form and I just didn’t have the time to do that yet.

David Chadwick: I thought this was hand done for each one.

Manu Sporny: this is all available in the digitalbazaar/respec-vc repo.
… I’ve got concerns about showing that, but I don’t intend to block it.
… it raises questions about how deep do we want to go around intermediate forms for other proof types as well.
… so I don’t want those discussions to block this PR from going forward for now.

Brent Zundel: suggestion is that we work to merge this PR and raise issues for each of the specific enhancements we’d like to see.

Manu Sporny: +1 to the course of action brent just described..

David Chadwick: I see this intermediate format as examples is fundamental and very helpful.
… particularly around the clarification stuff that we’ve seen for JWT encodings.
… so these examples would help for further clarification.
… let’s not close this today. I want to spend some time to go ahead and take a look at this one.
… our current work mode requires notifications to the CCG.
… so a 14 day window from the notification should occur.
… so there’s a possibility that during that window requested changes will be made.
… let’s go ahead with the 14 day window and then I can take a look during that time.

Brent Zundel: so now the question is have there been enough progress on 834 and 835 to close issue 817.

David Chadwick: yes I’m happy with that.

Brent Zundel: I’ll leave it to the editors to update the labels and notify the CCG about the rest.

3.3. Add clarification about verifiability (pr vc-data-model#829)

See github pull request vc-data-model#829.

Brent Zundel: some review has occurred.
… charles or TallTed are not here.
… if anyone has comments please q.
… the PR is quite straight forward.

3.4. add section in privacy considerations about issuer (pr vc-data-model#830)

See github pull request vc-data-model#830.

Brent Zundel: I raised this PR to add a section to privacy considerations.
… to call out coordination by the issuer to participate in the process of this.
… it also points out that in some cases the issuer is not deliberately subverting the privacy aspects when they’re participating.
… please give it a review and I think this one is ready for CCG review.

Manu Sporny: My concern is that editors aren’t being tagged on these.
… I was surprise that we’re not being tagged on this.
… I’m wondering if we’re missing a codeowners file.

Kyle Den Hartog: reiterates what Manu said.

Brent Zundel: Editors should be notified any time new PRs are being raised.

David Chadwick: going back to the previous PR there were a few mistakes for the intermediate credential.
… suggests some changes so that the intermediate value is correct around the issuer values.

Manu Sporny: let’s open an issue on this. There might be an issue of the understanding of what should happen on this.

David Chadwick: I think we should block merging the other until we can resolve this.

Brent Zundel: Can you open an issue to track the thing that needs to be resolved for this.

Manu Sporny: I’m on it.

3.5. Clarification of JWT encoding (pr vc-data-model#828)

See github pull request vc-data-model#828.

Brent Zundel: This is yours David, there’s been a couple requests for changes.
… what’s the current status of this.

David Chadwick: In a private email with Orie I think we resolved the issues that he saw with it.
… so I think we’ve resolved all the issues now.

Manu Sporny: other than one normative change that needs to be undone.

Brent Zundel: just need that last thing to be resolved and to get it labeled and notify CCG.
… anything else on this PR before we close the meeting?.
… note next week is thanksgiving so this meeting won’t happen.
… we’ll have a meeting in 2 weeks at the same time as this one.
… Thanks to everyone who’s helped us make good progress on the spec.
… briefly our status - it’s likely our group charter will be admin extended.
… because this group has been delayed by DID WG related items.