<scribe> scribe: ken

Describe plan for the call

Test suite

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues

dmitriz: Most notable is that Oliver and team reran JWT tests and submitted updated implementation report.
... All items have two implementors.
... Uport has another implementation in progress.

Oliver: They are currently working on error handling. There are two implementors for each JWT feature.
... The other implementation is working on getting the errors fixed in the next week.

burn: we have sufficient implementations.
... We have a few PRs, none of which seem substantive.

<dmitriz> https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/pull/94

dmitriz: PR #94 is re: table of contents.
... PR #77 is editorial re: Linked Data to LD.
... We have held off on merging because it would require re-run of all reports.

burn: Can we merge?

dmitriz: Because tests are known by their title.

burn: Can we do that?

dmitriz: I will do it this week.
... Other issues include links to public repos.
... I will close Issue #69.
... Oops! It has an issue with the HTML

burn: Once resolved, please close it right away.

Implementation Guide

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues

burn: PRs and Issues review

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/17

jonathan_holt: It's taking awhile. I am working on it.

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/39

burn: Ted, you requested changes, which were approved. Ted, David C, and Brent and dlongley approved
... merged.
... And we should close issue #2

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/40

burn: Brent can you summarize?

Brent: This adds text to validation section. We need more in hashlink and Verifiable data registry section in a new PR.
... I added some of the missing references, but not all.
... I hope to describe the items better to avoid external references.

burn: I will merge this one.
... Objections?
... Merged.

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/41

DavidC: Can we postpone? This depends on a data model issue.

burn: Skip for now.

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/43

DavidC: Dave suggested a fix that doesn't require a new field.

dlongley: Adding a new term would update the core context.

DavidC: Can we add a context to this document?

dlongley: Anyone can make a context at any point.

DavidC: I will look at that.

burn: Issues.

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/1

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/2

burn: We just merged a PR for this.

dlongley: I think this is addressed.

DavidC: I haven't looked at the final text.

TallTed: DavidC suggested that the non-transferable property would be enforceable. I think this would break other things.

burn: We have had discussions regarding what the spec can say about validations.

DavidC: We have inconsistancies regarding validation.

burn: Is there more that needs to happen on this issue?
... Let's leave it open for the moment.

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/3

burn: This is on webauthn.

dlongley: I will talk with dmitriz to create a PR for next call.

burn: Want to make sure that you can push forward on this.

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/4

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/22

burn: Andre offered to write some text. Ted had some suggestions to broaden it.

TallTed: I am happy to see what he writes.

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/23

burn: Add section on related work is a reminder re: other sections we should add.

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/24

burn: Section on ZKPs. Brent asked to leave this open.

Brent_: It's on my list to do.

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/29

burn: Editorial magic to fix CSS.
... We can leave this for now.

dlongley: A section is already in the guide. We just need to set the class on examples.

burn: Thanks, that's a big help

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/31

burn: Brent is this related to the other one? PR 40 was merged. Are there any section that need to be done.

Brent_: I'll need some help on some of these.

dmitriz: There is a separate issue re: hashlinks (Issue 4)
... I'll add comments there.

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/42

burn: DavidC opened this last week.
... Opinions?
... Should we add this example?

oliver: I support adding it.

Brent_: I don't oppose adding, but don't have time to do it.

DavidC: I can write some text or we could refer to the ISO standard.

burn: DavidC, please write a PR

DavidC: OK

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/44

burn: Related to the DR standard. Can you write a PR, DavidC?

DavidC: Happy to do it. There may be some terminology clashes.
... Particularly start date and end date.

TallTed: numbers 1 & 4 are external to the credential.

dmitriz: First, we already have entries for created and expires. Does the other issue relate only to a specific credential?

<TallTed> seems less Implementation Guide, more Case Study...

DavidC: I think that VCs have different lifecycles from the paper credentials. Each may have a different span of validity.

burn: There is discussion happening on this issue.
... Time is short. If you want a change, submit a PR.

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/45

<Zakim> Justin_R, you wanted to discuss JWT signature methods and JSONLD propaganda

burn: This was moved from the main repo. He is taken issue with JSON=LD proofs. With JWTs this can be added in the JWT section.

Justin_R: The signature methods for JWTs are not collision resistant as claimed in the issue.
... I am generally opposed to "Why my tech is best" in specs.

<Zakim> dlongley, you wanted to ask, once issue processing is finished, if the publishing moratorium around TPAC applies to the implementation guide/NOTEs

burn: We are continually asked what are recommendations are. If we leave it out, we get dinged.

oliver: I agreed with Justin. The JWT spec recommends a collision resistant name.

<Zakim> burn, you wanted to ask Justin to put his JWT sig method comment in issue 45

burn: I agree with Ted's suggestion to place comments in the issue.

TallTed: It is helpful to cite the references where applicable.

Justin_R: I see a URI is allowed in the spec. I've never seen it in the wild.

WG Note publication plan

burn: Other issues for the implementation guide?
... We have an implementation guide, and other notes.

dlongley: There is a publication moritorium over TPAC. Does it apply to WG notes?

burn: I'll check.
... The WG runs to the end of Sept.
... Editors who can tweat things for publishing are available need to be available.
... I propose that the WG agree that whatever we have in the use-cases and implementation guide at the end of August will be the basis for publication.
... Because of travel, publication blackout period, etc.

TallTed: The process is broken. The dates could allow publication at the last week of Sep.
... We are doing it wrong.

manu: I think we all share Ted's frustration.
... The way I look at it, we either decide to publish a note or we don't.
... Having a plan is better.
... We should get out these notes with the lessons learned.

<Justin_R> +1

TallTed: I don't disagree with that. The group shouldn't be scheduled to end at the end of Sep if nothing can be done during Sep.
... It should either end in Aug or Oct.

<manu> +1 to publishing w/ caveats.

<burn> +1

<dlongley> +1 to doing that and forward linking to CCG doc

TallTed: Can we publish with caveats in the document expressing our frustrations?

burn: Good suggestion.

<manu> yes, +1 to say "and if you want a more up to date version, check out the CCG version of this document"

<oliver> +1

burn: I want to get agreement that we will publish, including caveats.

TallTed: I want something out there with a statement of what our constraints were.

<dlongley> +1

burn: I agree.

<DavidC> +1

<ken> +1

scribe: Ted, can you draft a statement?

TallTed: I will come up with something.

burn: Can this go in the implementation guide, and be copied to the use cases doc?

manu: Status of the document section?

TallTed: Creating an issue for tracking.

burn: Other discussion on notes publication?

<burn> PROPOSED: The Working Group agrees to publish whatever versions of the Use Cases document and Implementation Guide document exist as of August 31st.

<oliver> +1

<manu> +1

<dlongley> +1

<TallTed> +1

<ken> +1

<burn> +1

<brent> +1

<dmitriz> +1

<DavidC> +1

<bigbluehat> +1

burn: Any objections?

RESOLUTION: The Working Group agrees to publish whatever versions of the Use Cases document and Implementation Guide document exist as of August 31st.

burn: It is clear from our notes that we are displeased with the shortened timeframe.

Data Model PRs

burn: Any thing else on that topic?

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls

<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/711

manu: Is PR 711 outdated?

DavidC: Yes.

<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/717

manu: The reviews on PR 717-720 focus on "normative" or not.
... This is based on behavior change reading the spec.

DavidC: I wanted to mention that 711 was all typos.

Oliver: In my opinion the spec says how it should be implemented, but I expect implementors to choose there own way.

manu: Bugs discovered can be addressed in erratum.
... I don't think there are bugs in the spec right now.

<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/717

manu: If bugs are discovered after publication.
... I think that this clarifies that the aud field is the intended audience. I don't think this makes any normative change.

<DavidC> +1

manu: Objections to merging?

<ken> +1 to merge

manu: merged.

<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/718

manu: In reading the text, it is unclear whether we are referring to a JWT claim vs. a VC claim. It's not normative, but the question is does it clarify the spec?

DavidC: Does claim mean JWT or VC? I tried to clarify the text. There are probably additional edits to clarify.

oliver: I'm fine with the language. It has always been clear to me as an implementor.

<TallTed> could potentially change all `<a>claim</a> of the JWT` to `JWT <a>claim</a>`

<TallTed> otherwise, I'm OK with this

manu: We have agreement from those involved.

brent: I prefer property, but I'm ok with the language.

manu: Let's pull it in. Ted, your PR could also go in later.
... Objections?

<ken> +1 to merge

<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/719

scribe: I feel this one currently would be a normative change.

manu: I suggest that we do not pull this PR in.
... Objections?
... To not merge

<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/720

manu: I feel this is a normative change.
... We have multiple implementors passing the test suite. I suggestion we do not merge.

DavidC: Could we add "verifiable claim" to the text?

TallTed: Would adding this note be a normative change?

manu: The note would be fine.
... I think that DavidC's suggestion would be ok.
... Clarification could be added later, instead.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note he may be happy w/ the original....

TallTed: At least some of the implementations should be by non-WG participants.

manu: At least one implementor is non a participant, DavidC's student. plus Britelink + uPort

DavidC: Both previous text and PR both say MUST.

manu: That is fine.

DavidC: Plus the note?

manu: Yes, if we can agree on the call today.

<DavidC> three changes are proposed

<DavidC> i) Other JOSE header parameters and <a>claim</a> names >>>

<DavidC> Other JOSE header parameters and JWT <a>claim</a> names

<DavidC> ii) Additional <a>claims</a> >>>

<DavidC> Additional <a>verifiable credential</a> <a>claims</a>

manu: Did I capture your thoughts in this text?

<DavidC> iii) add the note

<manu> Ok, so modify the text to the following (with appropriate markup): Other JOSE header parameters and JWT claim names not specified herein can be used if their use is not explicitly discouraged. Additional verifiable credential claims MUST be added to the credentialSubject property of the JWT.

<manu> Add the note mentioned by Ted: For more information about using JOSE header parameters and/or JWT <a>claim</a> names not specified herein, see the Verifiable Credentials Implementation Guidelines [[?VC-IMP-GUIDE]] document.

<TallTed> +1

manu: Any objections?

<DavidC> +1

<ken> +1

<brent> +1

<oliver_> +1

manu: I will add these changes as soon as possible.

Data Model Issues

manu: From an editorial perspective, I think we are done.
... There are some issues that are not applicable to CR2.
... Some are just clarification issues.

<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/709

manu: Let's review issues.

<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/709#issuecomment-522346583

manu: Brent created a PR to address this issue.

<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/commit/dafadea24f0545df499fdc9102cb26e50493c633

manu: We now have an example that should show a best practice way to demonstrate this.
... I suggest we defer this issue.

<manu> PROPOSAL: PR #715 mostly addresses issue #709, but the issue commenter has raised other concerns that the group has agreed to defer until another group picks up the specification.

<ken> +1

<oliver_> +1

<TallTed> +1

<manu> +1

<dlongley> +1

<burn> +1

manu: Any objections?

<brent> +1

<DavidC> +1

<dmitriz> +1

RESOLUTION: PR #715 mostly addresses issue #709, but the issue commenter has raised other concerns that the group has agreed to defer until another group picks up the specification.

burn: It is agreed.

<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/712

manu: This issue objects to JSON-LD.
... Brent referenced all 8 similar issues previously addressed.

<manu> PROPOSAL: The WG believes that it has answered many of the questions raised in issue #712 multiple times before to the issue submitter, the group has agreed to defer the conversation until another group picks up the specification.

<TallTed> +1

<burn> +1

<manu> +1

<dlongley> +1

<oliver_> +1

manu: objections?

<ken> +1

RESOLUTION: The WG believes that it has answered many of the questions raised in issue #712 multiple times before to the issue submitter, the group has agreed to defer the conversation until another group picks up the specification.

burn: Approved.

<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/713

manu: This is a test suite issue.
... Implementors have successfully passed the test suite.

burn: This should be deferred and moved to the test suite.

<manu> PROPOSAL: The WG believes that issue #713 is a question related to the test suite and the issue belongs in that repository and this will be deferred until another group picks up the specification and associated test suites.

manu: objections?

<dlongley> +1

<oliver_> +1

<ken> +1

<DavidC> +1

<TallTed> +1

RESOLUTION: The WG believes that issue #713 is a question related to the test suite and the issue belongs in that repository and this will be deferred until another group picks up the specification and associated test suites.

burn: Accepted.

<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/721

manu: The SVG diagrams may be slightly larger than necessary, but it's not worth messing up the diagrams.

<manu> PROPOSAL: The WG believes that issue #721 is important but is concerned that optimizing the SVGs right before publication may introduce bugs in the diagrams. The issue is deferred and will be picked up by the next group working on the specification.

manu: objections?

<manu> +1

<oliver_> +1

<burn> +1

<DavidC> +1

<dlongley> +1

<ken> +1

<TallTed> +1

RESOLUTION: The WG believes that issue #721 is important but is concerned that optimizing the SVGs right before publication may introduce bugs in the diagrams. The issue is deferred and will be picked up by the next group working on the specification.

burn: Approved.
... We want to consider publication.

<manu> PROPOSAL: The WG approves the current vc-data-model specification, with modifications proposed in #720, to be published and advanced to the Proposed Recommendation phase at W3C at the soonest possible opportunity.

<dlongley> +1

<manu> +1

<oliver_> +1

<DavidC> +1

<ChristopherA> +1 to proposal to advance to Proposed Recommendation! (Congratulations all !!!!)

<rhiaro> +1

<burn> +1

<TallTed> +1

manu: objections?

<ken> +1

<jonathan_holt> +1

<bigbluehat> +1

RESOLUTION: The WG approves the current vc-data-model specification, with modifications proposed in #720, to be published and advanced to the Proposed Recommendation phase at W3C at the soonest possible opportunity.

<dmitriz> +1

<yancy> +1

<brent> +1

burn: no objections!
... Call next week to consider implementation guide.

<oliver_> thank you!

burn: Bye