14:58:47 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
14:58:47 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/08/11-vcwg-irc
14:59:23 <brent> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:59:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/11-vcwg-minutes.html brent
14:59:31 <brent> rrsagent, make logs public
14:59:44 <brent> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group
15:00:07 <brent> Chair: Wayne Chang
15:01:18 <brent> Agenda:  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2021Jul/0002.html
15:01:37 <brent> zakim, this is vcwg
15:01:37 <Zakim> got it, brent
15:01:43 <kdenhartog> kdenhartog has joined #vcwg
15:01:56 <kdenhartog> present+
15:02:36 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
15:02:41 <DavidC> present+
15:02:45 <brent> present+
15:02:48 <wayne> wayne has joined #vcwg
15:03:04 <brent> present+ wayne
15:03:22 <manu> present+
15:03:37 <dlongley> present+
15:03:39 <brent> present+ drummond
15:03:44 <wayne> present+
15:04:10 <brent> scribe+
15:04:11 <manu> scribe+
15:05:37 <brent> Topic: v1.1 and v1.2 Timelines
15:06:00 <brent> wayne: v1.1 is editorial, addresses errata
15:06:14 <brent> ... v1.2 is to address substantive changes for errata
15:06:30 <brent> ... we are managing these versions using two branches in github
15:06:45 <brent> q+ to give timeline details
15:06:57 <manu> brent: Some more detail on that.
15:06:59 <wayne> ack brent
15:06:59 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to give timeline details
15:08:28 <manu> brent: W3C Process requires that revising a recommendation to make substantive changes, we don't have to go through CR, but we do need a 60 day review period, adding in end of the year publishing moritoria, the very last day we can submit that we want to publish would be December 20th, 60 days before that is October 20th, given our internal process for review, which means beginning of October is earliest point as a WG to have a v1.2 version created to
15:08:28 <manu> statically work on... we have 2 months if we want to proceed with 1.2 substantive corrections. A v1.1 does not have the same requirement for review because 1.1 changes will all be editorial.
15:09:24 <manu> brent: We can submit those at any time, because of time constraints, what I expect us to do is to get as much v1.1 work put together as we can, evalutate what 1.2 work we have the time to address/include, and incorporate all of those changes into a single document. There are some additional process constraints... we're not supposed to submit more than 1 correction to a REC in 6 months. We can fold all v1.1 stuff into v1.2
15:09:25 <manu> q+
15:09:31 <wayne> ack manu
15:10:14 <manu> brent: We are in the process of doing a v1.1.
15:10:22 <manu> brent: We need to decide how much of a v1.2 in that timeframe.
15:10:29 <manu> brent: I think we're all agreed that we want to do both.
15:10:48 <manu> brent: v1.1 will be merged into v1.2 -- if we run out of time for v1.2, we can leave v1.2 to a future WG to work on.
15:10:51 <kdenhartog> q+
15:11:07 <manu> brent: The extent to which we can do a v1.2 is constrained by the fact that we have 2 months to do that in.
15:11:08 <wayne> ack kyle
15:12:07 <brent> kdenhartog: based on currently triaged issues, we only have 4 that are v1.2, so I think we can do that
15:12:17 <manu> Topic: Next VCWG Charter
15:13:00 <manu> brent: I did begin drafting a new Charter for a VCWG -- the people that I have spoke to so far that are interested in participating have items that they're interested in would make the new WG be a new fully fledged VCWG (non-maintenance) WG.
15:13:19 <kdenhartog> q+
15:13:21 <manu> brent: We need to gather items that ought to be in scope, so I can incorporate those into a charter draft. That's the goal of this conversation.
15:13:22 <manu> q+
15:13:28 <wayne> ack kdenhartog
15:13:44 <wayne> ack manu
15:14:01 <DavidC> q+
15:14:27 <kdenhartog> +1 for display modes
15:15:33 <brent> q+ to ask if ld proofs for VCs is part of VC V2 or if separate spec
15:15:54 <brent> manu: we need v2 of the spec to be in scope
15:16:01 <brent> ... also linked data proofs for VCs
15:16:02 <kdenhartog> q+
15:16:12 <brent> ... linked data integrity spec
15:16:15 <brent> q-
15:16:30 <brent> ... can take language from RDF charter for that
15:16:44 <brent> ... also revise JWT language in spec
15:17:08 <brent> ... all in service of being able to define BBS+ globally
15:17:23 <brent> ... it is boring plumbing, but plumbing we need to get in place
15:17:33 <brent> ... if we need to fix one thing, I would focus on that
15:17:46 <brent> ... new features for V2 are important but secondary
15:17:52 <kdenhartog> q-
15:17:59 <kdenhartog> q+
15:18:15 <brent> ... if we're doing general linked data stuff, do we want to get concrete for e.g., ed25519?
15:18:19 <dlongley> reminder that we mentioned some things in the spec itself for the next version like this: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/blob/bd758b1b11659c154d349a5189bfa194adb07edd/index.html#L1681-L1684
15:18:22 <wayne> ack DavidC
15:18:46 <brent> DavidC: what is the scope of the new working group? The original couldn't do protocols. Are they in bound now?
15:19:11 <brent> ... for JWTs, we didn't have problems implementing JWTs, but I understand that others have had issues.
15:19:23 <manu> q+ to note protocols are still out of scope -- VC HTTP API is barely forming, VPR, etc... that should be the 3rd recharter...
15:19:29 <brent> ... there may be some misunderstandings we can address editorially
15:19:43 <wayne> ack kden
15:20:08 <brent> kdenhartog: the usage of registry seems quite dormant. It would be useful to use the registry to manage contexts and extensions similar to DIDs
15:20:09 <manu> ooh yeah, very good point Kyle.
15:20:12 <wayne> ack manu
15:20:12 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note protocols are still out of scope -- VC HTTP API is barely forming, VPR, etc... that should be the 3rd recharter...
15:20:13 <DavidC> q+
15:20:27 <brent> manu: +1 to registry
15:20:32 <oliver_terbu> oliver_terbu has joined #vcwg
15:20:33 <wayne> +1 protocol out of scope
15:20:40 <oliver_terbu> present+ oliver_terbu
15:20:42 <wayne> that's a whole can of worms and required expertise
15:21:04 <kdenhartog> +1 to out of scope for now, I think it would slow us down quite a bit
15:21:04 <brent> ... I think protocols are still out of scope. VC HTTP API, DIDComm, etc are all being incubated.
15:21:41 <brent> ... they should be ready in a year and by then we can re-charter to add those mature things. Otherwise I think they will be seen as too immature to add now
15:21:41 <wayne> ack DavidC
15:22:21 <brent> DavidC: one point, verifiable data registries: I would like to describe how VDRs can be used and built using web infrstructure and not blockchains and DIDs
15:22:43 <manu> q+ to note trust lists (and note that we're piling quite a lot of stuff onto the group)
15:22:43 <brent> ... as far as protocols, OpenID is using VPs, so we may want to put something into the spec about that
15:22:49 <wayne> ack manu
15:22:49 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note trust lists (and note that we're piling quite a lot of stuff onto the group)
15:23:26 <brent> manu: the other thing that came up, th ecommentary on TRAIN and trust lists, delegated trust. Those are all very important things to discuss and put forward solutions for
15:23:51 <wayne> q+
15:23:59 <brent> ... one criticism is that we don't have spec language for these things. There is no global solution, but there is a solution. adding that shouldn't be that heavy a lift.
15:24:00 <DavidC> q+
15:24:18 <brent> ... but now the list of features is getting very long. too much for a re-chartered group to do.
15:24:32 <brent> ... I think we should say we may produce Notes for these things
15:24:37 <wayne> ack wayne
15:24:45 <brent> ... but hesitate to say we want to produce a recommendation for them
15:25:10 <brent> wayne: I think one short thing to add would be how to get open badges to work with version 2 of VCs
15:25:18 <wayne> ack DavidC
15:25:38 <brent> DavidC: there is a standard for trust lists, an ETSI standard that we can refer to for how to use them with VCs
15:25:46 <brent> ... just nee to document this
15:25:53 <brent> s/nee/need/
15:25:59 <wayne> q?
15:26:01 <dlongley> q+
15:26:04 <kdenhartog> q+
15:26:11 <wayne> ack dlongley
15:26:28 <brent> dlongley: one item we could consider is revocation lists or other ways of revoking VCs.
15:26:31 <wayne> ack kden
15:27:06 <brent> kdenhartog: bound and unbound credentials, or even closer to what Stephen has mentioned, making holder binding a feature could be added
15:27:12 <brent> wayne: anything else?
15:27:23 <wayne> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/788
15:27:24 <brent> Topic: Review vc-data-model PRs
15:28:11 <manu> q+
15:28:15 <brent> kdenhartog: I've looked at this and think this is may be editorial.
15:28:17 <brent> q+
15:28:24 <wayne> ack manu
15:28:47 <brent> manu: I let my feelings be known on the issue. what seems to be suggested is a fairly significant re-write.
15:29:04 <brent> ... we need to explain the concepts, but the approach is confusing
15:29:28 <brent> ... two things: Stephen's request is reasonable and I've asked him to put in an issue for it
15:29:36 <kdenhartog> q+
15:29:38 <ivan> ivan has joined #vcwg
15:29:39 <brent> ... Michael's is more involved than v1.1
15:29:45 <wayne> q?
15:29:47 <wayne> ack brent
15:30:30 <kdenhartog> Just want to clarify here - I think technically speaking this can already be addressed with no normative statements. I think its possible to describe purchase orders as an editorial only change. If we go for Michael's larger conceptual change it's definitely necessary to move to V2
15:30:43 <wayne> ack kden
15:30:45 <manu> brent: I noted in the issue, from my perspective as a Chair, though the language introduced to the spec doesn't change any normative changes, it does substantively change the specification. I don't think it's in scope in v1.1 Maintenance at all. The overarching thematic introduction of these new ideas in this way is a substantive change and should be deferred to a v2.
15:31:26 <brent> kdenhartog: wanted to clarify, the larger conceptual things are V2, but the idea of not having a holder bound to things would. Particualrly Stephen's ideas could be part of v1.1
15:31:26 <wayne> q?
15:31:30 <manu> Agree that we should try to get Steven's concerns into v1.1.
15:32:05 <brent> wayne: what are next steps? Stephen's concerns should be put in a new issue, the rest would be part of V2
15:32:17 <brent> kdenhartog: I can write a comment on the PR to state that
15:33:12 <brent> TallTed: DavidC, if you could tidy up your last comment, it is really unreadable, makes it difficult to follow the thread
15:33:13 <TallTed> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/788#issuecomment-896783897
15:33:42 <brent> subtopic: @pr 787
15:33:44 <wayne> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/787
15:34:37 <brent> kdenhartog: this needs to be closed after back and forth conversations. I found a way to fix this and will add a PR for that.
15:34:50 <brent> brent: should close once we have a PR merged
15:34:59 <brent> wayne: I'll add a note for that
15:35:23 <wayne> q?
15:35:34 <brent> subtopic: @pr 786
15:35:34 <wayne> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/786
15:35:58 <manu> q+
15:36:05 <wayne> ack manu
15:36:06 <brent> wayne: someone has done an angelic job fixing this and making it more readable. GRateful to Chaals for this.
15:36:34 <brent> manu: I'm afraid that he might have updated auto-generated code. It is really good work, but it may be overwitten
15:37:00 <brent> ... not sure to backport this into the google draw program we used.
15:37:12 <DavidC> @tallted Done
15:37:34 <brent> wayne: I'll let the discussion continue, but will add a comment about needing to incorporate it into the source image
15:37:51 <wayne> q?
15:38:09 <TallTed> If we're not using this sort order ...   https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc
15:38:28 <wayne> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/785
15:38:31 <brent> subtopic: @pr 785
15:38:40 <DavidC> *kdenhartog Yes I replied to his email rather than going to git
15:39:02 <brent> TallTed: this is self explanatory. Just did a bit of patch work. Changes readme and spec html
15:39:28 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
15:39:37 <brent> wayne: we will merge as soon as we hit the 14-day mark
15:39:42 <kdenhartog> q+
15:40:20 <wayne> sorry q?
15:40:21 <wayne> q?
15:40:24 <wayne> ack kdenhartog
15:40:43 <brent> kdenhartog: I'm going to take Ted's readme changes and merge them into main as well
15:40:47 <brent> +1 to kdenhartog
15:40:51 <manu> +1 to merge
15:40:52 <wayne> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/783
15:41:00 <brent> subtopic: @pr 783
15:41:21 <brent> wayne: multiple approvals here
15:41:24 <manu> q+
15:41:38 <brent> kdenhartog: small updates to examples so the example contexts are proper
15:41:47 <wayne> ack manu
15:41:51 <brent> ... so they work as expected
15:42:20 <brent> manu: this is a change to the example context, which nobody on the planet should be relying on for production. So updating it is not a problem
15:42:41 <brent> DavidC: this means you could put nonTransferrable into the example context?
15:42:57 <brent> manu: yes, if we had consensus to do that, but I don't think we do
15:43:21 <wayne> q?
15:43:26 <brent> manu: if we agree as a working group that we want others to follow that model, then we could do that, but it would only exist in the example
15:43:36 <wayne> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/780
15:43:39 <brent> suptopic: @pr 780
15:43:51 <DavidC> its already in an example, so that is why it should be in the examples context
15:44:06 <brent> TallTed: fairly self-explanatory, good discussion.
15:44:08 <manu> I'm fine w/ it being in there...
15:44:34 <brent> wayne: once the 14-day period is up we can merge
15:44:39 <wayne> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/773
15:44:49 <brent> subtopic: @pr 773
15:45:04 <wayne> q?
15:45:07 <brent> wayne: this is a correction in the example section that adds keys for an issuer.
15:45:23 <brent> manu: this was a while ago . . .
15:45:44 <wayne> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aopen+-label%3Av2+sort%3Aupdated-asc
15:45:48 <brent> ... this is fine. We don't really need it, but we expect maybe SaaS systems, so it's fine
15:45:57 <brent> Topic: Issues
15:46:15 <brent> wayne: we've excluded issued triaged as V2
15:46:32 <brent> ... a bunch of deferred we could address now
15:46:35 <wayne> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/32
15:46:42 <brent> subtopic: @issue 32
15:47:07 <manu> q+
15:47:38 <manu> q-
15:47:43 <brent> raised 4 years ago, some good discussion, but not seeing what action we can take now, is it errata, and is it editorial or substantive?
15:47:46 <wayne> q?
15:48:03 <manu> s/raised 4/...raised 4/
15:48:29 <manu> brent: Should we defer to v2 and label it explicitly?
15:48:40 <brent> wayne: I'll add the V2 label so it no longer shows up in the list of issues we address here
15:49:07 <brent> ... also add comments to the issue if you'd like
15:49:15 <wayne> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/248
15:49:17 <brent> subtopic: @issue 248
15:49:46 <kdenhartog> Seems like a context change to me, I think we defer to V2
15:49:52 <wayne> q?
15:49:54 <manu> q+ it has to be v2
15:49:56 <wayne> ack manu
15:49:56 <manu> q+
15:49:57 <brent> wayne: old issue, about adding summary text to VCs. decided to defer it. Any comments on this? I think deferring to V2 makes sense.
15:50:18 <brent> manu: this is definitely V2 as it would result in a context change
15:50:27 <dlongley> "name" and "description" have been requested already for V2, this is just "description" again
15:50:30 <brent> ... other issues ask for short titles and descriptions.
15:50:43 <kdenhartog> +1 to this is the same thing as "description
15:50:45 <brent> wayne: I'll add V2 label now
15:51:09 <wayne> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/42
15:51:09 <brent> subtopic: @issue 42
15:51:20 <dlongley> q+
15:51:31 <wayne> q?
15:51:31 <brent> wayne: dlongley can you talk about this one
15:51:43 <brent> dlongley: we've already said this may be part of V2
15:51:43 <manu> q-
15:51:49 <dlongley> q-
15:52:01 <brent> wayne: we can move that to V2
15:52:09 <brent> subtopic: @issue 57
15:52:10 <wayne> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/57
15:52:32 <manu> q+ to close.
15:52:42 <wayne> ack manu
15:52:42 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to close.
15:52:50 <brent> wayne: add roles to data model for next draft sounds V2
15:53:10 <kdenhartog> +1
15:53:26 <brent> manu: we've tried really hard to keep the language constrained, we don't want to open that up again. I think we should close.
15:53:39 <DavidC> close it
15:53:40 <brent> wayne: I'm fine with closing, any objections?
15:53:44 <wayne> q?
15:54:03 <brent> subtopic: @issue 421
15:54:03 <wayne> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/421
15:54:26 <manu> q+
15:54:33 <brent> wayne: this issue asks for mime types to be better described in the data model
15:54:33 <wayne> ack manu
15:54:52 <brent> manu: this is V2 because it is a formal registration that would require a full group
15:54:59 <wayne> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/80
15:55:04 <brent> subtopic: @issue 80
15:55:36 <manu> +1 to close
15:55:42 <brent> wayne: I recommend closing this isse, there hasn't been discussion for awhile and I feel that the terminology has been shaken out. Any objections to closing?
15:55:55 <wayne> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/480
15:56:01 <brent> subtopic: @issue 480
15:56:32 <brent> wayne: this would add a huge breaking change, renaming a major component
15:56:39 <manu> +1 this would be a huge breaking change.
15:56:43 <dlongley> +1 to close
15:56:44 <manu> +1 to closing
15:57:09 <brent> wayne: probably good to close, but we'd need to see broad support for changes like this in the new working group to re-open
15:57:17 <brent> subtopic: @issue 632
15:57:17 <wayne> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/632
15:57:34 <manu> q+
15:57:55 <brent> wayne: I think this is out of scope for us and probably also for V2
15:58:01 <kdenhartog> q+
15:58:05 <kdenhartog> q-
15:58:10 <manu> q-
15:58:13 <wayne> q?
15:58:19 <brent> wayne: I move to close
15:58:37 <manu> +1 to close
15:58:46 <brent> kdenhartog: I think this is because Tony had raised a bunch of issues and this is a way to track those, so I think we can close it
15:58:57 <brent> wayne: We should also link to incubating protocols
15:59:24 <brent> ... we got through all of the defer issues, great work. now all issues have been triaged.
15:59:49 <brent> ... what are next steps? I'm willing to meet again next week to continue and to continue working on the charter.
15:59:58 <brent> ... I propose that we meet at the same time
16:00:05 <wayne> q?
16:00:08 <kdenhartog> q+
16:00:09 <manu> q+
16:00:18 <wayne> ack kdenhartog
16:00:31 <brent> kdenhartog: If we can not have a 3am call every week, that would be better
16:00:37 <wayne> ack manu
16:00:52 <brent> manu: +1 to that, bad to have an editor waking up in the middle of the night
16:00:53 <wayne> q?
16:01:30 <dlongley> 4pm ET => 8am NZT i think (at least right now)
16:01:42 <brent> how about 2pm ET
16:03:00 <TallTed> this is a very helpful tool -- https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/
16:03:04 <brent> wayne: if everyone is okay with 4pm ET, I propose we meet at that time next week.
16:03:26 <brent> ... we appreciate your flexibility
16:03:39 <brent> DavidC: 9pm UK works for me
16:03:51 <brent> zakim, who is here
16:03:51 <Zakim> brent, you need to end that query with '?'
16:03:54 <brent> zakim, who is here?
16:03:54 <Zakim> Present: kdenhartog, DavidC, brent, wayne, manu, dlongley, drummond, oliver_terbu
16:03:56 <Zakim> On IRC I see dmitriz, ivan, oliver_terbu, wayne, kdenhartog, RRSAgent, Zakim, brent, TallTed, tzviya, dlongley, stonematt, bigbluehat, dlehn3, manu, hadleybeeman, ChristopherA,
16:03:56 <Zakim> ... rhiaro
16:04:17 <brent> presnt+ TallTed
16:04:32 <TallTed> present+
16:05:09 <brent> zakim, end the meeting
16:05:09 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been kdenhartog, DavidC, brent, wayne, manu, dlongley, drummond, oliver_terbu, TallTed
16:05:11 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:05:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/11-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim
16:05:15 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, brent; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:05:18 <Zakim> Zakim has left #VCWG
16:05:23 <brent> rrsagent, please excuse us
16:05:23 <RRSAgent> I see no action items