<rhiaro> scribenick: rhiaro

Describe plan for the call

Data Model Proposed Rec publication status

burn: the transition request was sent 5 days ago

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/158

burn: no comments yet, that's a good thing
... we're waiting for the 7 day clock to run out, after which we can publish on september 3rd

Implementation guide

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

burn: we need to get through as much as we can today, this is it

deiu: thanks to everyone contributing PRs for the past week, we've seen a large number. Not sure we can fix all issues today but most of them have PRs open so fingers crossed

<deiu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/54

deiu: I suggest we start with PR 54
... this addresses the issue regarding vocab persistance and immutability of vocabs used in contexts
... I've added some text
... it shoudl be fine, David has requested changes, which have been fixed. David if yo'ure here would you mind approving the PR so we can go ahead?

DavidC: they were only typos, will do

deiu: we can go ahead and merge this if everyone is fine with it

<TallTed> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/54/files

deiu: *github wrangling live*
... anyone object to merging this? Ted?
... I know you wanted mor eexamples containing versioned vocabs but I don't think we have time to do those

TallTed: I think doing it is important. The whole point of this example is to say use a thing that's not going to change, and using a thing that's going to change breaks the whole philosophy

deiu: I agree, but we have all kinds of PRs right now that don't have those URIs, it would take a lot of time

TallTed: we don't have to change them right now, but we do have to commit to changing it. It's not okay ot publish this thing that says use unchanging stuff with changing stuff in it

deiu: my suggestion at this point is to merge this PR, leave the issue open and add a comment there that says we should update links once we're done with everything else

TallTed: that's fine, could be a new issue, just want to make sure it gets done

deiu: can you open the issue right now in parallel?
... going to merge this now
... we have 10 more PRs
... *deep sigh*

<deiu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/53

deiu: This is about fixing non-json elements in examples so we can copy paste easily without breaking the json. Just editorial stuff, has been approved by two people, unless anyone objects I'll merge
... We'll have to pass over the whole document once all the PRs have been updated to check the new examples
... any objections to merging now?
... merging
... next is 52

<deiu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/52

deiu: it's about web authentication. Dmitri has provided a bunch of text, although I wonder if this text belongs in the related specifications section instead of being a guide for using web authentication

dmitriz: I didn't know where to put it, it seemed like a good idea at the time. It's not yet ready to be its own guide because the text has been waiting on the spec to change
... once it changes we can have a guide, but for the moment it's just advisory
... I'm open to suggestions on what section to put it in

deiu: I think it's fine given how this text is formulated to leave it in the related specifications section for now
... And add more text about how to use web authentication when we figure that out

dmitriz: i agree

deiu: it's not really, this PR doesn't really fix issue 3 at this point
... I feel like we should leave issue 3 open but still merge this PR

dlongley: how would we fix issue 3?

deiu: with examples

dlongley: there's no way to fix number 3, there are no examples that would work right now to use webauthn with verifiable presentations
... our system involves other parties, and webauthn only does authentication between two parties

deiu: i know david has been using webauthn in his implementation, at least some feedback based on that would be great instead of just a description
... does anyone object to merging this and closing issue 3?

dmitriz: the good news is that the webauthn group is working on enabling this kind of stuff in the future, ther'es actual PRs in progress where they're shuffling the various.. it is coming, we just don't know when

deiu: okay. I suggest we just merge this now and get back to it once we have more information
... everybody okay with that?
... clossing issue 3 as well

dlongley: I'm fine with that

deiu: merging

<deiu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/51

deiu: embedding external credentials. David, you had some changes requested.. the changes haven't been made, dmitri has replied

<deiu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/50

dmitriz: I made a copule of the changes based on david's comments. Main one .. can we come back to this? I'm just about to submit a rephrasing of it that I think David may be okay with

deiu: okay, skip for now. Go to PR 50, ZKP sectoin
... anybody objecting to merging this?
... merging

<deiu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/49

deiu: content verifiable data registries. We haven't had a thumbs up from somebody yet. Could people take a look and see whether this is okay? I think it looks okay

<Dudley> +1

deiu: anybody against merging it?

<deiu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/48

deiu: that was the straightforward stuff, now we have some discussions
... 48 about adding additional datetime attributes
... I'm not sure this is something we have to do. the discussion is in my opinion not that relevant. David hasn't provided an example list of attributes so we're not sure exactly how useful they are

dlongley: I also think it's premature to merge this, I don't think we should rush it today. We can point to the CCG and ahve them comment on this

deiu: +1

<ken> +1 to dlongley's comments about defer

deiu: should we add some text saying we'll defer to the CCG in the future

dlongley: fine with me

DavidC: seems to me that all the issues have been resolved in the PRs. The only outstanding one is bikeshedding what the term should be. As long as it implies its semantics I'm happy with suggestions ted had made. I thought all the issues had been resolved and it coudl be included

TallTed: the issue is it's trying to extend the VC data model, but what it's really doing is talking about a particular credentail subject, which does not require any extesnion or change to the overall data model

dlongley: I didn't really comment here, I have a lot of issues and I think there's a lot of different ways to model this. With a drivers license you might want to say the crednetail subject has a drivers license and then specify these properties. that's an extension. There are different ways ot model this. I think there's a lot of stuff to discuss here and we shouldn't just push this in. I was waiting to see where the discussion goes, there's too

much going on. I'm not comfortable with merging it yet

deiu: I agree with dlongley there. I suggest we add a comment saying we defer to CCG in the future and leave it open

DavidC: okay fine

<deiu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/47

dlongley: we could get this merged if we don't talk about the specific way we go about doing it. We could mention you can use hash values with a nonce without getting into how you go about modelling it. There are a lot of different ways. We did the same thing with the ZKPs. I think we could get something merged, I dunno if david is amenable to that, but if he could adjust this so it doesn't get into modelling specifics just the mechanism we could

get this merged

DavidC: I took the actual example used by the iso mobile driving license people to show their way, I agree there are different ways you could do it. I can make it more generic
... I can refer to the iso driving license as informative. I'll dod that.

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

deiu: I'll postpone this PR and wait for you to add the changes
... PR 43 the jwt aud claim
... ted, you requested changes?

TallTed: with the caveat that you're going to do for the example section it'll work for the comments
... the last one is for the aud jwt claim to be mapped to the verifier.. I was trying to avoid the rfc 'recommended' term

DavidC: I hadn't thought of that clash. What are we using in the rest of the document? Eg. about the time? issuance date? what's the terminology? If I use the same phrase that should be okay?
... I'll take a look through what they've used for that and I'll use that terminology

TallTed: so this wll not merge right now, but later today?

DavidC: you asked for some changes that weren't part of my PR

TallTed: but it's also legit to make those small changes to add on, but whatever

deiu: do you mind making those cahnges?

DavidC: I didn't want to get into arguements about something that wasn't my change in the first place, to hold up the change I wanted

TallTed: the only one flagged that way is where I said to take out the word draft

DavidC: there's a proof one as well, and there's no proof in jwts. You talk about making a change to a challenge, a proof part

deiu: I'm not seeing that

DavidC: it's from 1 hour ago
... if someone is going through the examples to make sure theyr'e correct, then this should be picked up then?

deiu: I think the only examlpe where ted has mentioned a possible change has to do with highlighting the challenge not the proof, and adding the comment class

DavidC: that's right

deiu: just fixing those dots

TallTed: I copied the line above and said change this to the line below, which is adding span class comment

DavidC: it confused me because you did that 3 times and

deiu: it's editorial

TallTed: if we have to do it later we can

DavidC: I understand now
... I can make those if I can find them

deiu: any other comment about ted's comments?
... we're expecting this to be merged later today

burn: scribe alert scribe alert

<scribe> scribenick: ken

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

deiu: DavidC, do you have anything to add?

DavidC: Now that we solved some of the dependencies, can TallTed re-review?

TallTed: I'll review it later today.

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

deiu: jonathan_holt?

jonathan_holt: There are some conflicts where dates are defined. Is it required to have a full date-time or is date sufficient?

TallTed: I don't think we need a full date-time.

jonathan_holt: I have some other issues with cardinality.
... This schemas is only for Verifiable Credential, but not presentations.
... I'm ready for review, but not deployment.
... In some cases there can be a string or definition.
... The json-ld mapped some things to a local file or a remote reference. I think it has to do with the json-ld parsers and the version of json-ld they support.

deiu: We'll give you some more time to sort it out.

<deiu> Back to https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/51

dmitriz: PR 51 is ready.

DavidC: I'm reviewing now.

dlongley: Can we discuss issues that move to CCG?

burn: ... In order to publish we have to agree that we will publish. Then CCG takes over maintenance.
... We are working on the process of handover.
... This implementation guide will be taken over.
... W3C likes snapshots of documents.
... The discussion will continue in CCG

TallTed: This is a new mechanism. I would like a reference in the document that points to the living document.

<dlongley> +1 to that

<dlongley> +1 to a reference to CCG and directing people over there.

burn: There isn't a living document yet. It is ok to say that the document will be updated by the CCG. Go there for details.

<burn> dlongley, can you propose a PR with that language?

deiu: Is today the last chance to merge PRs?

<dlongley> burn: i need the appropriate link for that

<dlongley> (where to direct people)

burn: At the end of Aug, the editors will fix editorial content. Conversations can continue, and a PR that is resolved with 2-3 reviews, a merge can still happen.
... If the issue is not fully resolved, then do not merge.

deiu: I think there are a few PRs that are just waiting for final pending changes.
... DavidC will make some final changes. I will merge upon final reviews.

burn: If is purely editorial, then group discussion is not required.

DavidC: I've reviewed 51 and requested one change.

dmitriz: I just changed it.

DavidC: I'll approve the changes.
... I've reviewed the '...' changes. Should we change all of them?

TallTed: I only edited the ones in your examples.

deiu: Please only change the ones in the PR now.

DavidC: OK, I'll work on the ones in my examples.

<burn> dlongley, I just don't want to lose this (pointer to CCG). Can you at least add an issue with Editorial in the title so Editors will see next week?

<dlongley> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/56

<TallTed> +1 merge

<dlongley> ^above PR for note to CCG

dlongley: I added the PR for future versions reference.

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

deiu: any objections to merging pr #56?
... Issues.

dlongley: I'll close #4

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

deiu: I'll close #2

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

deiu: The is about uport choice of registered JWT value.

Justin_R: The issue as reported is not about uport's usage. My comment is specific to uport.
... I don't know what is expected here.
... I only added clarifying text.

dlongley: I think we can close this based on my comments.

jonathan_holt: In the schemas problem I have right now, depending on the format (JWT vs other), I don't know how to differentiate the correct format.

dlongley: I think that is a new issue.

deiu: I think we can close this issue.

TallTed: Two points are raised: Collision resistant. JWTs only require base64 conanicalization.

Justin_R: With regard to encoding for JWTs, they only require base64 URL encoding. There are other JWT formats that require more. These forms are more rare.

TallTed: While the compact form only requires base64, there are other forms that require more.
... Can you add this to the issue?

Justin_R: Adding clarifiying text.
... Is the text accurate?

TallTed: The x in the table indicates that other things might be required.

Justin_R: I'll be more pedantic. ;)
... There is no normative requirement in JWT specification.

TallTed: Compact form is a subset. Other forms can be used, although not common.
... The limitation to base64 is non-normative.

deiu: Justin, can you edit the text.

Justin_R: In practice it is not seen. I think we should eliminate the table.

deiu: Can we close?

Justin_R: Yes.

<TallTed> PROPOSED: The group has agreed to close https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/45 based on RFC citations therein.

deiu: Objections?

DavidC: Can Ted review PR 43?

<TallTed> +1

<deiu> +1

<ken> +1

<dlongley> +1

scribe: OK

RESOLUTION: The group has agreed to close https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/45 based on RFC citations therein.

deiu: I'll close this issue.

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

deiu: I would be very happy to merge PR #43
... objections?

burn: Merge conflicts can be resolved later.

deiu: I have to go. Great work today.
... Future PRs can be deferred to CCG.

DavidC: I'm putting in the comments fixes.

deiu: Yes.

burn: We need to discuss the call for next week.
... Should we meet with rebooting web of trust?
... I would like to propose cancelling next weeks call.

<dmitriz> +1 to canceling

burn: Next weeks call is cancelled.

Test Suite Issues and Discussion

burn: Matt will send email regarding the following week's meeting.

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

dmitriz: No major changes in the test suite.
... There is one new issue moved from the data model spec.
... Are there suggestions from JWT implementors?
... Part of it deals with IANA registration.

<dmitriz> https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/95

burn: We don't have an expert on the topic present.

dmitriz: I would like to leave this open and allow someone from uport to comment.
... I'll leave a comment requsting review from Oliver.
... That's it.

Use Cases document

burn: No one on the call is present as editor.

DavidC: The IANA registration should be done.

burn: Has anyone at digital bazaar done it?

<burn> ACTION: DavidC and Oliver to register vc and vp with IANA

dlongley: No, we left that to JWT implementors.

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-use-cases/

burn: Regarding use cases, Joe or Matt are not here.

<burn> ken: there are some IOT use cases. Have discussed with Ted and Ned and close to having something in the doc.

<burn> burn: that will happen this week?

ken: IoT uses case are in process.

<burn> ken: I'm ready :) Don't know about Ted

ken: Waiting for Ted's final review.

https://github.com/w3c/vc-use-cases/pull/105

scribenick: burn

ken: Ted asserted that role of person in company issuing cert . . .

TallTed: this one is fine. I will give review.

ken: Ned, I need you to officially review as well.

Ned: okay

burn: ken, you can push on this one.

<TallTed> https://github.com/w3c/vc-use-cases/pull/111

ken: Joe said he would merge once we had approvals

TallTed: For this one there are still some issues
... PR looks bigger than it is. I think it's right now.

scribenick: ken

TallTed: This is regarding nesting and organization of the document.

burn: Ted are you happy with the changes?

TallTed: I am looking for feedback.

burn: I asked Matt to make sure that we wrap up this week on use cases.
... Anything else on use cases?

<DavidC> >dlongley English spelling vs US spelling of model(l)ing

Other implementation topics

burn: Please with Joe Andreiu or Matt Stone.

jonathan_holt: I'm still struggling with different json-ld parsers returning different results for the same document.

dlongley: A base URI might be the problem.
... It is also the case that the parsers are being updated to json-ld 1.1

jonathan_holt: I'm using the go version. It seems like the digital bazaar is using protected feature.

<yancy> sounds like the same hiccup I had

dlongley: You need to be sure to use a parser that supports protected because we use in the VC data model.

jonathan_holt: Also there were some small problems with nested VCs.

dlongley: Please file issues.

jonathan_holt: Where should they be reported?

dlongley: File on the library you are using and we will work it out.

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/46

burn: Other implementation issues?
... You wanted some text in the guide. Please write some text as a PR and if we can get sufficient positive reviews, we can add the text.
... Otherwise we can more generally add something as editors.

TallTed: I'll try.

burn: Anything else?
... No call next week.
... Look for an email from Matt for the next steps.
... Thanks all!
... See you at RWoT.