Verifiable Credentials WG Telco — Minutes

Date: 2022-02-23

Attendees

Present: Ivan Herman, Shigeya Suzuki, Orie Steele, Brent Zundel, Manu Sporny, Markus Sabadello, Michael Jones, Oliver Terbu, Ted Thibodeau Jr., Justin Richer, Dave Longley, Kristina Yasuda, Mahmoud Alkhraishi, David Chadwick, Michael Prorock, Ryan Grant, Charles Lehner

Regrets:

Guests: Will Abramson

Chair: Brent Zundel

Scribe(s): Orie Steele, Manu Sporny

1. Agenda.

Brent Zundel: we will talk about test suite, refactor the draft wg charter, then registries.
… any proposed agenda changes?.

Manu Sporny: I want to focus on PRs that seem ready to merge..

Brent Zundel: yes, we can look at PRs.
… also, lets give an update re our publishing status.

Oliver Terbu: I worked on DID spec and VC Spec and now I’m with spruce..

Will Abramson: I work with legendary requirements, and I’m here on behalf of Digital Contract Design..

Ivan Herman: are you officially part of the wg?

Will Abramson: just listening for now.

2. updated rec.

Brent Zundel: update on status on our REC?.

Manu Sporny: the new draft VCDM 1.1 REC has been prepared by editors… a few minor editorials, and link fixes… as far as editors know, it has everything we agreed to..
… the request is to the W3C to publish.

Ivan Herman: after this call I will officially request publication..
… targeting 3rd of march.

Brent Zundel: any questions?.

Oliver Terbu: what is the status of the WG charter?.

Brent Zundel: our charter ends in april, and we are drafting the next wg charter.

Oliver Terbu: and the next version of the charter?.

Brent Zundel: we will be talking about that today..

3. test suite feedback.

See github issue vc-test-suite#126.

Brent Zundel: can someone give us an update on this?.

Manu Sporny: no update, have not met with charles, there are a lot of fairly involved questions… the whole thing is non normative… we should probably not change a lot of stuff until we have 2.0 charter.

4. VCWG Draft Charter Refactor.

Manu Sporny: lets note that there are other ones that are hanging out for a very long time….
… brent your PR 76 is wrapped into 77… we should look at 66 and 77.
… what order should we tackle them?.

4.1. Clarify some non-normative deliverables, as well as explicit not in scope items (pr vc-wg-charter#66)

See github pull request vc-wg-charter#66.

Brent Zundel: fine to address 66 first.

Kristina Yasuda: Could we clarify if we are adding “Conditional Normative Specifications”? this was a big new thing introduced in PR #77 that at least I was not aware of.

Michael Prorock: there were 2 things, mike jones added clarification regarding non normative, and addressing prior experience related to charter topics… I am volunteering to help with developer guides and discussing how VCs are exchanged, we need to be able to comment on work happening elsehwere.
… how to give good guidance on what we know and where its happening.

Manu Sporny: at this point, the only person requesting changes is Mike Jones, has your position changed?.

Michael Jones: has brent’s PR been merged, that covers the WG may or may not include other things?.
… I want Brent’s PRs merged first.

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

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

Manu Sporny: kristina you asked for some changes, do you want you changes applied before we merge?.

Orie Steele: confusion over PRs….

Michael Jones: we need to merge 74.

Manu Sporny: we are talking about 74.

Michael Jones: merge 74.

Brent Zundel: did you add kristina’s comment?.

Manu Sporny: yes.

Brent Zundel: objection to mergeng 74?.
… no objections, merging 74..

4.3. Clarify some non-normative deliverables, as well as explicit not in scope items (pr vc-wg-charter#66)

See github pull request vc-wg-charter#66.

Manu Sporny: going back to PR 66, we are not back to talking about 66.

Michael Jones: give me a chance to review 66.

Justin Richer: my changes have not been carried though..

Michael Prorock: thanks for clarifying Justin - that was my concern as well.

Manu Sporny: my hope is that those changes will be rebased.

Justin Richer: lets please merge 66.

Brent Zundel: objections to merging 66?.
… no objections, merging 66..

Michael Jones: there are conflicts, I would like a chance to review the changes.

Manu Sporny: we are doing a squash and merge, which is only allowed with no conflicts.
… if you have concerns, there is a record, and we will fix any reported issues.

Michael Jones: I am wondering about the line regarding protocols.

Manu Sporny: pretty sure we go that right, but let us know.
… 75 or 76?.

Brent Zundel: lets do 75 first.

4.4. Add links to VC Data Model for intro (pr vc-wg-charter#75)

See github pull request vc-wg-charter#75.

Brent Zundel: this PR adds direct links to existing data model text, regarding background.
… this keeps the charter text simpler.
… this PR helps first time readers of the charter make sense of its history.
… i took one of the suggested changes.

Kristina Yasuda: I just made one suggestion.

Kristina Yasuda: happy to approve then.

Brent Zundel: objections to merging?.
… hearing no objections.

Manu Sporny: great we are making progress.

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

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

Brent Zundel: the VCDI deliverable description was becoming messy… this PR simplifies the text… its a step towards the refactoring Manu does in his PR.
… I suggest merging 76 and then 77..
… and then try and add remove or move items..
… feedback on suggestions?.

Manu Sporny: +1 to that approach, I like the simplification, and the list approach..
… its a good restructuring, the next PR 77 presumes that this is merged..

Michael Jones: I commented on 76 some weeks ago asking for the deleted spec references to be restored.
… I am fine once deleted references are restored, and I am not ok merging this without that.

Michael Prorock: +1 mike jones.

Brent Zundel: its not intentional deletion, I was not sure how to include JWP, PR 77 adds it back in the correct place.

Michael Jones: I would prefer that each PR does no damage.
… do one thing well.

Brent Zundel: simplest route forward would be for you to suggest were JWP should go..

Michael Jones: it should be listed in non normative deliverables.

Manu Sporny: can you make that change?.

Michael Jones: i don’t know how to edit other peoples PRs.

Brent Zundel: PR 76, we want to make sure JWP is listed in this PR under…. non normative deliverables?.

Manu Sporny: JWP should be listed under deliverables assuming IETF progress.

Brent Zundel: lets look at 77.

Manu Sporny: we responded to you in PR 77.

Kristina Yasuda: can i talk about 77?.
… 77 seems to do more than just restructuring, because it adds a new section.
… I don’t understand the new section.
… there is a comment about, … , is it in scope to work on data integrity draft?.
… we can’t tell exactly what is going on.

Michael Jones: as I just said, can we please fix the problems in 76, and then consider that independent of other PRs.

Manu Sporny: the reason is that brent’s simplification takes it out.

Michael Jones: why not put it back in the PR?.

Manu Sporny: because brent’s PR deletes that section.
… 77 tries to add that stuff back in under a a section.
… if we undo everything that brent did, we can add JWP back in.
… 77 takes brents PR and then separates what kristina is getting at.
… and then adds a section for conditional normative deliverables.
… we can’t do what you are asking.

Orie Steele: I believe we are all in agreement about the changes that we want to see. We want to see 76 merged, and we want to see 77 merged. We can’t add VC-JWP back into 76 because of what Manu said. We need to clarify what we mean by conditional deliverables in PR 77..
… Although these PRs are not perfect, it would be much better to merge 76, then merge 77, then raise new PRs to fix any issues created. The structure that we have today is not great, we can’t do what Mike’s asking w/ 76 because the structure has to be fixed..
… Then we need to make additional changes because of the conditional changes… My main point, we need to get to the point of merging 77, this is a new section, Kristina’s concerns are valid, we need to move towards merging PRs..

Michael Jones: I understand what you are saying Manu, my intent is for you to put things back.
… I don’t think 77 is ready to merge as is.
… this is not an appropriate use of our resources.

Manu Sporny: I proposed adding it back to the end of the sentence.

Michael Jones: there are other deletions.

Kristina Yasuda: I think Orie made a comment that “cryptosuite” term is somewhat misleading, with which I agree. For example, what does “BBS+ Cryptosuite” would cover. BBS+ low level primitives will be defined in IETF. than we define how to use it in data integrity deliverable. why separate conditional deliverables?.

Brent Zundel: those are still listed,.
… JWP is now added back… this should allow us to merge this.
… and then restructure.

Mahmoud Alkhraishi: i think if you look at the pr preview it’ll alleviate the concerns.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: are we ready to merge 76?.

Brent Zundel: I believe we are.
… anyone opposed to merging 76?.
… no objections, lets merge.

4.6. Refactor WG inputs and outputs to follow (approved) WebApps Charter style (pr vc-wg-charter#77)

See github pull request vc-wg-charter#77.

Brent Zundel: normally we would move to the next topic, but we are actually merging PRs.

Manu Sporny: let me explain where this PR is coming from.
… we have struggled to classify documents correctly.
… the purpose of this PR is to align our documents with the WebAppSec WG’s approach.
… in their normative spec list, they very clearly state their deliverables.
… they also have a section for WICG, which generates input documents for the WG.
… this section of the WebAppSec charter which has been approved, says: “we may deliver these things, as long as the prerequisites have been met”..
… our charter lists 2 items we intent to deliver.
… last week, kyle suggested we also use conditional normative specifications..
… VC-JWP is a normative deliverable if IETF is done before we go to REC, same thing is true of BBS+.
… PGP, which orie asked for, if the CCG or some other incubation group finishes this in time, then it can become a normative deliverable of this group.
… the intent is to message these documents in the way that we have seen the WebAppSec WG be approved.

Kristina Yasuda: I understand the logic.
… deliverables that are conditional make sens.
… can you clarify the 3 listed deliverables.
… I don’t understand how these fit together.

Manu Sporny: excellent questions…..
… typically the way W3C WG behaves, the WG decides how to publish specs (1 document or many).
… what we list in our charter does not need to map 1-1, other than if we say we will publish something as a REC it has to be a REC.
… to be clear, this list might not be complete yet.
… this is just a preliminary PR that addressed what we already have.
… VC-JWP, currently the data model spec requires us to normatively define the mapping for VC-JWT… if JWP is done at IETF, we will need to do the same thing for JWP.
… all the core crypto work would need to be done at IETF before that can happen.
… this is the exact same model we followed for VC-JWT.
… we point to IETF RFCs for JWT.
… regarding crypto suites….
… when this WG defines a crypto suite, those suites don’t invent new crypto… we are just pointing to IETF crypto.
… what we are planning on doing is discussing packaging formats….
… the suites, may be their own individual specs, or we may want to bundle them.
… re your question on what is an “input document”..
… yes, we intent to take over the data integrity spec.
… the W3C process is that a WG takes CG drafts, and says they intend to standardize.
… the VC2.0 WG will list the data integrity report the CCG has been working on, and then it becomes a WG doc.
… we take it over, input documents usually have clean IPR, that are taken in to be worked on by a WG.

Oliver Terbu: can we say its not the intention of the group to produce an exhaustive list?.

Brent Zundel: we are intending for it to be non exhaustive list of input documents.
… the charter does not say this list is final.

Oliver Terbu: is it the intention of the final specification to be an exhaustive list?.

Manu Sporny: Oliver, yes, that should still be possible.

Manu Sporny: We will have failed if we don’t allow that..

Oliver Terbu: in other words, can we keep using other suites that are not listed.

Brent Zundel: the charter does not disallow that.

Oliver Terbu: ok, thanks.

Manu Sporny: agree with Kristina, having an exhaustive list of CCG input documents would be useful..

Kristina Yasuda: confused regarding CG Drafts and their ability to seek standards track.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: CGs produce reports… those reports look like specs, but they are not, thats why they take them to WGs.
… a CG has no power over a WG.
… CG’s that submit final reports can ask for a WG to adopt a report as an input document, but the WG is not required to take on ANY work from a CG.

Kristina Yasuda: Thank you for clarifying, Manu, Ted!.

5. AOB.

Brent Zundel: registries are formally in scope, but we have no registry deliverables.

Manu Sporny: haha, woops :P.

Brent Zundel: thanks for coming, please continue on github issues.

Michael Jones: We should say that registries are in scope in the charter.