Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco — Minutes

Date: 2022-12-14

See also the Agenda and the IRC Log

Attendees

Present: Brent Zundel, Ivan Herman, Kristina Yasuda, Michael Prorock, Phillip Long, David Chadwick, Oliver Terbu, Will Abramson, Andrew Whitehead, Samuel Smith, Manu Sporny, Chris Abernethy, Dave Longley, Orie Steele, David Lehn, Michael Jones, Ted Thibodeau Jr., Dmitri Zagidulin, Brian Richter, Joe Andrieu, Juan Caballero, Charles Lehner, Steve McCown, Gabe Cohen

Regrets:

Guests:

Chair: Kristina Yasuda

Scribe(s): Phillip Long

Content:

Kristina Yasuda: any one to reintroduce themselves?.
… additions to the agenda?.

1. F2F Meeting.

Kristina Yasuda: some new labels for issues being raised but not mature enough for specific discussion..

Brent Zundel: the new label is ‘conversation’.

Manu Sporny: Thank you for providing office space for the F2F meeting, Microsoft! :).

Brent Zundel: notes the new label in the issues is ‘conversation’.
… we’ll need sponsors if lunch is desired..

Michael Prorock: brent - hit me up on lunch.

Orie Steele: has asked for link for a f2f agenda and meeting item components for meeting item agenda. Not ready yet but will be by Feb 14 to 16..

Kristina Yasuda: F2F is planned for Feb 14-16.

2. Special topic calls.

Kristina Yasuda: for special topic calls the current plans is that we don’t have them for the next 3 weeks..
… the next special topics call is Jan 9th is to continue discussion @context being optional and related issues..

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: calendar needs update with Jan 9 call – https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/vc/calendar.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: special topic call for the 9th isn’t on the calendar and the 10th is cancelled. Need to correct this. Calendar entry will be corrected..

3. status update.

3.1. Add nonTransferable property to credentials vocab (pr vc-data-model#969)

See github pull request vc-data-model#969.

Manu Sporny: status updates - VC Data Integrity no updates, Nontranfereable property, with good discussion on Special Issue call..
… not sure what to do about closing, wait for more comments.

David Chadwick: use cases will put into the holder binding..
… when we have new feature we can say it is reproduced or replaced by this new PR.

Manu Sporny: watch the holder binding discussion and is it ok to close this PR if it takes several weeks or months to resolve (969).

3.2. Added presentationSchema (pr vc-data-model#987)

See github pull request vc-data-model#987.

Manu Sporny: PR 987 - request for an example from Orie - re Added PresentationSchema. David to provide an example two shortly.

Ivan Herman: this is a new property to go into the data model?.

David Chadwick: Yes that’s correct, only applied to Presentations.

Ivan Herman: has to add this to the vocabulary.

David Chadwick: Property name is fixed, it will be an object with defs, and have a type and ID.

Manu Sporny: One thing everyone doing PR should be aware of there are three places - spec, the vocab, and JSON schema file and JSON-LD schema file.
… four (4) things not 3..

Ivan Herman: for the vocab part would be nicer if the automatic publishing procedure was running. A bit complicated - but should be done in Jan..

Manu Sporny: Yes, it’s on the ‘todo’ list.

Mike: is JSON schema in scope?.

Manu Sporny: Yes, JSON schema added for the specification was added a few weeks ago and needs to be added.

Orie Steele: I agree with selfissued, seems like this is going to be difficult to maintain… might have been nicer to do at the end..

Dave Longley: +1 to freeze until the end.

Michael Prorock: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab.

Orie Steele: Spruce also has tooling for that purpose..

Dmitri Zagidulin: one way to reduce the complexity adding to 4 places is if we added a toolset to automate this. Orie has more tooling or others may have something..

Michael Prorock: +1.

Dmitri Zagidulin: +1 to freezing, too.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: if it’s frozen, it will need inline notation saying so, else our early adopters will be raising lots of issues (and may do so even with such notice).

Michael Prorock: big fan of doing this once and highly in favor that approach but maintaining both things at once will get things out of sync.

Kristina Yasuda: WG agreed to work on the schemas. Can we document the issues re: generating once and integrate the updates.

Manu Sporny: will create an issue to automate the files we have to maintain so we only one to maintain..

Michael Prorock: +1 mike.

Mike: can someone put a note in the header for the schema that it is out of date and we’re not going to maintain it until we do the one point of change to update all..

Michael Prorock: otherwise someone will think it is gospel and create a lot of work to undo.

3.3. Rename issuanceDate/expirationDate to validFrom/validUntil. (pr vc-data-model#992)

See github pull request vc-data-model#992.

Manu Sporny: PR992 - rename issuanceDate/expiration date from validFrom/ValidUntil comments in the PR with a number of corrections.

3.4. Add normative dependency on VC Data Integrity. (pr vc-data-model#993)

See github pull request vc-data-model#993.

Manu Sporny: PR993 add normative dependency on VC Data Integrity - oks there..

3.5. Change reference to URI/IRI to use WHATWG URL specification. (pr vc-data-model#994)

See github pull request vc-data-model#994.

Manu Sporny: PR994, a request to talk about URLs in the spec - slight bit of push back but no objections. A DID is a URL but it can be referenced in the issue.

4. StatusList2021 adoption.

Kristina Yasuda: any other work item updates? If not next item is StatusList 2021 adoption.

Manu Sporny: This the spec we’re talking about: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-status-list-2021/.

Kristina Yasuda: any comments before we put this up for adoption?.
… no one on the queue.

Joe Andrieu: +1 to vc-status-list.

Brent Zundel: will put this up and Brent will not take offense if other names are preferred.

Michael Prorock: Should we consider this as Status -.

Kristina Yasuda: let’s not discuss normative changes at this time..

Michael Prorock: good point - let’s avoid that nightmare, sorry i mean that “extra complexity”.

Brent Zundel: I think a constrained scope for this item is a good idea.

Manu Sporny: concerned that we’re concerned about what the spec is about - e.g., add talking about blockchain status, ZKP status, etc. that isn’t what we’re voting on today. We should focus on just this VC StatusList.

Orie Steele: Pretty sure the working group gets to decide what the thing is, after we pull it in… the WG controls the content of the document..

Dave Longley: +1 to expect multiple versions over time.

Manu Sporny: concern with versioning VC StatusList2021 now but there will be multiple versions of this and we should start talking about it now..

Brent Zundel: I think we handle versions in other work items without needing to modify the shortname.

Orie Steele: +1 Mike.

Michael Prorock: reiterates his dislike for putting dates in names. Other ways to do this. Perhaps the StatusList version might take care of this..

Orie Steele: There are no JWT examples in that specification..

Mike: Let’s delete the date from the short name - to VCStatusList leaving out 2021 etc..

Michael Prorock: +1 orie - we will need to do some work to this.

Ivan Herman: We’re pulling this into the Rec track not a note - Kristina says “yes” that’s what we’re doing.

Manu Sporny: data model spec has status field but it makes sense to make it as separate specification. We need to make this logic clear on the record.

Michael Prorock: +1 manu.

Ivan Herman: if we want to do this we should not go for a public working draft this year because of the transition going on with W3C is too messy..

Michael Prorock: and big +1 to no fpwd this year.

Proposed resolution: The WG will adopt StatusList2021 (https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-status-list-2021/) as a recommendation track editors draft under the shortname vc-status-list. (Brent Zundel)

Ivan Herman: +1.

Michael Jones: +1.

Dave Longley: +1.

Michael Prorock: +1.

Brent Zundel: +1.

Gabe Cohen: +1.

Oliver Terbu: +1.

Manu Sporny: +1.

Orie Steele: +0.

David Chadwick: +1.

Chris Abernethy: +1.

David Lehn: +1.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: +1.

Kristina Yasuda: Should we proceed with this naming? (Vote).

Kristina Yasuda: +1.

Phillip Long: +1.

Steve McCown: +1.

Dmitri Zagidulin: +1.

Resolution #1: The WG will adopt StatusList2021 (https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-status-list-2021/) as a recommendation track editors draft under the shortname vc-status-list.

Kristina Yasuda: no -1’s , one 0, hence declared adopted..

Ivan Herman: do I need to create a repository for it?.

Brent Zundel: They will work out the details of this and Ivan can leave this until given direction..

Michael Prorock: CCG will standby for final community draft approval, etc.

5. Issue Discussion.

Kristina Yasuda: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Adiscuss+sort%3Aupdated-asc.

5.1. Redirect the vocabulary to v2 (issue vc-data-model#966)

See github issue vc-data-model#966.

Kristina Yasuda: here’s the topic to discuss - https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Adiscuss+sort%3Aupdated-asc.
… 966 - clarity sought on this.

Ivan Herman: in an ideal world it would be a PR but it’s a separate issue because the documents to be changed are not on the repository. The redirection from the official W3C address to Vocab for data model goes to the old v1 version of the vocab, and the proposal is to point it to version 2 which is maintained and in much better shape with V2 and backwards compatible. No downsides for doing it..

Kristina Yasuda: proceed with this suggestion.

Manu Sporny: strong support for doing this and moving it over..

Ivan Herman: no PR just going to the W3C website and proceed with the suggestion!.

Orie Steele: Noting that this issue is related to the questions about the “core data model”… its weird to not here objections to it from the folks seeking to make context optional..

5.2. (issue vc-data-model#930)

See github issue vc-data-model#930.

Dmitri Zagidulin: the other option would be to model delegation in the DID data model, instead of VC.

Gabe Cohen: trying to familiarize with what’s happened - mostly a distinction wanting to represent delegates in a credential rather than defining a new cryptographic mechanism.
… how do we represent delegated relationships? Want to show that someone is presenting a credential for a party who is not represented there..

Dmitri Zagidulin: and yet a third option would be to model delegation in a /separate/ VC, instead of in a single one..

Oliver Terbu: good example for the use case - might be specific type of holder binding..
… believes it can be solved by the holder binding.

Kristina Yasuda: concerned with the scope of the holder binding.

Dave: can we turn this issue into one or more use cases and closed?.

Joe: second that notion specifying the use case independent of the solution is a good option..
… Gabe’s example has a bunch of claims but there should be the ability to say many things - not a state of delegation itself..

Gabe Cohen: already exists in https://github.com/w3c/vc-use-cases/issues/126.

Gabe Cohen: should be a statement about delegation and should be in the use cases. Joe might have made this comment at TPAC..
… maybe the use case should come first and be referenced there..
… will work on vc use case PR first.

5.3. Determine interoperable way for Holder to make claims directly in VPs (issue vc-data-model#860)

See github issue vc-data-model#860.

Joe: had in credential the issuer issued a mDL but nothing about the subject presenting the credential. Is the current presenter the same as the issuer gave the VC to use case individual claiming US citizenship, the birth certificate claims the relationship to his mother, but she’s remarried and has changed her name. Need something to connect these changes. This is me; this is my boss, my child, or simply I found this vc.
… how do we have a standard way to represent these complicated semantic relationships? Having one would be helpful.

Phillip Long: Kristina - perhaps we should think about this though this issue has been opened back in Jan this year.

Manu Sporny: we should think more about this and provide a standard mechanism for representing this relationships.
… we need concrete guidance for people who want to put these properties in the representation. It could be come a big conversation. We’ve only had a terms of use in a presentation to date..
… we’ll need to approach this from a “use cases first” perspective..
… need to be very specific about the use cases..

Dmitri Zagidulin: +1 to re-using existing VC primitive, vs introducing a new primitive of adding claims to VP.

Dave: we should try to leverage the primitives we already have. One way to do that is the VC. Given there is a lot complicated relationships and not have a highly complex reasoning engine to process it we should leverage VCs where the kinds of relationships are modeled. EG. give a parent child assertion yourself offered..

Dave Longley: +1 to being able to say anything – but there’s a need for the verifier to know what they are saying as well, +1 to common vocabs and an easy way for the verifier to say what they will understand in the first place..

Joe: a little confused by what Dave just said. VCs require a separate artifact and different from the flow. Should be an action of the presentation. This is still “openworld” - should express this with some constrained openworld. Need a vocab that expresses common relationships. Good to address nontransferrable property, etc. would help us get rid of babel problem but need to express things as the real world works..

Kristina Yasuda: let’s leave this conversation for further thought. Happy New Year for everyone. We’ve made progress with new V2 WG and working on it..

6. Resolutions