Verifiable Credentials WG Telco — Minutes

Date: 2022-02-16

See also the Agenda and the IRC Log

Attendees

Present: Brent Zundel, Shigeya Suzuki, David Chadwick, Michael Prorock, Mahmoud Alkhraishi, Orie Steele, Markus Sabadello, Ryan Grant, Manu Sporny, Kristina Yasuda, Ted Thibodeau Jr., Dave Longley, Kevin Dean, Kyle Den Hartog, Michael Jones, Logan Porter, Dmitri Zagidulin

Regrets:

Guests: Will Abramson

Chair: Brent Zundel

Scribe(s): Ryan Grant, Orie Steele

Content:

Brent Zundel: discussion of agenda (https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/488e0b10-2126-4ebd-b898-9cc709b2b01e/20220216T150000#agenda).

Will Abramson: self-introduction joining as an observer with Digital Contract Design.

1. v1.1 feedback.

Brent Zundel: See Feedbacks.

1.1. [Tracking Issue - Proposed Corrections Feedback] URL to URI (issue vc-data-model#862)

See github issue vc-data-model#862.

See github pull request vc-data-model#866.

Kyle Den Hartog: +1 to merging now.

Brent Zundel: proposal to merge now.

Manu Sporny: this needs to be squashed and merged.

1.2. publishing resolution.

Brent Zundel: all feedback to corrections to v1.1 of VC-data-model has been addressed..
… we need to make a proposal for including these corrections in the v1.1 spec.

Manu Sporny: can take a shot at proposal.
… .

Proposed resolution: Publish the final Verifiable Credentials Data Model v1.1 specification including all editorial changes made as a result of review comments on the set of Proposed Corrections.. (Brent Zundel)

Kyle Den Hartog: +1.

Orie Steele: +1.

Manu Sporny: +1.

Dave Longley: +1.

Shigeya Suzuki: +1.

Brent Zundel: +1.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: +1.

Markus Sabadello: +1.

Michael Prorock: +1.

Ryan Grant: +0.

David Chadwick: +1.

Resolution #1: Publish the final Verifiable Credentials Data Model v1.1 specification including all editorial changes made as a result of review comments on the set of Proposed Corrections..

Brent Zundel: thanks everyone..

2. test suite feedback.

2.1. [Tracking Issue - Proposed Corrections Feedback] Test suite improvements are needed (issue vc-test-suite#126)

See github issue vc-test-suite#126.

Brent Zundel: who can speak about progress on the issue?.

Manu Sporny: haven’t been in touch with Charles.

Brent Zundel: the changes we can make as a WG are reflected in 127 & 128 pulls.
… those could be pulled in after a conversation.

Manu Sporny: the test suite is non-normative and can be changed anytime..

Brent Zundel: next issue.

3. Updating v1.1 with editorial improvements.

Kyle Den Hartog: two pulls are open..

3.1. Updating References in the note on transitive trust (pr vc-data-model#868)

See github pull request vc-data-model#868.

Kyle Den Hartog: a minor change to update the link to point more accurately. this has multiple approvals and has settled for 14 days..
… ready to merge. any objections?.

3.2. add section to differentiate between contexts and credential Schemas (pr vc-data-model#847)

See github pull request vc-data-model#847.

Kyle Den Hartog: larger text has seen significant review. comments addressed and have settled for 7 days. Manu says ready to merge if no other comments unaddressed. Ted’s comments are in..
… any objections?.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: +1 to merge.

Manu Sporny: have looked at this several times, but not most recent changes. will look at after the merge..

Kyle Den Hartog: your suggestions made it in, and Ted’s. ready to merge. can fix things later if needed..

Manu Sporny: sounds great.

Kyle Den Hartog: will merge and squash..

Manu Sporny: could rebase.

3.3. publishing editorial changes.

Kyle Den Hartog: more iterative than organized pulls.

Manu Sporny: would like date added to proposal.

Proposed resolution: Add all of the editorial changes made up until 2022-02-16 to the Verifiable Credentials Data Model v1.1.. (Brent Zundel)

Manu Sporny: +1.

Michael Prorock: +1.

Mahmoud Alkhraishi: +1.

Ryan Grant: +0.

Dave Longley: +1.

Brent Zundel: +1.

David Chadwick: +1.

Kyle Den Hartog: +1.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: +1.

Logan Porter: +1.

Markus Sabadello: +1.

Shigeya Suzuki: +1.

Dmitri Zagidulin: +1.

Resolution #2: Add all of the editorial changes made up until 2022-02-16 to the Verifiable Credentials Data Model v1.1..

4. VCWG Charter.

4.1. Each registry should include at least one standardized entry (issue vc-wg-charter#67)

See github issue vc-wg-charter#67.

Brent Zundel: recommendation by Jeffrey that “Each registry should include at least one standardized entry”.

Kyle Den Hartog: this is a useful discussion.
… proposed changes would affect the new charter.
… proof would require one.
… advocating for process documents over notes due to patent protection..

Kristina Yasuda: how is CCG patent policy different from/same with W3C WG patent policy?.

Manu Sporny: I understand the intent..
… it’s too early, in some cases..
… (if taking this suggestion) if we don’t put evidence-related stuff in for the charter, we won’t be ready for this go-around.
… because of that i’m a -1.
… it’s well-intentioned and best for a mature ecosystem.

Brent Zundel: +1 to allowing for optional extension points to have registered entries that are not rec-level.

Manu Sporny: we should strive to put normative mechanisms in here, but if we accepted this we would have to remove things and it would reduce the education of people in the space..

Brent Zundel: there are decisions that we as a WG cannot make..
… we can’t decide what the next group is going to do with their registries..
… that makes some of this out-of-bounds.

Kristina Yasuda: some elements could be removed for the registry/interop purpose now, and added back once “mature”.

Kristina Yasuda: if “not ready” is a concern.

Brent Zundel: i’d like to explore what charter text changes would be needed for this, because I think the charter already supports this..

Manu Sporny: Let’s just do a registry and figure out what goes in that registry during the WG… it’s premature right now to make broad statements about the registry..

Kyle Den Hartog: defining a registry, and the contents of entries (via the process) must fit definitions. to make this decision now would affect the charter..

Michael Jones: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/67#issuecomment-1042228925.

Michael Jones: this also gets to standardized vs unstandardized distinction..
… there are features like evidence that are not standardized. We should be clear in the next step which of these things are done, and which are subject to change..
… jyasskin noted that it should be possible to use only standardized features to implement the spec. important for interoperability..

Kyle Den Hartog: My take is that we are fine in terms of the registry being defined in the charter, but if we make the requirement that a REC track document is necessary then we may get forced to re-charter if we don’t call out which rec track documents in the charter now.

Orie Steele: +1, not registering things does not stop folks from working on them… we should be clear how reliable a registry entry is, if the registry will accept entries of varying reliability..

Michael Prorock: +1 Orie.

Manu Sporny: furthering kdenhartog_ point.

Kyle Den Hartog: yup that is.

Manu Sporny: it may be that there is better patent and IP protection in a CCG work item than in a WG Note. there is no patent protection on anything until a patent exclusion period hits.

Michael Prorock: +1 manu.

Manu Sporny: however you can get both if things are strategically republished..
… W3C has published notes that get sent to recommendation track later on. that is a signalling mechanism. CCG doing that carries less weight with the AC..

Orie Steele: Sounds like Kyle is directly contradicting what manu just said..

Orie Steele: I would like clarity on this topic..

Kyle Den Hartog: manu highlighted the patent point well. As far as Notes, the process documents state that the point of the note track is for documents that are not intended to be standardized. Showing work this way for the WG introduces a weird patent consideration. We should state what we are going to standardize..

Kyle Den Hartog: “A Group Note (NOTE) is published to provide a stable reference for a useful document that is not intended to be a formal standard.” Found in section 6.4.1 of the Process document.

Kyle Den Hartog: https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#note-track.

Manu Sporny: +1 to what selfissued just said.

Michael Prorock: +1 mike - and as a Co-chair of CCG it has its place - but it is primarily incubation related.

Michael Jones: leaving things in the CCG does not ring true to building a standard. leaving things in the CCG loses control of our destiny. pull everything that you want to be a standard in the WG..

Brent Zundel: in light of that, what concrete changes should be made to the charter?.
… we already have a rec-track doc for proof property..
… beyond that, what do we need?.

Kevin Dean: add voice to standardizing what we can..

Kristina Yasuda: proof registry is quite general, do we want registry for compatible cryptosuites? curves?.

Manu Sporny: we do, kristina… I’m on queue to speak to that..

Michael Prorock: +1 Kevin - let’s try to get what we can in.

Manu Sporny: +1 to Mike Jones.
… going to suggest… remember when we got the advice to not go to candidate rec? we could do a first working draft. “FPWD” and say that we’re not going to publish final until we have maturity, yet get patent protection..
… don’t know how AC would respond.
… i don’t think the above is a good idea..

Manu Sporny: https://w3c.github.io/did-spec-registries/.

Manu Sporny: on what could go to the registry: we published things in the did-spec registry that should be in this WG, due to constrained charter..

Kristina Yasuda: btw alternative to “mandatory to implement” is “default”, saying “this is a default, but if you agreed otherwise feel free to use other curves/cryptosuites”, etc…

Michael Prorock: +1 manu - significant learnings as a result of DID WG and FOs / Response that we should take into account here.

Orie Steele: +1.

Ryan Grant: verification methods, verification types.

Kyle Den Hartog: can put forward a list that is structured as an issue. example of revocation list 2020. or even FPWD..

Manu Sporny: status-list-2021 should be the target… not revocation-list 2020 :).

Kyle Den Hartog: we could set it as recommended status..

Kristina Yasuda: do we need to agree on all the registries we plan to set up in the charter?.

Manu Sporny: no, we don’t need to do that… typically, the WG decides.

Kyle Den Hartog: yes to Manu’s suggestion..

Kristina Yasuda: I assume no, based on did-core registry process.

Manu Sporny: (because tons of conversations happen during WG that change the contents of registry and structure).

Brent Zundel: I don’t think we do, but we need to know which extension points would need rec-track documents so we can be sure to include those in the charter.

Kristina Yasuda: ok, then from the charter perspective, we just need to clarify that we intend to leverage registries to ensure interoperability purposes..

Kristina Yasuda: would be my suggestion, at least.

Kristina Yasuda: to address Jeffrey’s issue.

Kyle Den Hartog: having an understanding that there are some extensions that will never rec-track (like presentation change) [beneficial].

Kyle Den Hartog: to clarify I think presentation exchange could go REC track, but it would depend on whether the VC registries considers DIF to be an SDO in the sense that it can register Required/Recommended/Optional statuses.

4.2. Add clarification to description of non-normative deliverables (pr vc-wg-charter#74)

See github pull request vc-wg-charter#74.

Brent Zundel: pull title is Add clarification to description of non-normative deliverables #74.
… summary is that we’ll work on what ever time, attention, and resources permit.
… we have comments.
… we have approvals.
… we have concerns.
… any opposition to merge?.

Kyle Den Hartog: unrequesting changes and now approve..

Kristina Yasuda: suggested some text. approved..

Brent Zundel: can merge with your suggestion as a comment..

4.3. Simplify VCDI deliverable (pr vc-wg-charter#76)

See github pull request vc-wg-charter#76.

Brent Zundel: this PR attempts to clear up draft status. apologies to recent comments..

Manu Sporny: Christina raised a comment that is good to focus on.
… we should call out the categories. i made an attempt to do that..
… two categories: container formats.
… second category: cryptographic suites..

Kristina Yasuda: thank you, Manu.

Manu Sporny: we’re not talking about a mishmash of documents that will be squished in to one document..

Michael Jones: added an issue comment that this pull removes references to work items..

Manu Sporny: +1 to selfissued , we do need to come back in and re-add stuff after the refactoring..

Michael Jones: if we’re going to consider this pull we should undo removing references.

Michael Prorock: +1 selfissued - we really want JWS explicitly called out based on DID WG experiences.

Kyle Den Hartog: Manu’s categories. key formats. will define whether we want these cryptosuites to fit the keys in. are we choosing key formats?.

Kristina Yasuda: +1 to general restructuring.

Manu Sporny: +1 to Mike Jones. important things have been removed. this is a restructuring and we’ll add the references back in later..

Kristina Yasuda: and +1 to Kyle’s comment on key formats.

Michael Prorock: +1 restructuring good - but i do not want stuff pulled until we know how it is coming back in.

Brent Zundel: state specific feedback. keep engaging. consensus seems net-more..
… see you in a week.

5. Resolutions