Meeting minutes
<ivan> Date: 2021-06-14
brent: Agenda Review, Round of introductions, scope of this group and approximate timeline, issues and PRs (as in the repo)
Welcome
<brent> https://
<ivan> https://
brent: meeting once a month, or less - as per the charter, our timeline will come to an end December 2021
brent: maintenance of the verifiable credentials model, fix bugs
brent: what we will be submitting is a "proposed revision", updates to a recommendation - once ready it can be sent out for review
ivan: new process for everyone, terms may differ but the idea is correct
introductions
brent: Introductions (go through the attendees list)
MKupjetz: I'm a colleague of Gregory's. I work on Digital Identity, more on technical side, but also on some standards stuff.
ivan: Introduction
Gregory_natran: Introduction
DavidC: Introduction
kdenhartog: Introduction
manu: Introduction
markus_sabadello: Introduction
Gerhard Oosthuizen: Introduction
brent: before jumping into issues with PR - what are we hoping each member will contribute moving forward
brent: members can contribute - pull requests, raise issues, comment on issues raised by others, propose specific changes to text of the recommendation
brent: editors for the process are manu and kdenhartog
brent: most of the work will happen between meetings, using GitHub
Review vc-data-model Issue Classifications
https://
brent: next topic - Review of VC Data Model - Issues
brent: There are 56 open Issues - there are a number of labels attached, many marked "defer" (done by the original working group)
brent: some Issues marked with "PossibleErratum", some are also marked with the "maintenance tag" (the fix is for the maintenance group)
brent: Today - take Issues one at a time, and triage to determine if the labels are accurate - or if this should be addressed by the maintenance working group
ivan: to specify for the group what "defer" means - if we reach out to the working group with more than we have here, it may be deferred
DavidC: question - what group decided on the classification ?
brent: many Issues previously classified by editors, other team members, previous groups
@issue 76 Define SHACL constraints
<kdenhartog> https://
brent: Issue #76 - Define the SHACL constraints
manu: suggestion to defer Issue #76
ivan: raised an issue recently, and there are some problems on how the data models are expressed - SHACL would benefit - more to the topic
<manu> I will add defer-v2
brent: suggestion for new label, other than "defferred" for issues like @issue 76 - "deferv2"
Issuers may express a Time to Live on the credential @issue 164
<kdenhartog> https://
brent: discuss @issue 164 - previous group felt it should be deferred
<kdenhartog> +1 seems to be an extension at this point
<manu> Agree with brent that it should be deferred
brent: comment - a new feature, out of scope for the group
brent: no objections - @issue 164 marked deferred
3 Types of Claims @issue 47
<kdenhartog> https://
brent: discuss @issue 47 - 3 types of claims
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note we should close this
brent: recommending changes to the proof property
manu: we have asked for feedback, none has been received, recommended to close if not actioned
<kdenhartog> https://
Holders and Identifiers @issue 105
brent: discuss @issue 105 - holder and identifiers
brent: is this to resolve/fix a bug in the spec, or add to it?
DavidC: there is ambiguity when subject does not equal holder
brent: describes an error which needs to be corrected - this issue can be labelled "Editorial"?
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to agree with kdenhartog
kdentartog: a bug but not necessarily "fixable", should be part of "Editorial" - some changes to the text
manu: agreed, non-normative change - expectation of subject/holder/identifiers
brent: do we formally mark this as erratum?
kdenhartog: agreed, believe it is
manu: the text no longer exists in the spec, may no longer be an issue
DavidC: already some proposal in the issue, we could clarify in the text
brent: next steps - raising a PR which addresses concrete changes to the spec
Does pseudo-anonymity require the issuer to cooperate @issue 209
<kdenhartog> https://
brent: discuss @issue 209
<Gerhard> Hi everyone. Unfortunately have to drop off. Nice meeting you. Will do some pre-reading of issues before our next session to be able to contribute more.
<kdenhartog> +1 to that Brent
<manu> Agree with that text that brent just said
brent: it would be appropriate to add text to the Zero Knowledge proofs section
DavidC: maybe the scope of this issue is larger, to what extent can an issuer control the discloser a holder has
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to provide another example -- witness issuers.
brent: assign brent to the issue, an idea of how to move forward with it
manu: agreed with the original text - but consider one use case: witness issuers
<manu> +1 to giving brent a shot at the text :)
Gregory_natran: in response to DavidC, caution to preventing users from disclosing, the information is theirs and there may be consequent issues with restrictions on the holder/subject
brent: to throw conversation into a new PR and can continue the discussion
brent: anything that is not "deferv2" or "erratum" - please add a comment to the issue to describe what you feel the proper classification *should* be
brent: Pull request - new topic, handing off to manu
PRs
manu: new PR review process for 2021 we need to agree on
brent: discuss where PRs will be merged to, direction of PRs, make a determination if we are going to merge or if review is needed
manu: there are 2 targets to merge to - version 1.1 branch - majority of work is targetted there
version 1.1 - small editorial changes, erratum
version 2 - significant changes or upgrades
manu: largely upcoming calls will focus on version 1.1 - open PR describing the process
<manu> https://
@pr 774
manu: Wayne's PR, some suggestion were made in the comment, they have not been processed
manu: @pr 774 is ready to go in, unless there are objections on this call
manu: this is the agreed upon process, and has been out for review - suggest to merge
DavidC: clarify - what is version 1.2 (in PRs)
brent: quick editorial changes are set for version 1.1 and can go out a.s.a.p. - substantial changes, bugs, etc. are in version 1.2
<ivan> +1 to DavidC
everything else in version 2
brent: any question?
manu: will merge @pr 774 once the update has been made, comment added
<manu> https://
manu: discuss @pr 772 - simple not classification from Ted, purely editorial
@pr 772
manu: rewording some language related to "JWT claim"
brent: switch labels from "PossibleErratum" to "Errata"
brent: note to the team - the labels work in some automated processes
<manu> https://
@pr 723
manu: discuss @pr 723 - various clarified "phrases" - related to "JWT claims"
manu: some details need to be review to make sure this does not impact, after it is determined it may/may not be merged
manu: @pr 723 is ready to go
brent: encourage team members to jump in and review the issues and labels
brent: Thank you for attending the meeting - open to feedback from team members