<scribe> scribe: burn

<stonematt> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2018Jun/0004.html

Agenda review, Introductions, Re-introductions

stonematt: DavidC is not here, so we may need to cancel the final topic
... introductions from new people?

Roman: Tech director of SecureKey. we do digital identity. beginning to look at VCs
... I am new to them so bear with me as I come up to speed
... where should I look primarily for info?

stonematt: GitHub has live work with issues. We reserve time on weekly calls for items that need discussion.

Action Item Review

https://goo.gl/V4XTBT

scribe: no open action items

Assign owners to unassigned issues

<stonematt> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+no%3Aassignee

https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+no%3Aassignee

scribe: will leave issue 183 until DavidC can join us

<dlongley> +1 to that approach

scribe: that is the only open one
... Manu's name is on many of these. Maybe we can get a report from him next week.
... We will begin focusing on closing open issues
... If one is assigned to you, please try to move it towards closure

Updated Traveler Use Case

https://github.com/w3c/vc-use-cases/pull/73

scribe: we've received feedback on this. Trying to fix granularity.

<stonematt> https://w3c.github.io/vc-use-cases/#international-travel-with-minor-and-upgrade

scribe: Removed reference to term 'guardianship' because it opened extraneous debate.

tzviya: We tried to clarify some distinctions in the 'Distinction' section to make clear what is possible today and what could be possible in the future with VCs
... Passport clarifies only who the person is. A different VC gives permission to bring the child.
... We still need to establish a relationship between the two.

<stonematt> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/vc-use-cases/pull/73.html

tzviya: Has anyone had a chance to review this or have feedback?
... TallTed any thoughts here?

TallTed: haven't had a chance to review yet. Sounds like things are going the right direction.

tzviya: Would welcome feedback when people can review it
... we restricted this to US passports. We would be happy to add info about non-US passports if anyone has any

stonematt: this is somewhat related to PR 169 topic. 'sticky wicket' is non-traveling parent giving permission to traveling parent to take a child.
... Today in US that is done with a notary. In a VC world that is not needed. A notary is to validate identity, but DIDs and signatures provide that, but what was missing was an explicit relationship between the VC expression permisssion and the minor.
... we introduced a birth certificate that has DIDs of both parents.
... 'I am parent and I give permission to leave'

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/169

stonematt: dlongley and joe, maybe you can work with DavidC now using this.

dlongley: yes, but I don't think we need any relationship data. Existing data model is sufficient.
... This use case is a good example

tzviya: in the UC document we don't have a code sample but would love one.

dlongley: okay

stonematt: our goal is to have those samples in the data model doc. Maybe the samples in the data model could make clear which use cases they relate to.

dlongley: issuers using the data model will need this. Another UC goal was to have scenarios that we could actually convert into code.

stonematt: Both of the UC we have have relationship issues as part of them.
... dlongley, will you take action to write example of this use case in the data model spec?

dlongley: yes

<scribe> ACTION: dlongley to write code sample for Traveler use case

Subject != Holder update (PR 169)

stonematt: maybe we addressed this already
... we've run through the agenda. any other business? Dan?

burn: Nothing from me for today

stonematt: TPAC is coming soon. We need to start building an agenda for that and preparing for discussions. Who might be going?

burn: I will be there

<tzviya> i'll be at tpac

<nage> I hope to be there

<stonematt> i'm trying to be there

<Allen> I am attending.

<bigbluehat> I'll be there

<dlongley> i'll likely be there with Manu and maybe a one or two others from Digital Bazaar

<cwebber2> I haven't talked with DB about whether or not I'll be there yet but possibly :)

stonematt: We need to discuss how to get to CR. We need some discussions around privacy and UProve.
... What other topics do we need to open before TPAC?

<liam> +1 to privacy being important

burn: privacy is really important. W3C told us we had to address concerns here, so we need to focus on that.

stonematt: what is the deliverable?

<tzviya> https://www.w3.org/Privacy/

<dlongley> https://www.w3.org/2017/vc/charter.html

burn: it's in the charter

tzviya: have we talked with PING?

dlongley: we have, but it's difficult because we only have a data model. We don't know what the status of that is.

stonematt: are we likely to have to change any of our answers based on recent discussions?

dlongley: no
... our charter also specifies a note describing how our work relates to protocols
... how it could be used in existing protocols or what new protocols might be needed

<Zakim> liam, you wanted to note formal requirement

liam: two formal requirements. 1. detailed analysis of privacy concerns, with mitigations, coordinated with a long list of groups.
... to get beyond CR we will need each of those groups to have signed off.
... we are nearly at the point where we should start liasing with those groups

stonematt: as of last fall we were still trying to get core functionality in the spec before PING review?
... any objections to sending the current doc?

burn: would like to get PR 169 in

<dlongley> +1

stonematt: agreed. We will start to reach out shortly. Would appreciate help in communicatiing with these other groups.

nage: I can help. Also sovrin/sovereign community may be able to help with this.
... particularly authentication
... expect the PR to be in by the end of the month. The development of that is taking longer than expected beacuse we are trying to control the scope.

stonematt: thanks. do we need this PR in as well before external review?

nage: yes. It really helped our community understand the spec better

stonematt: Once PR 169 is in we will verify that this completes the similarly-named milestone. Next milestone is likely privacy-related isssues.

<nage> excellent. a lot of the Sovrin issues may be more directly related to the Privacy "milestone"

stonematt: we had considered terms of use as the next milestone, but privacy may be more important.
... will likely be discussing that shortly
... any other business for today?

<stonematt> thanks everyone !!

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Security (?)/SecureKey/
Present: Adrian_Gropper Allen_Brown Benjamin_Young Chris_Webber Dan_Burnett Dave_Longley Liam_Quin Matt_Stone Nathan_George Ted_Thibodeau Tzviya_Siegman Roman_Pavlov Tim_Tibbles
Regrets: David_Chadwick
Found Scribe: burn
Inferring ScribeNick: burn
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2018Jun/0004.html

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: dlongley

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)