19:55:13 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
19:55:13 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/11/17-vcwg-irc
19:55:22 <brent> zakim, start the meeting
19:55:22 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
19:55:23 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), brent
19:55:36 <brent> meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group
19:55:42 <brent> zakim, this is vcwg
19:55:42 <Zakim> got it, brent
19:55:52 <brent> chair: Brent Zundel
19:57:21 <brent> brent has changed the topic to: VCWG Agenda 2021-11-17: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/ae8e6b99-b822-41b8-abee-693fe7151166/20211117T150000#agenda
20:03:29 <Logan_Porter> Logan_Porter has joined #vcwg
20:08:07 <gnatran> gnatran has joined #vcwg
20:09:35 <kdenhartog> kdenhartog has joined #vcwg
20:09:38 <kdenhartog> present+
20:09:41 <kdenhartog> scribe+
20:09:46 <manu> present+
20:09:56 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
20:09:56 <Logan_Porter> present+
20:09:58 <dmitriz> present+
20:10:03 <shigeya> present+
20:10:08 <manu> present+ brent
20:10:09 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
20:10:14 <DavidC> present+
20:10:15 <kdenhartog> Our agenda is straight forward, we'll start off with vc data model wide review
20:10:16 <gnatran> present+
20:10:27 <kdenhartog> ... then move into triaging and processing of PRs and issues
20:10:35 <manu> s/Our agenda/brent: Our agenda/
20:10:46 <brent> present+
20:10:47 <kdenhartog> ... if we get through that all we'll move into V2 issues and PRs to process
20:11:03 <kdenhartog> manu: quick touch on charter and mDL topic?
20:11:14 <kdenhartog> brent: yeah we can do that after wide review
20:11:36 <kdenhartog> Note to Ivan, the first text I scribed was brent speaking
20:11:39 <brent> Topic: VC Data Model Wide Review
20:11:43 <kdenhartog> brent: any introductions?
20:12:00 <manu> q+ to note he failed to notify some folks he was supposed to.
20:12:14 <kdenhartog> ... Our v1.1 has been published and wide review needs to happen. We've reached out to some of them already
20:12:34 <kdenhartog> ... this is our first time going through this so we're learning as we go along
20:12:45 <kdenhartog> ... this topic is about what needs to happen for this
20:12:47 <brent> ack manu
20:12:47 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note he failed to notify some folks he was supposed to.
20:13:07 <kdenhartog> manu: I failed to send the wide review announcements and I forgot until just now. I can still do that
20:13:29 <kdenhartog> ... we said we'd contact IMS global they no longer have a group from the looks of it
20:13:48 <kdenhartog> ... and other folks, I'll give a try this week to take care of this
20:14:05 <kdenhartog> brent: is there anything else require beyond contacting the AC list?
20:14:53 <kdenhartog> ... I don't see anything else in the process document that calls for horizontal review
20:14:56 <kdenhartog> ... so I think we're good
20:15:19 <kdenhartog> manu: I don't see anything as a requirement for horizontal review either
20:15:32 <manu> q+
20:15:47 <kdenhartog> brent: How formal do we need to be about implementations for substantive changes?
20:15:50 <brent> ack manu
20:16:08 <kdenhartog> manu: We couldn't have transitioned without that implementation experience
20:16:39 <kdenhartog> ... for example rfc 3339 wasn't ever tested and the substantive changes were about matching what was actually happening in implementations
20:17:04 <kdenhartog> ... for the other substantive changes we were loosening requirements to support new capabilities such as ZKP allowing for more things
20:17:36 <kdenhartog> brent: The process document specifically calls these "wide review" and I don't see any information about wide review being required in the process
20:17:40 <brent> Topic: VCWG recharter and mDL
20:17:42 <manu> q+
20:17:47 <kdenhartog> brent: Next we'll move to VCWG recharter and mDL
20:17:48 <brent> ack manu
20:18:27 <kdenhartog> manu: During TPAC Microsoft mentioned that it'd be interesting to see work around mDL and helping to integrate VCWG and mDL
20:18:43 <DavidC> q+
20:18:53 <kdenhartog> ... and 2 that there weren't APIs that were really designed to move mDLs back and forth
20:19:10 <kdenhartog> ... we may want to put this work in scope for the VC 2.0 work as things we may look into (e.g. notes)
20:19:19 <kdenhartog> ... nothing standards track at this point
20:19:27 <brent> ack DavidC
20:19:33 <kdenhartog> ... purpose would be to support support in the mDL space
20:19:51 <kdenhartog> DavidC: I looked at the current ISO draft and VCs are referenced in an appendix now
20:19:58 <gnatran> q+
20:20:04 <manu> q+
20:20:11 <kdenhartog> ... so it's good news and it's definitely going to end up in the standard now
20:20:18 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
20:20:25 <kdenhartog> ... unfortunately I don't think I can send this draft to you at this point
20:20:43 <kdenhartog> ... maybe there's a liason agreement that we could use to share the draft with WG members
20:21:00 <kdenhartog> ... have we considered putting in a request to be a liasion group?
20:21:08 <kdenhartog> manu: the answer is yes it's already setup
20:21:31 <kdenhartog> DavidC: Then we may be able to see the current draft from ISO and share it only with WG members
20:21:32 <brent> ack gnatran
20:22:02 <kdenhartog> gnatran: quick question, do we see this being tied into the stuff happening with apple and states moving to drive licenses?
20:22:11 <DavidC> q+
20:22:14 <brent> ack manu
20:22:16 <kdenhartog> ... Does this play in any sort of way?
20:22:35 <manu> https://www.w3.org/2020/12/verifiable-credentials-wg-charter.html
20:22:37 <kdenhartog> manu: it's tangentally related, but yeah that's in the class of related things for the charter aspects we're considering
20:23:01 <kdenhartog> ... the current charter lists the particular ISO group as a liasion
20:23:30 <kdenhartog> ... yes we could have a very direct relationship with them and this would be intended to do more harmonization work
20:23:51 <kdenhartog> ... this is good reason because we want to be able to officiallly respond to whats happening in that WG around VCs
20:23:58 <brent> ack DavidC
20:24:03 <kdenhartog> ... and we don't want to be on the outside on those discussions
20:24:22 <kdenhartog> DavidC: Just to clarify that the current Apple/mDL stuff isn't compatible with VCs
20:24:41 <brent> q+ to say ask next steps
20:24:44 <kdenhartog> ... that's not to say that if the next draft comes out then it may move that way
20:24:56 <manu> q+ to mention next steps -- PR against VC 2.0 charter
20:25:23 <brent> ack brent
20:25:23 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to say ask next steps
20:25:33 <kdenhartog> brent: what are our next steps?
20:25:39 <brent> https://w3c.github.io/vc-wg-charter/
20:25:46 <kdenhartog> ... I've noted 3 changes that could be made to our current draft charter
20:25:49 <kdenhartog> 1 and 3 are the same
20:26:18 <kdenhartog> ... we have some current external orgs listed that we say we'll liase with. We should add those to the draft charter since they're not there
20:26:34 <brent> ack manu
20:26:34 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to mention next steps -- PR against VC 2.0 charter
20:26:44 <kdenhartog> ... another is that we want to add another deliverable about mDLs as a note
20:26:52 <kdenhartog> manu: I agree with your list brent
20:27:01 <kdenhartog> ... we need to mention the liase in the new drafts
20:27:26 <kdenhartog> ... and we need to include some deliverable note about mDL interoperability
20:27:38 <kdenhartog> ... we definitely don't want to say that this is a recommendation document
20:28:05 <kdenhartog> brent: we should also add IMS global to the liasion groups for broad community review
20:28:20 <kdenhartog> brent: next topic is PR review
20:28:23 <brent> Topic: Review PRs
20:28:35 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22v1.1+%28editorial%29%22+sort%3Aupdated-asc
20:28:59 <kdenhartog> ... here's the link for them
20:29:09 <kdenhartog> ... unless folks really want to do #780 we'll skip it
20:29:16 <manu> q+
20:29:23 <kdenhartog> ... put yourselves on q if you want to discuss otherwise we'll move ahead
20:29:26 <brent> ack manu
20:29:38 <kdenhartog> manu: reminder to everyone that there was an email sent out to the list
20:29:52 <kdenhartog> ... there was a lot of cleanup on main branch after cleaning up V1.1
20:30:01 <kdenhartog> ... and now V1.1 is now the main branch
20:30:15 <kdenhartog> ... and all editorial changes will be put on top of V1.1
20:30:51 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/814
20:30:57 <kdenhartog> ... and when Jan 19th or whatever roles around then everything in the V1.1 branch can be immediately applied to the recommmendation after the publishing of V1.1 substantive changes
20:31:09 <kdenhartog> brent: I believe we discussed this last time
20:31:18 <kdenhartog> ... we don't have any response from Michael Herman who raised the PR
20:31:33 <kdenhartog> ... I think the consensus here is that without response from him that we should close this
20:31:43 <manu> q+
20:31:51 <brent> ack manu
20:31:55 <kdenhartog> ... we have active changes requested and no response with no activity since September
20:32:08 <kdenhartog> manu: How long do we wait for a non-response to close a PR?
20:32:22 <kdenhartog> ... we've waited 7 days and standard wait time has been 14 days
20:32:46 <kdenhartog> ... we reping him and see if there's any action plan for this
20:32:59 <kdenhartog> brent: is there any issues with this course of action?
20:33:09 <kdenhartog> DavidC: can we add a pending close label on it?
20:33:21 <kdenhartog> brent: yeah we can do that and I'll ping Michael Herman now
20:34:10 <kdenhartog> ... pending close label added
20:34:24 <kdenhartog> manu: we should also remove the other labels if you're ok with that
20:34:42 <kdenhartog> brent: I'm good with leaving V1.1 editorial but we can remove possibleErratum label
20:35:44 <kdenhartog> manu: Does Editorial label do anything for Errata document?
20:35:47 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/817
20:36:00 <kdenhartog> kdenhartog: No only Errata label affects that document
20:36:38 <kdenhartog> kdenhartog: I'm good with using only pending close, V1.1, v2.0, 14 day merge, Errata, and possibleErratum labels
20:37:16 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/834
20:37:18 <kdenhartog> brent: the last thing we said is when a PR exists that addresses the problems. We'll take a look at that PR now
20:37:24 <kdenhartog> ... then jump back to 817
20:37:39 <kdenhartog> ... so 834 addresses 817 potentially so we'll take a look at this first
20:38:31 <kdenhartog> manu: we now have a display for a variety of examples including bare credential, w/ ld proofs, and w/ JWT proofs
20:38:57 <kdenhartog> ... the enhancements that people have asked for is better tabbing, highlighting active tabs, show intermediate form for JWTs
20:39:14 <kdenhartog> ... they're all good asks and my suggestion is they're all enhancements and we can address them in other PRs
20:39:21 <kdenhartog> ... this one addresses just example 4
20:39:31 <kdenhartog> ... there's another PR which updates as many examples as possible
20:39:49 <DavidC> q+
20:40:00 <brent> ack DavidC
20:40:01 <kdenhartog> ... those are in PR 835
20:40:17 <kdenhartog> DavidC: My suggestion is that we add another tab with the intermediate JWT tab
20:40:41 <kdenhartog> ... I'm willing to do that as well
20:40:49 <manu> q+
20:40:53 <kdenhartog> ... I'd like to suggest that we add this intermediate tab as well
20:40:58 <brent> ack manu
20:41:07 <kdenhartog> manu: it's not as easy as just adding one
20:41:21 <kdenhartog> ... these are all auto generated which requires coding it up
20:41:30 <kdenhartog> ... it's a decent bit of work
20:41:53 <kdenhartog> ... unless you already have something that can generate the intermediate form and I just didn't have the time to do that yet
20:42:11 <kdenhartog> DavidC: I thought this was hand done for each one
20:42:29 <kdenhartog> manu: this is all available in the digitalbazaar/respec-vc repo
20:42:42 <kdenhartog> ... I've got concerns about showing that, but I don't intend to block it
20:43:01 <kdenhartog> ... it raises questions about how deep do we want to go around intermediate forms for other proof types as well
20:43:16 <kdenhartog> ... so I don't want those discussions to block this PR from going forward for now
20:43:38 <kdenhartog> brent: suggestion is that we work to merge this PR and raise issues for each of the specific enhancements we'd like to see
20:43:39 <manu> +1 to the course of action brent just described.
20:44:12 <kdenhartog> DavidC: I see this intermediate format as examples is fundamental and very helpful
20:44:40 <kdenhartog> ... particularly around the clarification stuff that we've seen for JWT encodings
20:45:03 <kdenhartog> ... so these examples would help for further clarification
20:45:27 <kdenhartog> ... let's not close this today. I want to spend some time to go ahead and take a look at this one
20:45:38 <kdenhartog> ... our current work mode requires notifications to the CCG
20:45:49 <kdenhartog> ... so a 14 day window from the notification should occur
20:46:07 <kdenhartog> ... so there's a possibility that during that window requested changes will be made
20:46:32 <kdenhartog> DavidC: let's go ahead with the 14 day window and then I can take a look during that time
20:46:49 <kdenhartog> brent: so now the question is have there been enough progress on 834 and 835 to close issue 817
20:46:53 <kdenhartog> DavidC: yes I'm happy with that
20:47:12 <kdenhartog> brent: I'll leave it to the editors to update the labels and notify the CCG about the rest
20:47:13 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/829
20:47:31 <kdenhartog> brent: some review has occurred
20:47:41 <kdenhartog> ... charles or TallTed are not here
20:47:49 <kdenhartog> ... if anyone has comments please q
20:47:59 <kdenhartog> ... the PR is quite straight forward
20:48:14 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/830
20:48:33 <kdenhartog> brent: I raised this PR to add a section to privacy considerations
20:49:08 <kdenhartog> ... to call out coordination by the issuer to participate in the process of this
20:49:45 <kdenhartog> ... it also points out that in some cases the issuer is not deliberately subverting the privacy aspects when they're participating
20:49:54 <DavidC> q+
20:50:02 <kdenhartog> ... please give it a review and I think this one is ready for CCG review
20:50:16 <kdenhartog> manu: My concern is that editors aren't being tagged on these
20:50:23 <kdenhartog> ... I was surprise that we're not being tagged on this
20:50:37 <kdenhartog> ... I'm wondering if we're missing a codeowners file
20:51:11 <kdenhartog> kdenhartog: reitterates what Manu said
20:51:13 <brent> ack DavidC
20:51:25 <kdenhartog> brent: Editors should be notified any time new PRs are being raised
20:51:48 <kdenhartog> DavidC: going back to the previous PR there were a few mistakes for the intermediate credential
20:52:16 <kdenhartog> ... suggests some changes so that the intermediate value is correct around the issuer values
20:53:27 <kdenhartog> manu: let's open an issue on this. There might be an issue of the understanding of what should happen on this
20:53:52 <kdenhartog> DavidC: I think we should block merging the other until we can resolve this
20:54:18 <kdenhartog> brent: Can you open an issue to track the thing that needs to be resolved for this
20:54:23 <kdenhartog> manu: I'm on it
20:54:31 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/828
20:54:47 <kdenhartog> brent: This is yours David, there's been a couple requests for changes
20:54:52 <kdenhartog> ... what's the current status of this
20:55:08 <kdenhartog> DavidC: In a private email with Orie I think we resolved the issues that he saw with it
20:55:21 <kdenhartog> ... so I think we've resolved all the issues now
20:55:32 <kdenhartog> manu: other than one normative change that needs to be undone
20:56:24 <kdenhartog> brent: just need that last thing to be resolved and to get it labeled and notify CCG
20:56:33 <kdenhartog> ... anything else on this PR before we close the meeting?
20:56:45 <kdenhartog> ... note next week is thanksgiving so this meeting won't happen
20:56:56 <kdenhartog> ... we'll have a meeting in 2 weeks at the same time as this one
20:57:14 <kdenhartog> ... Thanks to everyone who's helped us make good progress on the spec
20:57:33 <kdenhartog> ... briefly our status - it's likely our group charter will be admin extended
20:57:43 <kdenhartog> ... because this group has been delayed by DID WG related items
20:57:46 <brent> zakim, who is here?
20:57:46 <Zakim> Present: kdenhartog, manu, Logan_Porter, dmitriz, shigeya, brent, DavidC, gnatran
20:57:49 <Zakim> On IRC I see dmitriz, DavidC, kdenhartog, gnatran, Logan_Porter, RRSAgent, Zakim, brent, tzviya, dlehn, agendabot, bigbluehat, hadleybeeman, stonematt, shigeya, dlongley, manu,
20:57:49 <Zakim> ... juancaballero, cel, wayne, cel[m], rhiaro
20:58:03 <brent> zakim, close the meeting
20:58:03 <Zakim> I don't understand 'close the meeting', brent
20:58:08 <brent> zakim, end the meeting
20:58:08 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been kdenhartog, manu, Logan_Porter, dmitriz, shigeya, brent, DavidC, gnatran
20:58:10 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:58:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/11/17-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim
20:58:13 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, brent; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
20:58:17 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg
20:58:19 <brent> rrsagent, bye
20:58:19 <RRSAgent> I see no action items