Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco — Minutes

Date: 2022-07-27

See also the Agenda and the IRC Log

Attendees

Present: Gabe Cohen, Phil Archer, Ivan Herman, Kristina Yasuda, Manu Sporny, Ted Thibodeau Jr., Charles Lehner, Oliver Terbu, David Chadwick, Joe Andrieu, Samuel Smith, Steve Cole, Kerri Lemoie, Markus Sabadello, Marty Reed, Kevin Dean, Will Abramson, Brent Zundel, Tobias Looker, Juan Caballero, SongPu Ai, Gregory Natran

Regrets:

Guests:

Chair: Kristina Yasuda

Scribe(s): Phil Archer

Content:

Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin: Hi just wanted to pop in and say I follow the meetings async, as here in Norway it is a strong tradition of vacation and family during the summer. So I dont have the capability to join these meetings during July. Will be back stronger from August!.

Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin: Have a good meeting!.

Kristina Yasuda: Talks through agenda.
… Brent and I started doing issue triage.
… lots of issues open in GitHub.
… are these issues still relevant?.
… If still relevant, which are the priority?.
… please start looking at them.

Manu Sporny: +1 to the agenda :).

Kristina Yasuda: Would anyone like to (re)introduce themselves?.

Charles Lehner: I’ll introduce myself. I’m Charles Lehner from Spruce.
… I was in the previous VCWG, the CCG. I’m a software developer.

Kerri Lemoie: I’m one of the co-chairs of the edu-vc task force. I’m here as an individual.
… background in research and dev.

Steve Cole: With MAG. In Web Payments WG for some time. It was recommended that we join this group by our friends at Connexus.

1. Participation renewal.

Kristina Yasuda: Tomorrow, 28 July, is the deadline to renew your IP commitments.

2. W3C publishing crash course.

Ivan Herman: See diagram in the process document.

Ivan Herman: Talks through the figure in the process document (see link).
… How to get from First Pub Working Draft to Rec..
… You may have seen the issue raised by Manu for the FPWD for V2 of the data model..
… that’s when the doc gets added to the database of formal docs. IP issues come in for the first time (you can raise IP issues at this point).
… There’s an admin overhead which is mostly on the editors and the team contact (me)..
… Need official authorization from ‘The Director’ to publish - there’s an internal team process.
… There’s a discussion about the short name for the doc.
… Working drafts - there are many of them. This is because each PR, when merged, will become a Working Draft..
… It’s automated so that as soon as you make a merge on a PR it gets published on our pages at w3.org/TR.
… We will have lots of PRs and therefore lots of working drafts.
… There’s no admin to do around this, no director approval.
… Eventually we get a Candidate rec.
… Once we’re in CR, ideally, there are no further changes to the doc. In reality, issues are often raised as a result of implementation experience..
… So you then get to a Candidate Rec draft - and you can have several of those..
… Original declaration that “we’re done” may prove premature, so we go round again.
… Then one day we cay we’re technically ready and done in terms of testing and we say “we’re finished” and we want the doc to be a Proposed Rec..
… that’s a big deal that needs Director approval. Then the W3C membership votes. Usually this is a simple step..
… As some in this group know, members do have the ability to raise a formal objection to a PR turning into a Rec. Big discussion. May have to go back to Working Draft and repeat.
… or the Director decides that the formal objection is overruled and the Proposed Rec is published as a Rec..
… We’ll publish several FPWDs in the coming weeks. Then lots of WDs before we get to the next stage by which time you’ll have forgotten everything I just said..
… You know where to find me if you have questions.

Brent Zundel: Thanks Ivan for that lead in….

3. Dates for the WG deliverables.

Brent Zundel: Putting what Ivan talked about in a more concrete picture - what this means. For primary doc (data model) we hope to go to FPWD now (July 22).
… Then by March we hope to be in feature freeze.
… First CR should then be in Sept ‘23. Maybe a second CR in Jan ‘24.
… Then PR in May ‘24, Rec in May ‘24.
… That sounds like a long time, but it’s not. A lot of time disappears into comment review, CR, implementation feedback etc..
… The only guarantee is that within a few months, none of these dates will be the same, but this is the goal..

Manu Sporny: +1 time line looks like a great plan!.

4. Relationship between input docs and deliverables.

Kristina Yasuda: Input doc, the VC data model, Manu has already filed a PR.
… but we were also talking about a JWS FPWD as well.
… We’d like to make the distinction clear |-| a CCG input doc and a VCWG draft doc.

Manu Sporny: I’ve got some thoughts on the topic you just raised. But where we are….
… The first link is ….

Manu Sporny: See PR for the Data model as a FPWD.

Manu Sporny: There’s a PR for the VCWG data Model Version 2 based on a resolution we made last week..
… It’s a very minor update to version 1.1. It removes some of the Rec boiler plate language.
… There’s an FPWD target publication date of 11 Aug.
… Markus, Gabe and Orie have already reviewed. I’d like to see if we can get it merged this week.
… so we can kick-start the admin process.

Manu Sporny: See Publication request for Data Integrity CGFRs.

Manu Sporny: The other update is a publication request for the data Integrity CGFR.
… (Community Group Final report).
… 4 of the docs from the CCG, Data Integ, JWS 2020 EDSA + 1 other.
… This group will need to take those docs over and pull them in.
… Those docs are out there for IP commitments. We think there’s a bug that needs fixing for that IP process.

4.1. Data model as a FPWD.

See github pull request vc-data-model#894.

Ivan Herman: Not central but… before we go to FPWD is to decide what the short name is.
… We have to vote for that. What’s more interesting is how we handle the various short names vis-a-vis previous version of the data model spec.
… I had some discussion with PlH about this. I have a proposal for that.

Kristina Yasuda: It seems uncomplicated to have ‘v2’ in the short name.

Ivan Herman: No, it’s not, but we need to ask for it.

Manu Sporny: See This is the proposal for shornames:.

Ivan Herman: Yes, the VCWG needs to agree what the short URL is, immutable version URLs etc..
… The background is that we have /TR/vc-data-model.
… This is the reference for the Rec. The Q is what do we want the future URL to be?.

Manu Sporny: +1 to the proposal in https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/894#issuecomment-1196910080 – it makes sense to me, at least..

Manu Sporny: I’d like us to set up the vc-data-model-1.0 link as well, FWIW..

Ivan Herman: It’s possible to ask for /TR/vc-data-model-1.1 for the current Rec.
… we will have /TR/vc-data-model-2.0.
… We will ask the systems team that the latest stable version… as long as we are in Working Drafts, it will refer to version 1.1.
… When we get to CR (we’re technically done) then the same URl will point to version 2.
… So the community has a stable reference for a doc that is stable.

Phil Archer: For clarity. The /TR/vc-data-model will imminently resolve to version 1.1 (always to be available at /TR/vc-data-model-1.1).
… And then will switch to V2 once it gets to CR.

Ivan Herman: Yes.

Charles Lehner: +1.

Manu Sporny: There’s a PS. Maybe we should set up a ‘version 1.0’ URL too..

Kristina Yasuda: Any one against this proposal?.

Ivan Herman: A reminder to ourselves. When we do a formal resolution that we’re publishing a FPWD, we have to include the short name that we want.

Phil Archer: [Discussion about timing cf review time].

Ivan Herman: Maybe it’s the time to remind the group that any formal resolution only becomes set after 5 days.

Brent Zundel: Makes proposal.

Phil Archer: [Brent re-writes proposal text].

Proposed resolution: use the shortnames and steps recommended in https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/894#issuecomment-1196910080 and publish the FPWD on 11 Aug 2022. (Brent Zundel)

Proposed resolution: The VCWG will publish the FPWD of VC Data Model v2.0 on 2022-08-11 using the vc-data-model-2.0 shortname and the steps recommended in: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/894#issuecomment-1196910080. (Phil Archer)

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: +1.

Phil Archer: +1.

Ivan Herman: +1.

Tobias Looker: +1.

Manu Sporny: +1.

Markus Sabadello: +1.

Kevin Dean: +1.

Marty Reed: +1.

Kerri Lemoie: +1.

Gabe Cohen: +1.

Brent Zundel: +1.

Joe Andrieu: +1.

Gregory Natran: +1.

Oliver Terbu: +1.

Steve Cole: +1.

SongPu Ai: +1.

Resolution #1: The VCWG will publish the FPWD of VC Data Model v2.0 on 2022-08-11 using the vc-data-model-2.0 shortname and the steps recommended in: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/894#issuecomment-1196910080.

Kristina Yasuda: We’ll leave it to the editors to execute that..

4.2. JWS 2020 input doc.

Kristina Yasuda: Are there any updates on this?.

Manu Sporny: I think that one’s ready to go. I think there’s agreement to follow what Orie wanted to do for that work item.
… please jump in if this sounds wrong. We have published a CGFR of that in the CCG. It’s a stable doc..
… The buttons are broken for the patent disclosure step, but using the process that Orie outlined, we can move it across to the VCWG whenever we want. My suggestion is ‘immediately’.
… I have some concerns about repeating that process for the other docs.

Kristina Yasuda: Good to hear there’s a clear path for the JWS doc, when the button is fixed.

Manu Sporny: I’m saying that the button doesn’t need to be fixed.
… The CCG has agreed to release it, the VCWG has said it would like to take it, we have initiated the IP process. There is no immediate danger.

Ivan Herman: I believe that’s true as long as we’re talking about a FPWD there’s no process issue there..

Manu Sporny: So we can move it over as soon as the VCWG wanted to do it.
… We want to move the CGFR to become an editor’s draft NOT an FPWD yet.

5. Issues in the VC Data Model repo.

Kristina Yasuda: Brent and I have been triaging the issues.
… Brent and I went through the least updated issues..
… Once the comments are not being updated any more… all the issues in the tracker have a V2 tag, but older/inactive issues do not.
… We added a couple of flags for those issues that we think should be moved to the data integrity work.
… i.e. they’re not relevant to the VC work, the issue has moved etc..
… There’s also a “relevant?” tag.

Brent Zundel: Because we haven’t finished going through them all… if we want to do issue processing… we could go through the most recently updated and get through some now..
… Here’s a link to that sorting.

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+sort%3Aupdated-des.

5.1. nonce property (issue vc-data-model#823)

See github issue vc-data-model#823.

Brent Zundel: kristina and I marked it as pending closed bc we think it maybe has been dealt with but TallTed made a comment recently….

Manu Sporny: I don’t think we can close this. It comes into the data integrity and VP side. It’s on the edge of protocol, but I don’t think we can close it.
… It’s likely to end up the Data Integrity spec.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: I’m mostly fine with that. If we’re still including Nonce in the examples the we should say why it’s still here, go see the spec over there.

Brent Zundel: I’ll remove the pending closed tag and make it DI?.

Kristina Yasuda: I would say it will go in the JWT VC spec too.

Brent Zundel: I can add those labels.

Manu Sporny: yeah, +1 it should be mentioned in JWT-VC spec as well..

David Chadwick: I did add some text into the data model 1.1 so there is some text there talking about the nonce that wasn’t in 1.0, but more detail needs to go into the v2 spec.

Manu Sporny: Fundamentally, challenge is provided by the server… domain and nonce are provided by the client.

David Chadwick: but if examples are being pulled out then the text will also go.

Brent Zundel: I will add the labels.

5.2. [PROPOSAL] New specification document title: W3C Consensus-based Data Model Specification for Verifiable Credentials (issue vc-data-model#791)

See github issue vc-data-model#791.

Brent Zundel: This was a proposal that the spec be re-titled “W3C Consensus-based Data Model Specification for Verifiable Credentials” kristina and I think this is highly unlikely.

Manu Sporny: +1 to close :).

Joe Andrieu: +1 to close.

Oliver Terbu: +1 close.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: +1 to close.

Ivan Herman: +1 close.

Brent Zundel: So we tagged it as pending closed.

Phil Archer: +1.

Tobias Looker: +1 to close.

5.3. Add a summary text as meta information (issue vc-data-model#248)

See github issue vc-data-model#248.

Brent Zundel: This has received some back and forth alongside another PR.
… The proposal here is that we add some summary text/meta info that would allow the issuer or the holder to indicate “this is what this credential is about”.
… A ‘summary property’ could be useful.
… I suggested that PR752 addressed this, but it seems not.

Manu Sporny: +1 to PR that tplooker raised as addressing this..

Brent Zundel: There some folks on the call who raised comments….

Manu Sporny: My understanding of Tobias’s proposal is to add name and description.

See github pull request vc-data-model#752.

Manu Sporny: I’d say the description is the summary.
… Do we need name, description and summary?.
… There are some preliminary proposals for rendering.
… if we can’t describe the difference between summary and description then go with tplooker.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: It seems the me the issuer will have no idea what pet name the holder may use.
… The pet name might go into an envelope that contains the credential but that’s not within the VC.

Manu Sporny: -1 to petnames in VCs… associated metadata, fine, but that’s a Holder preference..

Ivan Herman: That was a bit of a discussion on the pull request, not the issue.
… Are these additional metadata things to be signed/normalised?.

Manu Sporny: -1 for “bag of metadata” :) – like, we have a mechanism for semantics… let’s use those..

Ivan Herman: That’s relevant because one way is to define a bunch of properties. The other way is to say there is a single metadata property that points to a bunch of stuff that is not part of the credential.
… Personally I’d prefer to separate the metadata from the core set of statements, but we have to decide on that.

Tobias Looker: yeah I agree with manu.

Ivan Herman: If you don’t want to sign it then it’s separate.

Brent Zundel: No time for all comments here. Please add your comments to the issue (not the PR).

Tobias Looker: The original proposal is to add name and description. I see description and summary as synonyms..
… The other clarification - it is proof format-specific, but it’s issuer-signed.
… I don’t think that stops a wallet also assigning a pet name.

Kristina Yasuda: Thanks everyone.

Manu Sporny: +1 to what tplooker just said..

Kristina Yasuda: We’re running out of time, so DavidC, JoeAndrieu oliver please comment on the issue..
… Sorry we’re over time.

6. Resolutions