Verifiable Credentials Working Telco — Minutes

Date: 2025-02-26

See also the Agenda and the IRC Log

Attendees

Present: Hiroyuki Sano, Manu Sporny, Brent Zundel, Kevin Dean, Ted Thibodeau Jr., Dave Longley, Will Abramson, Denken Chen, Jennie Meier, David Chadwick, David Lehn, Phillip Long

Regrets:

Guests: Ivan Herman

Chair:

Scribe(s): Dave Longley

Content:

Brent Zundel: Welcome, this is the VCWG weekly telecon, thanks for being here. Join us in IRC, #vcwg.
… Our agenda today is our one main thing to talk about and some smaller things. The main thing is a proposal to transition seven of our docs to Proposed Recommendation.
… We’ll recap where we are with the implementation reports and one last look at any open issues for them to make sure we’re where we believe we need to be.
… We’ll talk about a proposed press release and discussions on meeting cadence for maintenance mode.
… Any folks want to suggest changes or editions to the agenda?

1. Proposed Recommendation Proposal.

Manu Sporny: Verifiable Credentials Data Model v2.0.

Manu Sporny: https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/transitions/2025/PR/.

Manu Sporny: Verifiable Credential Data Integrity v1.0.

Manu Sporny: https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-integrity/transitions/2025/PR/.

Manu Sporny: Data Integrity ECDSA Cryptosuites v1.0.

Manu Sporny: https://w3c.github.io/vc-di-ecdsa/transitions/2025/PR/.

Manu Sporny: Data Integrity EdDSA Cryptosuites v1.0.

Manu Sporny: https://w3c.github.io/vc-di-eddsa/transitions/2025/PR/.

Manu Sporny: Bitstring Status List v1.0.

Manu Sporny: https://w3c.github.io/vc-bitstring-status-list/transitions/2025/PR/.

Manu Sporny: Controlled Identifiers v1.0.

Manu Sporny: https://w3c.github.io/cid/transitions/2025/PR/.

Manu Sporny: VC JOSE COSE.

Manu Sporny: https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/CRD-vc-jose-cose-20250223/.

Brent Zundel: If folks recall, last time we walked through each of our specs to make sure that things were where they needed to be. We will go one at a time through these to be as pedantic as possible.
… Looking at the VCDM, all issues are marked future, except horizontal review which is just a tracking issue and we believe that’s either done or has been given sufficient time to be done. We will be moving forward and the transition request reflects that.
… There are no open PRs and the test suite shows sufficient implementation of the specification.
… From my perspective, VCDM is ready, it was ready last week and is still ready.
… Next is Controlled Identifiers. There’s a single issue marked future and a horizontal review tracking issue – these are the only issues open. Our implementation report for Controlled Identifiers – because it’s a super spec for the DID spec that the implementation experience from those is sufficient.
… Any questions before we move to DI?
… No, ok, Data Integrity only has one issue for future, horizontal reviews, and something for marking github IDs in a specific way for contributors.
… In all of your freetime Manu, were you able to address this one?

Manu Sporny: Yes, I believe I did this and I forgot to close the issue.
… And if I did somehow miss something, it’s editorial, we can change it right before we publish REC.

Brent Zundel: We can’t make the change then, however,.
… We can do it first thing when we do maintenance mode.
… It does now say “Names in alphabetical order or uses github handle…” and I think that’s what was wanted.

Manu Sporny: Yes.

Brent Zundel: I’m going to say we believe we’re good and close it.

Manu Sporny: +1.

Brent Zundel: Apologies to Ivan’s script, but I am closing it now.

1.1. Appendix on Proof Sets/Chains: Clarity improvements (pr vc-data-integrity#335)

See github pull request vc-data-integrity#335.

Brent Zundel: Ok, that means DI has no issues not marked future / horizontal review.
… There is a PR for clarification in an appendix.

Manu Sporny: I don’t know how I missed this one.
… Taking a look.

Brent Zundel: It is a very small PR.

Manu Sporny: I can merge it.

Brent Zundel: We can mark this future and make it the first editorial one.
… I’ll mark this future, it’s fully in scope.

Manu Sporny: Yes, I just marked it that way.

Brent Zundel: Ok, good.
… VC-DI-EdDSA is next, no issues other than horizontal tracking, the implementation report shows sufficient experience and that rolls up to DI which we just looked at. This is ready to go.
… VC-DI-ECDSA is in a similar spot, there’s an additional issue which is marked future and it’s editorial. Again, sufficient implementations in the implementation report and that rolls up to DI as well.
… So also ready to go.
… VC-JOSE-COSE still has three open PRs.
… One of them is an echidna change, which I thought got merged but apparently did not. One to create a PR snapshot, which should definitely be merged so we have our snapshot.

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/vc-jose-cose/pulls.

Brent Zundel: Finally, there is a PR to add the revision history and changes since we went into Candidate Rec.

Manu Sporny: I suggest these are fairly editorial and if we make a proposal to move VC-JOSE-COSE to PR that we include text that says we’ll merge the remaining PRs before the request is issued.

Brent Zundel: I’m ok with that. I want to note that the implementation report … the VC-JOSE-COSE test suite implementation report shows sufficient implementations of every feature.
… We have at least two implementations for each feature. We were concerned about getting those in but now we have them.
… So VC-JOSE-COSE will be ready once those editorial PRs are merged and the snapshot is updated.
… The final one is BitstringStatusList.
… BitstringStatusList has no open PRs, the only issue is horizontal review tracking issue.
… As folks engaged with the test suite, in order to demonstrate that they had implemented some of the features that hadn’t been tested by the other implementers, they ran into a minor issue.
… There is implementation experience that has been demonstrated, I don’t believe it has been incorporated into the test suite report.

Manu Sporny: That’s right. It hasn’t been integrated into the test suite report but we have at least two implementers saying they implemented the “status message” mechanism and we can get that into the report before it goes out to the membership.

Brent Zundel: Cool. With that, BitstringStatusList is also ready to be moved into PR.
… If I counted right that’s seven specs and that’s what we’re moving today.
… We need to indicate for VC-JOSE-COSE that … do we understand that we’re going to merge those last three PRs?

Manu Sporny: We should be explicit.

Brent Zundel: I will add a parenthetical comment.
… Any changes to the emoted proposal before we run it?

Proposed resolution: Transition vc-data-model, vc-data-integrity, vc-di-eddsa, vc-di-ecdsa, vc-jose-cose (once PRs 331, 332, and 338 are merged), vc-bitstring-status-list, and cid-1.0 specifications to Proposed Recommendation. (Brent Zundel)

Manu Sporny: +1.

Brent Zundel: +1.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: +1.

Dave Longley: +1.

Will Abramson: +1.

David Chadwick: +1.

Hiroyuki Sano: +1.

Jennie Meier: +1.

Joe Andrieu: +1.

Benjamin Young: +1.

David Lehn: +1.

Denken Chen: +1.

Resolution #1: Transition vc-data-model, vc-data-integrity, vc-di-eddsa, vc-di-ecdsa, vc-jose-cose (once PRs 331, 332, and 338 are merged), vc-bitstring-status-list, and cid-1.0 specifications to Proposed Recommendation.

Brent Zundel: I have said it before and will say it again right now, that set of documents reflects an absolutely enormous amount of work that this group has done.
… We have had a lot of long and sometimes heated conversations and we are done with those. Fantastic! Absolutely fantastic, thank you everyone.

2. Press Release.

Brent Zundel: It has been offered by W3 Management that they would produce a press release for the publication of these when they go to recommendation. The first question to the group is: “Would anyone be opposed to that?”.
… If no one is opposed, then the next question should be “What main talking points should we try to ensure are included?”.
… Please add yourself to the queue.

Phillip Long: PDL-ASU has joined #vcwg.

Manu Sporny: Big +1 to a press release and each of us – this is a question – we were able to in previous press release, maybe for DIDs, we were able to put non-W3C members comments (the comments were put at the bottom after W3C members)…
… It was important to be able to say whether they were supportive or not and I’d like to be able to do that again.
… As for talking points, I think it’s important to highlight the number of different market verticals using this technology. Education, Supply Chain/Trade, Citizenship ID, Healthcare, Manufacturing, Product Identification, anything else that’s using this stuff.
… It would be good for us to highlight that this technology is being used in a number of different marketing verticals. If people are willing to share those, that would be good. It is a 2.0 release, we are expecting to see some healthy deployment figures to provide a reality of here’s where we are wrt. deployments and future statements about future deployments.
… That’s it.

Dave Longley: PDL-ASU: Yes, Manu did you ask if there were folks who could generate a few quotes or have handy? I can see what I can do at ASU.

Manu Sporny: Yes, +1 to that.

Brent Zundel: It sounds like we are in support of a press release and we can pass those on, it’s up to them whether they include testimonials from non-W3C members, but I will pass on that recommendation that they do include those.
… If there are no other comments no the topic …

Denken Chen: I’m suggesting to have a brief description of what has been changed since v1.1.
… In the specification we describe the changes and good to highlight. Many governments have been following closely with 1.1 and it’s a good timing to repeat what has been changed for them.

Brent Zundel: That’s a fantastic suggestion to highlight the differences.

Manu Sporny: +1 to that ^.

Brent Zundel: Excellent, anything else from folks?

3. Meeting Cadence moving forward.

Brent Zundel: What should our meeting cadence be moving forward?
… There is always the possibility of formal objections and the group will want to discuss those. We can’t make changes to specs until they go into REC. Any further changes would need to be editorial or addressing discovered errata. How often should we meet and when should we start?

Manu Sporny: I would certainly like the group to have a break – maybe keep the meetings on the schedule so the time is blocked but meet at most every 2 weeks, maybe just once a month at least for the next couple of months. If something comes up then we do need to meet and we can use the time block that’s on the calendar. At most every other week or once a month is what I suggest.
… In the charter we are still cleared to work on the extensions we did not finish, specifically confidence method and render method, I will probably try to get the folks back together in the CCG to finish incubating documents before handing them over to this group.
… So that’s kinda a question about how to progress those. There are a number of orgs interested in render method. I would expect that work to take 2-3 months in the CCG before this group needs to look.

Brent Zundel: Thank you, Manu, any other folks looking to share thoughts are welcome to jump on the queue.

Will Abramson: Sorry, I just wanted to say that I think it would be great to keep incubating in the CCG and let me know how the CCG can help.

Brent Zundel: I agree with that as the path forward for any documents that would like to describe the use of those extension points.
… We have a good relationship with CCG and incubation there is the right thing to do and once the specs are mature enough to move to the VCWG then we can have those conversations.
… We have kind of an interesting charter. We in maintenance mode for the specs we are hoping to publish but also are chartered to create new specs for those extension points.
… Should they be mature enough.
… For the next little bit we should still hit every couple of weeks, I believe. Then we can do once a month probably.
… I am still … I’m not going to change the tentative calendar entries on the VCWG meeting calendar.
… Right now we have a tentative meeting every week, but I will go through and cancel some of them so we have every two weeks for the next month or so and we can adjust further at that point if there are no objections to that suggestion.
… Ok, then that is what we will do. Any other business?
… We have 20 minutes remaining, one topic we could possibly talk about is – I’ve been asked at least a couple of times about this – what’s next for VCs.
… I’m also fine with people saying I’d like that time back.

Joe Andrieu: +1 to grass and coffee.

Manu Sporny: I would love the next 20 minutes to go roll in the grass.
… I think it’s important, but let’s take a breather before we talk about that.

Dave Longley: +1.

David Chadwick: +1.

Brent Zundel: We will end the meeting.
… Thank you everyone, thanks for scribing, Dave. Manu I want to personally thank you for your editorial work and guidance it’s been a mountain of work and much appreciated.

Manu Sporny: Can’t let everyone go without thanking you Brent, you’ve been a wonderful chair, very hard to do and to do by yourself.
… Thank you to everyone in the group – and we don’t always agree but we work together.
… Thank you again!

Brent Zundel: Ok, thanks all!

4. Resolutions