Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco — Minutes

Date: 2023-03-22

See also the Agenda and the IRC Log

Attendees

Present: SongPu Ai, Michael Prorock, Ivan Herman, Kristina Yasuda, Phillip Long, Ted Thibodeau Jr., Manu Sporny, kevingriffin, David Chadwick, Kerri Lemoie, Paul Dietrich, Sebastian Elfors, Samuel Smith, Kevin Griffin, Jeremie Miller, Andres Uribe, Dave Longley, Orie Steele, Brent Zundel, Michael Jones, Kevin Dean, Gabe Cohen, Chris Abernethy, Shawn Butterfield, Joe Andrieu, Juan Caballero

Regrets:

Guests:

Chair: Brent Zundel

Scribe(s): Phillip Long

Content:

Brent Zundel: three work item proposals today.

Samuel Smith: Addition to the agenda: formal vote count at Miami re: ac/dc and clarification for what is meant by external proof meaning for compliance with VC data model.

Brent Zundel: where second vote was taken on AC/DC proposal 14 +1 13 who did NOT indicate support and therefore it was not passed. O’s taken as not supporting..
… expresses strong displeasure with the question about how the voting was interpreted..

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: clarifies how voting is counted +1 = support, 0 or -1 is not supported. Abstaining is not responding to the vote..

Kristina Yasuda: we are not discussing this topic further..

Brent Zundel: we are not reopening the conversation on the voting in Miami today as there is no new information to justify it..

Samuel Smith: So just to be clear. A vote of zero on any work item proposal contributes to not aupporting the proposal for a work item. rough consensus means that there must be a significant majority of +1 ones..

1. adoption of the work item of JSON Schema.

Gabe Cohen: DRAFT PROPOSAL: Adopt the Verifiable Credential JSON Schemas (https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-json-schemas/) as a work item in the VCWG with a preliminary short name of vc-json-schemas..

Gabe Cohen: has written up proposal texts to discuss re: adopting verifying JSON sechams as vc-json-schemas.

Brent Zundel: this would be a normative way to have interop to that extension. Add yourself to the queue if you have a negative respond to this proposal.

Ivan Herman: why is it json-schemas and not json-schema (pluralization question)..

Gabe Cohen: happy to singularize it.

Brent Zundel: run the proposal with the singularization.

Gabe Cohen: retypes proposal with singularization.

Proposed resolution: Adopt the Verifiable Credential JSON Schema (https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-json-schemas/) as a work item in the VCWG with a preliminary short name of vc-json-schema.. (Gabe Cohen)

Gabe Cohen: +1.

Michael Prorock: +1.

Samuel Smith: 0.

Ivan Herman: +1.

Manu Sporny: +1.

Phillip Long: +1.

Chris Abernethy: +1.

kevingriffin: 0.

Andres Uribe: +1.

Dave Longley: +1.

SongPu Ai: +1.

Kevin Dean: +1.

Jeremie Miller: 0.

Kristina Yasuda: 0.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: 0 failed to review properly.

Resolution #1: Adopt the Verifiable Credential JSON Schema (https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-json-schemas/) as a work item in the VCWG with a preliminary short name of vc-json-schema..

Orie Steele: 0.

Brent Zundel: sees no direct objects and it is passed.

Samuel Smith: My count is that there are 9 +1 and 6 Os.

Ivan Herman: Gabe and manu prepare the repo for transfer to the working group pending wrapping it up.

Orie Steele: I can do it, we do FCGS, and notify the ccg.

Michael Prorock: +1 CCG on the call - let me know when ready.

Orie Steele: gabe I can help.

Gabe Cohen: appreciate.

Manu Sporny: will send email to Gabe on the process.

2. BBS data integrity crypto suite work item.

Brent Zundel: Tobias is not on the call as he’s traveling..

Ori: will wait for text to comment on the BBS proposal.

Manu Sporny: has proposal to offer.

Michael Jones: FYI, I replied to Sam’s questions on the list at “RE: Chairs’ decision on VC-ACDC Proposal”.

Michael Jones: I think it’s important for people to understand what we did and didn’t decide in Miami.

Brent Zundel: add yourself to queue if you would like to speak for or against the work item. It would use the data integrity.

Michael Prorock: strong +1 here but it would expect IETF proceeds with this in their working groups. Implicit in this proposal..

Michael Prorock: +1 - fine with last call.

Manu Sporny: rewording VCBBS with proviso that IETF reach equivalent status as the W3C work progress through the req process (working group last call).

kevingriffin: I feel this is the exact conversation we had about vc-acdc.

kevingriffin: regarding standards progression.

Orie Steele: ^ yes, regarding similarity to vc-acdc, I hope our treatment is the same, let us know if it is not..

Ivan Herman: what are our plans if this does not happen? Publish working draft and it stays in unspecified state?.

Manu Sporny: if doesn’t complete at IETF it is published as a working draft. If this group is shut down we’d need to decide to publish this as a note, or give it more time to work on it, or more info to W3C that normative references in the proposed draft and those references need updating. Have to decide options at that point in time.

TalltTed: need to have consistent process here for all such circumstances.

Orie Steele: See for example: https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#discontinuedREC.

Brent Zundel: have to see how timing goes. If it’s not the case it’s not possible to extend it then next charter will have to take care of it or the work will have to be discontinued on it..

Kristina Yasuda: there are multiple steps the working groups have to determine what goes to CR or next steps for them. We will have discussions and process that the steps are clear..

Proposed resolution: Adopt the BBS Signature Data Integrity Cryptosuite (https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-di-bbs/) as a work item in the VCWG with a preliminary short name of vc-di-bbs, with the expectation that the BBS work at IETF will reach equivalent status as the W3C work progresses through the REC process.. (Brent Zundel)

Orie Steele: +1.

Gabe Cohen: +1.

Brent Zundel: +1.

Dave Longley: +1.

Michael Prorock: +1.

David Chadwick: 0.

Manu Sporny: +1.

Joe Andrieu: +1.

Andres Uribe: +1.

Kevin Dean: +1.

Chris Abernethy: +1.

Phillip Long: +1.

Samuel Smith: 0.

SongPu Ai: 0.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: 0.

Michael Jones: +1.

Kristina Yasuda: 0.

Kerri Lemoie: +1.

kevingriffin: 0.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: for future it would be useful to have things to review included in the agenda in advance.

Samuel Smith: I count 13 +1 and 6 0s.

Brent Zundel: usually done that way. Will do that in the agenda in the future not just the mailing list..
… no -1s, proposal passes.

Resolution #2: Adopt the BBS Signature Data Integrity Cryptosuite (https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-di-bbs/) as a work item in the VCWG with a preliminary short name of ‘vc-di-bbs’, with the expectation that the BBS work at IETF will reach equivalent status as the W3C work progresses through the REC process..

3. DIDAuth confirmation method work item.

Brent Zundel: final work item today - work item related to possible confirmation method, PR to add to data model and its name is underway, but request is to run a couple of different proposals.

Kristina Yasuda: should we run proposal about it in general or those he recommends?.

Brent Zundel: agrees with that recommendation..

Manu Sporny: BBS vote more straightforward and this less so. DIDAuth proposal isn’t clear..

Michael Jones: Per Manu’s point, what are we talking about?.

Kristina Yasuda: confirmation method property has a PR in the core data model but for it to survive the PR process it needs concrete ways to implement it. Oliver believes that one of those should be a work item in the WG. He wants WG working on it before the feature freeze. One of those is DIDAutho on confirmation method.
… this is just a string in the method property. DID method type doesn’t introduce a new key. Just use DID in subject in the credential to do DIDAuth.

Michael Jones: DID Auth is a wildly unspecified term.

Joe Andrieu: Can someone share the PR URL?.

Ivan Herman: this is extremely vague and uncomfortable either way on the approach we’re taking..

kevingriffin: +1 Ivan.

Brent Zundel: using DIDAuth as a confirmation and Oliver? wants to hear that WG will address “a work item” not necessarily a specific work item..

Michael Prorock: +1 Ivan.

See github pull request vc-data-model#1054.

Michael Jones: It’s just as unspecified as the “Universal Resolver”.

Kristina Yasuda: run one proposal.

Michael Jones: -1.

Brent Zundel: PROPOSAL: The VCWG intends to work on a new work item that defines a specific confirmation method (a term which is still being bikesheded) type based on DID Auth in VCDM 2.0.”.

Michael Jones: DID auth is undefined, therefore people should vote against this proposal.

Kristina Yasuda: oliver also proposed: draft PROPOSAL 1: The VCWG defines 1-2 specific confirmation method types such as DIDAuthWithSubjectIdConfirmation in the VCDM 2.0..

Kristina Yasuda: and draft PROPOSAL 2: The VCWG works on a new work item that defines a specific confirmation method (a term which is still being bikesheded) type in VCDM 2.0..

Brent Zundel: jump on queue to wordsmith this to reach agreement.

Ivan Herman: We can discuss it here, and send something to Oliver saying we’re interested but the formal proposal is unclear. (This is my personal view not a formal W3C statement, b.t.w.).

Brent Zundel: as Manu suggests let’s run it as a poll.

Kristina Yasuda: @manu, I think it has been indicated here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fdof-S7fhMzhzw8saldfIWLn8ybpVLbK4dvFOJYUNIA.

Juan Caballero: i think the intention was for the WG to support the specification of the simplest possible entry in the extension registry, and DIDAuth (of the VPRequest empty-VP variety) was just chosen as an example of a relatively straightforward one, fwiw.

Ivan Herman: let’s not get into a discussion about how that poll is formally interpreted.

Kristina Yasuda: Oliver sent an email asking if there was interest in working on it..

Brent Zundel: there has been interest indicate in this, though the syntax of a poll is unclear.

Brent Zundel: POLL: The VCWG would like to eventually define a specific confirmation method.

Manu Sporny: +0.5.

Ivan Herman: +1.

David Chadwick: 0.5.

Brent Zundel: The VCWG would like to eventually define a specific confirmation method.

Brent Zundel: +1.

Andres Uribe: +1.

Gabe Cohen: +0.

Joe Andrieu: +1.

Orie Steele: -1 (prefer to have this addressed in existing work items, not a separate item).

Samuel Smith: 0.

Kristina Yasuda: this is a non-binding poll.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: +0.5.

Michael Jones: -1 because DID Auth is wildly undefined.

Phillip Long: +.05.

Dave Longley: +0.5 (not against it, but worried about the generalizability of ‘confirmationMethod’ – and less so about the name).

Jeremie Miller: +0.5.

Michael Prorock: +0 - want some more clarity, like orie, think that this can be covered in existing work items.

Chris Abernethy: +0.

Brent Zundel: this poll is not DIDAuth specific, as DIDAuth isn’t well defined enough to bring it in at this point..

kevingriffin: 0 - agree with mprorock.

Brent Zundel: some opposition but may consider it in the future,.

Michael Jones: In what sense is this not DID Auth specific? The poll is about DID Auth..

Kristina Yasuda: doesn’t see it say “in VCDM core”.

Juan Caballero: i like orie’s idea, but would a vc-jwt-specific definition of DIDAuth be able to be referenced as a confirmationMethod?.

Brent Zundel: should a proposal be presented in the future the WG would be willing to consider adopting it..
… all the work item proposals for today.

Juan Caballero: +1 with Brent’s explanation of the semantics of voting, with the caveat that i’m just an observer/contributor, not representing a member org!.

4. vc-jwt as FPWD.

Brent Zundel: VC-JWT as the first working draft.

Michael Jones: Please let’s add Mike Prorock as an editor.

Orie Steele: On the mailing list and confirmed by the chairs that Mike Prorock should merge the PRs.

Michael Jones: What’s the link to the PR adding Mike as an editor?.

Michael Jones: +1.

Brent Zundel: draft proposal: the VCWG will publish VC-JWT as a FPWD using short name VC-JWT.
… any changes to this proposal before it is run.

Juan Caballero: i.e..

Manu Sporny: I’m a 0 on this around big tent language that we thought was setlled re: AC/DC and Gordian stuff. Preference to hold off on the FPWD as people may vote against this..

Michael Prorock: 1+.

Kristina Yasuda: proposal hasn’t been held so care in language is important..

Brent Zundel: this document is mature enough to go through patent review of the IPR process. Folks with patents would have to reveal those patents. This about revealing those patents. No about the big-tent discussion..

Michael Prorock: I would add to the record, that we as a WG extended this same courtesy to data integrity to go to FPWD for exactly the same reasons.

Brent Zundel: This is a straightforward step. Somewhat appalling to be go against first working draft..

Kristina Yasuda: this is an admin step for something we’ve worked on for a bit less than a year. It’s needed for rewiew, not a vote of confidence..

Michael Jones: See my reply to the working group mailing list “RE: Chairs’ decision on VC-ACDC Proposal”.

Samuel Smith: given Sam’s understanding of what this represents pushing this forward needs first to have clarification of the mapping that makes something VC this needs attention..

Michael Prorock: +1 orie.

Orie Steele: Here is the open PR to withdraw vc-jws-2020: https://github.com/w3c/vc-jws-2020/pull/33.

Orie Steele: can’t go forward with the JWS2020 withdrawal if we need this to be addressed..

Michael Prorock: we need to take this step as per our process..

Samuel Smith: +1 to mike jones.

Orie Steele: +1 selfissued vc-acdc’s are not blocked by this working group, and the work should progress..

Mike: The AC/DC resolution in Miami says nothing about what work items we’re going to adopt or not adopt. I support Sam. If the AC/DC create a mapping to the data model it should be considered a verifiable credential. That the working group didn’t take it up as a work item is a good thing. The resolution alongs mDocs and other things to become a VC through this mapping proviso..

Proposed resolution: the VCWG will publish VC-JWT as a FPWD using the short name vc-jwt. (Brent Zundel)

Brent Zundel: +1.

Orie Steele: +1.

Ivan Herman: +1.

Andres Uribe: +1.

Jeremie Miller: +1.

Michael Prorock: +1.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: +1.

Chris Abernethy: +1.

Mike: whether we choose to make this a formal work item by this working group is independent..

Joe Andrieu: +0.

Kerri Lemoie: +1.

Gabe Cohen: +1.

Michael Jones: +1.

Samuel Smith: -1 to get clarity first on interpretation of.

Kristina Yasuda: +1.

Brent Zundel: apologizes for running low on time. Runs proposal.

David Chadwick: +1.

Phillip Long: +1.

Manu Sporny: +0.25 (would prefer the group discuss what “big tent” means, how it relates to vc-acdc, vc-gordian, vc-jwt, and external proof formats).

SongPu Ai: +1.

Dave Longley: +0.5 to allow IP considerations to proceed, but hoping for more resolution and consensus in the group.

Michael Jones: I support Sam and the proposal to create an ACDC mapping to the VC Data model.

Brent Zundel: If this proposal goes forward will Sam formally object? Has asked for clarity on how we proceed in this community with external proof methods. How can there be clarity without asking for it? If it can’t be put on the agenda for discussion what options are there?.

kevingriffin: +1 to manu.

Joe Andrieu: no it does.

Joe Andrieu: doesn’t.

Michael Jones: Per the Miami resolution, once there’s a defined mapping from a format to the VC Data model, it’s a VC.

Kristina Yasuda: Resolution in Miami said as long as there is a transformation back to a VC it complies with being a verified credential..

Joe Andrieu: making a mapping does not make anything a VC. Conformance to the VCDM defines VCs.

Manu Sporny: ^^ yes, that..

Resolution #3: the VCWG will publish VC-JWT as a FPWD using the short name vc-jwt.

Manu Sporny: Concerned that some people are not aligned on what the resolution at Miami F2F meant… the details around it… we need to get clarity on that ‘cause it’ll come up again when people do mappings..

Samuel Smith: if Kristina’s interpretation of the miami proposal is accurate I’ve no objection..

Brent Zundel: the proposal passes and people will have a week to object formally..

5. Resolutions