VC WG — Minutes

Date: 2021-12-01

See also the Agenda and the IRC Log

Attendees

Present: David Chadwick, Shigeya Suzuki, Brent Zundel, Phil Archer, Dmitri Zagidulin, Ryan Grant, Joe Andrieu, Manu Sporny, Logan Porter, Gregory Natran, Wayne Chang, Kyle Den Hartog, Ted Thibodeau Jr.

Regrets:

Guests:

Chair: Brent Zundel

Scribe(s): Manu Sporny, Dmitri Zagidulin

Content:

Brent Zundel: There were some calendar mixups – hopefully they’re fixed now..
… There have been login errors with the new calendar system..
… Agenda review – draft charter, review PRs, triage issues, and focus on v1.1 issues..
… anything else for today?.
… anyone new to the call?.

Manu Sporny: No additions, no one new to introduce..

1. VCWG Draft Charter.

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc.

Brent Zundel: There are the issues in least recently updated order ^^^.
… Some of them are straightforward, we need a course of action for some of them..

1.1. Standardization of Multilingual Support (issue vc-wg-charter#19)

See github issue vc-wg-charter#19.

Brent Zundel: Seems like there is support for this, how do we make sure this happens?.

Shigeya Suzuki: I was not sure how to proceed w/ PR – how do we fit this into the charter?.
… I’ll propose something in a PR..

1.2. fix the link to the first charter of the Verifiable Credentials Data Model 1.0 (issue vc-wg-charter#23)

See github issue vc-wg-charter#23.

Brent Zundel: The link needs to be fixed, there is a PR for that – this has been addressed by a PR..

1.3. Verifiable Credential Linked Data Integrity work should happen in a Linked Data working group (issue vc-wg-charter#21)

See github issue vc-wg-charter#21.

Brent Zundel: This might take some more time to discuss, Ivan responded laying out the history of the Linked Data Integrity and Semantic Web WG stuff – the history/reason, so far no response from Mike..

Manu Sporny: We tried what Mike is proposing..

Phil Archer: quick comment – manu’s explained everything. the question that went through my mind; my worry is – if we stick with those items, then MSFT will formally object to the next charter.

Manu Sporny: We got push back on Mike’s proposal – RDF Dataset Canonicalization will happen in another WG, there is broad consensus on that..
… and we should think about what we might do if that happens.
… The pushback we got was: “Do the Linked Data Integrity work in the group that’s using it – the VCWG – that’s where the implementers are, and it’s a packaging format, not new crypto.”.
… So, that’s what we’re doing because that is what removed the potential for formal objections..

Brent Zundel: any other comments on this issue?.

1.4. Protocols and APIs should remain out of scope (issue vc-wg-charter#24)

See github issue vc-wg-charter#24.

Brent Zundel: Mike has expressed his concerns, Orie has responded, anyone else want to comment?.

Manu Sporny: we’re not saying we’re gonna do normative things here.
… but we are absolutely incubating a VC API spec.
… if one of the things we want to do is demonstrate an end-to-end ecosystem, the VC API could get us there pretty quickly.
… multiple people are implementing, we’re demonstrating interop around mDL, etc..
… it’s a useful thing to bring into the conversation, without saying we’re going to standardize it.
… so that’s the reason to have it in scope – the work /is/ happening..
… and we’ll get a lot of questions “how do you know this VC data model works, interops”? And one of our answers could be – well, we have all these interop tests.

Phil Archer: Trying to look into Mike’s comment – 2017 charter says things are out of scope… we’re talking about the new charter… it was out of scope, but it’s no longer out of scope, don’t see what the problem is..

1.5. Fixing problems identified through using the 1.0 and 1.1 specs must be in scope (issue vc-wg-charter#22)

See github issue vc-wg-charter#22.

Brent Zundel: I don’t disagree with this, but my response here was that we have in scope – data models are in scope and talk about 2.0 deliverable being replacement for previous versions… feels like it’s in scope in spirit. Do we need to be explicit about this?.

Manu Sporny: it would be very weird for a WG to say “we’re not going to fix the problems with the spec”.
… so, my read is the same as yours, brent. That’s what new versions are /for/ - to fix the problems with previous versions..
… so, that’s already in scope.

Brent Zundel: That was my read as well..
… I’m not opposed to it, if we have to, fine – we can say we’ll address errors in previous versions – of course we’re going to do that..

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: I agree that it’ll be unnecessary, but it’ll remove mike’s objections..
… We may also produce errata updates to 1.0 and 1.1..

Brent Zundel: ok, I’ll assign myself..

Gregory Natran: Just wanted to say, looking at context of it – he just wants an explicit mention in scope, seems to be only concern – explicit marker that says we’ll look at specific problems..

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: Might be helpful to get him to enumerate the things he wants..

Joe Andrieu: My concern is I think this is an anchor for him to say “these 5 things that are wrong need to be fixed” – that creates debate/arguments rather than moving forward..
… I wouldn’t mind a neutral statement, improve 1.x – but I think Mike’s trying to anchor specific fixes that he wants the charter to say “this will be resolved”..

David Chadwick: Mike is in the OpenID Connect group, he’s aware of the JWT problems – the inconsistencies, he might be implicitly referring to that. I wouldn’t look deeper into this than what it appears to be on the surface. It is a genuine request to fix these problems..

1.6. Use of unclear term “specific style of supporting infrastructure” (issue vc-wg-charter#25)

See github issue vc-wg-charter#25.

See github pull request vc-wg-charter#28.

Brent Zundel: I raised a PR that adds 3 words to the charter to explicitly say “such as a DLT”, that was the intent of this out of scope..
… I think it’s been addressed, we’ll have to wait to hear from Mike..

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: Similar to the other one, the text here does not read to me as if mandating X – if this line came out of the old charter, “we’re not developing APIs” … but this time we might, this line would make it so, no, we can’t..
… We might want to change to “The mandate of any”.

1.7. External organizations - ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 17/WG 10 (issue vc-wg-charter#20)

See github issue vc-wg-charter#20.

Brent Zundel: The set of external organizations that we liaise with was missing, I raised a PR that adds two of them back specifically, and Kristina has noted another WG that is specifically at ISO working on mobile DL as VCs – change my PR to add that one as well..

Manu Sporny: See Verifiable Driver’s Licenses and ISO-18013-5 (mDL).

Manu Sporny: I would like to find a way to add that VC DL as a work item to the group. nothing normative, just a note.
… it would help us talk about how these two disparate ecosystems can interop.

Brent Zundel: would you be able to open a PR?.

Manu Sporny: yes, I’ll do that. Just wanted to bring it up..

David Chadwick: With respect to the latter point, looked at VC – specifying a proof format, don’t mind if we limit it to the credential and contents of credential, but not go into specifying the proof format – VC data model doesn’t specify proof format..

Manu Sporny: the test suite has multiple types of digital signatures, just to show that you can..
… it’s hard to demonstrate selective disclosure without actually having a proof that allows selective disclosure to happen..
… so, because the re-charter will have proof formats in scope,.
… I don’t see how we can object to talking about proof formats..

David Chadwick: the standard already has a Selective Disclosure mechanism based on JWTs.
… where the value is hashed, and the whole thing is signed..
… so if we go down that route, we could use the existing mDL selective disclosure mechanism..
… There is a proof format already for mDL – that’s already there – if we go down that route, and we use existing mDL selective disclosure mechanism, that would be ok, or a different one if we have one..
… or even a different mechanism, if they have one.

Manu Sporny: the thing that’s confusing me is – you said ‘if we have a different mechanism’. And we have one of those, BBS+.
… and you’re saying it’s fine to do that. But also, simultaneously, you seem to be saying “we can’t talk about any other proof format, other than what’s in the mDL”.
… and again, proof formats are specifically in scope, for the 2.0 charter.
… so we’re either talking about proof formats, or we’re not.

David Chadwick: your specific work on mDL specifies one single proof format.

Manu Sporny: it does not..
… that may be where the miscommunication is..

David Chadwick: I read it as “the proof format must be BBS+”.

Manu Sporny: no, the interop report shows at least two different formats, and does not mandate any proof format.

David Chadwick: no problem, I missed that..

2. Review PRs.

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

Brent Zundel: There are a number of PRs open to address open issues. I can tweak those..
… Feel free to jump in on PRs , suggest changes, don’t need to go over them one at a time now..

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.

Manu Sporny: these PRs have been out there for a while.
… I feel like we went over these on the last call. We’ve got multiple reviewers saying it’s fine.
… except for PR 780.
… so I wonder if we can just skip this part. (aside from 780).

Brent Zundel: I am fine with that!.
… Fine w/ skipping these.

Manu Sporny: we have this thing where we’re supposed to be notifying the CCG about things that are going on (spec changes, etc).
… and we now have automated tooling to do that. every week, the CCG will get a summary email about everything we’ve been doing here..

Manu Sporny: See [INFRASTRUCTURE] New feature: Weekly updates on Verifiable Credentials progress.

Manu Sporny: so just want to give everyone a heads up about it..

3. Triage Issues.

Brent Zundel: great, thanks for setting that up.

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+-label%3Av2.0+-label%3A%22v1.1+%28editorial%29%22+sort%3Aupdated-asc.

Brent Zundel: A few issues to look at that have not been triaged – goal of triage is “is this in scope for v1.1, who is going to do it?.
… otherwise it’s labeled as v2.0.

3.1. Determine if JWT pre-signed intermediate-mode output should be in every example in the specification. (issue vc-data-model#836)

See github issue vc-data-model#836.

Manu Sporny: this was a request from DavidC (to see the intermediate output). And, I implemented that, in a recent PR.

David Chadwick: thank you, that’s great..
… I would have liked a footnote, something like “Note: all of these examples are using “in addition to””.

Manu Sporny: we could put it as a comment to the example?.

David Chadwick: yeah.

Manu Sporny: I can put it in the example itself, no prob..
… I’ll do that as an editorial change.

3.2. past commits somehow being misplaced/undone (issue vc-data-model#837)

See github issue vc-data-model#837.

Brent Zundel: I believe kyle did an update here..

Manu Sporny: Ted, correct me if I’m wrong – I think Kyle looked, and when he looked that almost all the text was updated except for that small chunk you found.
… so, we did actually apply all the PRs properly. We just missed some of that text.
… and I think Kyle raised a PR to remove that.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: my read was – there was one commit that wasn’t cherry-picked.

Brent Zundel: once 841 is merged, that will be addressed..

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: I think that’s correct..

3.3. Include a regex for XML Date Time in the next version of the standard. (issue vc-data-model#846)

See github issue vc-data-model#846.

Brent Zundel: This seems like it’s v2.0, anyone disagree?.

3.4. clarify that vc vp claims do not include entire VC/VPs (issue vc-data-model#845)

See github issue vc-data-model#845.

Brent Zundel: There’s a question whether this is v2.0 which could take substantive changes or v1.1 to clarify editorially..

David Chadwick: Both Microsoft and myself implemented “instead of” and Orie implemented “as well as” – Kristina wants the standard to support Microsoft way, and Orie and I agree that that’s not the best thing to do always – we need implementation guidance here..

Brent Zundel: She does suggest specific language – the language she suggests is editorial – is this v2.0 or v1.1?.

David Chadwick: It’s definitely v2.0.
… That’s a normative change – it forbids as well as, it has to be v2.0.

3.5. use iat for the issuance time, or rename issuanceDate (issue vc-data-model#844)

See github issue vc-data-model#844.

Brent Zundel: This is pretty straightforward v2.0, any objections?.

Manu Sporny: No objections….

3.6. Best way to stay updated about changes in the specs? (issue vc-data-model#842)

See github issue vc-data-model#842.

Brent Zundel: I think this has been addressed, any other suggestions? Suggest closing – objections?.

Manu Sporny: No objections..

3.7. Remove @version from v2 context (issue vc-data-model#843)

See github issue vc-data-model#843.

Brent Zundel: This is clearly a v2 issue, any objections?.

Manu Sporny: No objections..

4. v1.1 issues.

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

Brent Zundel: These are all v1.1 issues in least recently updated order – we’ll go through them as time permits..

4.1. Have fields for locale-specific information (names, addresses, etc.) been checked? (issue vc-data-model#734)

See github issue vc-data-model#734.

Brent Zundel: We discussed this two months ago – assigned to Dmitri - update?.

Dmitri Zagidulin: IIRC, need a PR… this is a reminder to do that PR..

4.2. Add details about difference between contexts and credentialSchemas property (issue vc-data-model#781)

See github issue vc-data-model#781.

Kyle Den Hartog: I still have a partial branch here… need to write a few paragraphs, translate email thread that Orie pointed out wrt. @context purpose what credential schema is for – status is ongoing, could fit in v1.1, haven’t done it yet..

Brent Zundel: anticipated timeline to PR?.

Kyle Den Hartog: in a few weeks..

David Chadwick: For my team, they also wanted to know this – wrote a document that describes difference between context/schema/type – I have that document, happy to share it w/ Kyle and the group..
… If we want to use that as basis for PR, would be happy with that..
… It’s a page of content..

4.3. Cover “authenticatability” of credential (issue vc-data-model#751)

See github issue vc-data-model#751.

Manu Sporny: if there is a PR, it’s not linked….

Brent Zundel: PR 829.

Manu Sporny: ah yes, ok. The status is – hey, there’s a PR! :).
… that Charles wrote. so we should assign him..

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

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

Kyle Den Hartog: This is a PR to discuss intricacy of what we mean by “verifiable” – Charles has written a PR, still some time for responses, majority of responses look good – should be ready to go soon… probably have a few minor suggestions and we’re waiting for 14 day merge..

David Chadwick: which pr is this?.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: That PR will help w/ the subtitle… but we should get rid of the subtitle..

4.5. Does pseudo-anonymity require the issuer to cooperate? (issue vc-data-model#209)

See github issue vc-data-model#209.

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

Brent Zundel: I raised a PR to address this, got some feedback, that PR has existed for 21 days, but not labeled properly – waiting for PR to formally be accepted..
… Last thing I think Ted made, requested some changes, accepted your suggestions – re-review would be good..

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: I’ll look at that..

4.6. 4.1 Link to going anywhere that makes sense (issue vc-data-model#732)

See github issue vc-data-model#732.

Kyle Den Hartog: I think this was in Ivan’s hands, link looks right – vocab definitions have been published at the right link..

Brent Zundel: any objections to closing?.

Manu Sporny: No objections..

Brent Zundel: We’re done - thanks everyone for coming, be sure to jump in – conversation happening on draft charter as well as v1.1 issues that we have agreed to get in some time after v1.1.

Phil Archer: RRSAgent: draft minutes.

Phil Archer: Zakim: end meeting.

Brent Zundel: Thanks for coming, thanks Manu and Dmitri for scribing, looking forward to seeing you all next week..