<scribe> scribenick: burn
ken: Ken Ebert joining us from Sovrin
None
None
TPAC agenda: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aYodpYXQg_C9zn3HcNQoMN2A_ESsArJaA4jl3x0cahE/edit#gid=975531401
stonematt: many of our normal
attendees are at RWoT, so light attendance today.
... One topic I want to consider is the focal use case
discussion. It's not on the agenda and we would like it to
be.
... also we need discussion leaders for all items
... JoeA asked for Thu for use case review, but that day is
pretty crowded
... any opinions on that? If not, the chairs will work
something out.
... 30 mins for use cases, could do it 2:30 during the AC
meeting time.
<kaz> VCWG registrants
stonematt: (no comments) chairs
will take offline
... now, about discussion leaders. Chairs will get us
started.
... We will ask DB to give us an update on commercial status.
We will then meet with Web Commerce about joint interests, and
largely an update from us.
... JWT support plan/trend next.
burn: this will be discussed somewhat at RWoT. May or may not need much time at TPAC to discuss depending on how it goes.
stonematt: maybe we will only
need 30 minutes, but we will at least want an update. We will
wait until next week to finalize this item.
... Issue #207 (at TPAC). Opens with name of 'claim' and
whether it should be 'subject'. DavidC you are active in
this.
<kaz> issue 207
DavidC: I would be willing to be discussion leader but expect to be talking with my own opinions quite a bit. What does the topic chair do?
stonematt: very much like our f2f
calls. Maybe a few others visiting.
... an opinionated facilitator is fine.
burn: it's not really chairing, mainly making sure that the discussion moves towards a resolution
stonematt: frame discussion, maybe a few slides to get things moving.
DavidC: yes, I can do that. We want this to work for normal people and not just experts.
stonematt: Next slot is Digital
Contracts. Allen is presenting in the Web Commerce group and we
will join them so we can hear too.
... Next is threat model. Clare volunteered to help but won't
be there.
<Zakim> ClareNelson, you wanted to say threat model
ClareNelson: If you click on the
second tab of the spreadsheet, row 15 has a link to the draft
presentation. Whoever volunteers will have an easy time :) A
nice, exciting session.
... I will be remote but just need someone in the room. Great
opportunity!
stonematt: did you look at this topic in the use cases document?
ClareNelson: Yes, but I have not incorporated the content into the presentation. Manu is helping me understand some of that document.
stonematt: the focal use cases section is fairly complex. We discuss the threat model there. May be helpful in the discussion.
ClareNelson: passport topic was very complex.
stonematt: yes. (lists the other focal use cases)
<BrentZ> raising hand
stonematt: Today we want a volunteer interested in security/threat model to volunteer to lead locally.
<ClareNelson> no problem DavidC
DavidC: didn't have a chance to look yet but will
BrentZ: I volunteer :) and will serve as Clare's local representative at the meeting.
stonematt: re: presentations,
last year we made a Google Presentation for each day. We will
set up that deck and make a title slide for each section so
that you can move your content in there before the meeting. But
keep on with your content dev for now!
... Next topic is test suite. Chris Webber is at RWoT. We will
probably ask him to lead this but would happily accept another
volunteer
... Friday morning. ToU and rights. We've had much discussion
here. We allocated a full hour (and will be discussing today as
well). This is a topic that could benefit from f2f time. David,
are you interested in volunteering for this as well?
... anyone else?
DavidC: Happy to work with
someone else on this.
... Maybe you could ask Chris to join me on this topic as well
so we can do it together.
<scribe> ACTION: Matt Stone to ask Chris Webber if he will work with David Chadwick on leading the ToU/Rights section.
stonematt: The key thing here is
to distinguish between what we have in scope today (data model)
vs. what might be in a future charter regarding protocol.
... We can definitely stray into the latter area in our f2f
discussion but need to eventually focus.
DavidC: need to define the semantics of a data item.
stonematt: later that day we will
talk about rechartering, so it's expected to talk about future
items to some extent.
... Next item is ZKP
BrentZ: I volunteer to lead the discussion on this one.
stonematt: Thank you!
... DavidC or DanB, any update on PING?
DavidC: They have sent out
updated version of the privacy and security questionnaire. They
will propose a procedure for how other groups will interact with
them. Namely, fill out their questionnaire.
... we never sent them our answers to the questionnaire.
(Dan B disagrees)
stonematt: are we/they suggesting we don't have a meeting with them?
DavidC: I think we should.
... and I will talk with them about it.
... we should all look at the answers I wrote up a few months
ago so maybe we can forward the answers to them next week.
ClareNelson: glad to help Brent with ZKP session.
DavidC: I have the answers locally on my computer. Can send them out again or post them. Just need ot know where.
burn: I don't think there will be time for review before next week because of RWoT but we can get reviews of them next week.
DavidC: I will send out the answers I wrote up before by this weekend. We will plan to send answers to PING in two weeks time.
stonematt: Next topic is recharter. Maybe we extend, maybe we recharter, maybe we don't. That's the discussion. Who should lead?
burn: We should open the discussion as chairs.
stonematt: The remainder of
Friday is open issues/PRs/topics.
... Thanks everyone for volunteering!
Related issues: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/labels/Delegation
stonematt: we may not have everyone
on the call today that we need for this discussion, but let's
try.
... I believe we are planning to defer this, but we want to
confirm that. How should we approach this discussion over the
next few months?
... There are multiple items with the Delegation label, and
maybe the decision differs for each
DavidC: question: what does
deferred mean? That there's no mention when the first version
comes out?
... anybody can issue anything (any VC). If you create one
you've already done delegation. What does deferred mean?
stonematt: much of the discussion has gone beyond data model into how it might be used by individuals or computers. That's more than just verifying the claim. Anything beyond stating a claim we should stay away from in the data model spec. In the protocol discusison we can talk about it.
DavidC: But in X.509 cert, it contains a field indicating whether delegation is allowed or not. If you get the cert as a user, you cannot delegate if the cert said you couldn't.
<DavidC> The field is basic constraints
stonematt: yes, this sounds like it is still an open issue. We need a way to resolve this in the current charter. We are not all aligned here. Today's answer is that we don't know what it means to 'defer' this topic.
burn: +1
<TallTed> +1 deferral is not yet clear, as the topic definition is not quite clear...
stonematt: we will put this back on the agenda for next week. We have some PRs in this space.
https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
<stonematt> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/235
scribe: PR #235. No one from this
PR on the call today.
... looking for ones I think have appropriate attendance to
address today.
<stonematt> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/229
PR #229: DavidC, have you been following this?
DavidC: yes, but not in the last week.
stonematt: Probably falls into same discussion around delegation space.
DavidC: yeah, no progress.
stonematt: #228 hasn't been pulled in yet, but should be ready for editors to merge.
<stonematt> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/227
stonematt: David on #227 what is the status?
DavidC: waiting for comments from Manu and Dlongley before revising. Still need Manu's input.
stonematt: we will put pressure
on Manu after RWoT
... #217 Lovesh?
<stonematt> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/217
BrentZ: I can talk with Lovesh on this and #214 to find out the status. Will have something to report next time.
stonematt: Thanks!
<stonematt> thanks BrentZ !
stonematt: #210 That's mine, and
I will work on it this week. The strategy is to move the
refresh service out of the core and into Advanced Topics.
... that's all the PRs
DavidC: on #210, I suggested some wording that Manu agreed with. Can you please review and incorporate?
stonematt: Yes, will do.
... I will reach out to you directly with any questions
stonematt: Yancy, are you on the call?
Yancy: Yes. Haven't had a chance to dive into the test suite in the last two weeks. Will try to this week. Unfortunately I will not make it to TPAC.
stonematt: we haven't had
movement on the test suite for over a month.
... would love if you could look into it.
Yancy: will do.
stonematt: I think that's it. Any
other business for today?
... thanks all. See you next week!
<stonematt> Good bye all!