20:01:13 RRSAgent has joined #vcwg 20:01:13 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/12/01-vcwg-irc 20:01:21 zakim, start the meeting 20:01:21 RRSAgent, make logs Public 20:01:22 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), brent_ 20:01:35 meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group 20:01:42 chair: Brent Zundel 20:02:08 phila_ has joined #vcwg 20:02:29 DavidC has joined #vcwg 20:02:38 present+ 20:03:01 brent_ has changed the topic to: VCWG Agenda 2021-12-01: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/ae8e6b99-b822-41b8-abee-693fe7151166/20211201T150000#agenda 20:03:06 present+ 20:03:26 dmitriz has joined #vcwg 20:03:27 present+ 20:03:28 present+ 20:03:30 present+ 20:03:37 rgrant has joined #vcwg 20:03:40 JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg 20:03:40 present+ 20:03:46 present+ 20:04:17 present+ 20:04:46 scribe+ 20:05:20 brent_: There were some calendar mixups -- hopefully they're fixed now. 20:06:20 loganporter has joined #vcwg 20:06:23 brent_: There have been login errors with the new calendar system. 20:06:26 present+ 20:06:48 gnatran has joined #vcwg 20:06:55 scribe+ dmitriz 20:07:09 present+ 20:07:14 brent_: Agenda review -- draft charter, review PRs, triage issues, and focus on v1.1 issues. 20:07:43 brent_: anything else for today? 20:08:01 brent_: anyone new to the call? 20:08:14 No additions, no one new to introduce. 20:08:16 topic: VCWG Draft Charter 20:08:25 https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc 20:08:38 brent_: There are the issues in least recently updated order ^^^ 20:08:51 brent_: Some of them are straightforward, we need a course of action for some of them. 20:08:57 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/19 20:09:06 q+ 20:09:11 q- 20:09:26 brent_: Seems like there is support for this, how do we make sure this happens? 20:09:28 q+ 20:09:46 ack shigeya 20:09:54 shigeya: I was not sure how to proceed w/ PR -- how do we fit this into the charter? 20:10:00 shigeya: I'll propose something in a PR. 20:10:00 q+ 20:10:08 ack manu 20:10:57 present+ 20:11:02 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/23 20:11:23 brent_: The link needs to be fixed, there is a PR for that -- this has been addressed by a PR. 20:11:34 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/21 20:12:11 brent_: This might take some more time to discuss, Ivan responded laying out the history of the Linked Data Integrity and Semantic Web WG stuff -- the history/reason, so far no response from Mike. 20:12:12 q+ 20:12:19 ack manu 20:12:20 q+ 20:15:15 ack phila_ 20:15:17 manu: We tried what Mike is proposing. 20:15:52 phila_: quick comment -- manu's explained everything. the question that went through my mind; my worry is -- if we stick with those items, then MSFT will formally object to the next charter 20:15:55 manu: We got push back on Mike's proposal -- RDF Dataset Canonicalization will happen in another WG, there is broad consensus on that. 20:16:01 ... and we should think about what we might do if that happens 20:16:59 manu: The pushback we got was: "Do the Linked Data Integrity work in the group that's using it -- the VCWG -- that's where the implementers are, and it's a packaging format, not new crypto." 20:17:12 manu: So, that's what we're doing because that is what removed the potential for formal objections. 20:17:25 brent_: any other comments on this issue? 20:17:30 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/24 20:17:53 brent_: Mike has expressed his concerns, Orie has responded, anyone else want to comment? 20:17:54 q+ 20:18:00 ack manu 20:18:25 manu: we're not saying we're gonna do normative things here 20:18:31 ... but we are absolutely incubating a VC API spec 20:18:51 ... if one of the things we want to do is demonstrate an end-to-end ecosystem, the VC API could get us there pretty quickly 20:19:04 ... multiple people are implementing, we're demonstrating interop around mDL, etc. 20:19:22 ... it's a useful thing to bring into the conversation, without saying we're going to standardize it 20:19:31 ... so that's the reason to have it in scope -- the work /is/ happening. 20:19:54 ... and we'll get a lot of questions "how do you know this VC data model works, interops"? And one of our answers could be -- well, we have all these interop tests 20:20:07 q+ 20:20:14 ack phila_ 20:20:49 phila_: Trying to look into Mike's comment -- 2018 says things are out of scope... we're talking about the new charter... it was out of scope, but it's no longer out of scope, don't see what the problem is. 20:20:55 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/22 20:20:58 s/2018/2017 20:21:43 brent_: I don't disagree with this, but my response here was that we have in scope -- data models are in scope and talk about 2.0 deliverable being replacement for previous versions... feels like it's in scope in spirit. Do we need to be explicit about this? 20:21:43 q+ 20:21:53 ack manu 20:22:04 manu: it would be very weird for a WG to say "we're not going to fix the problems with the spec" 20:22:28 ... so, my read is the same as yours, brent. That's what new versions are /for/ - to fix the problems with previous versions. 20:22:47 ... so, that's already in scope 20:22:58 brent_: That was my read as well. 20:23:14 q+ 20:23:23 q+ 20:23:24 ack TallTed 20:23:28 brent_: I'm not opposed to it, if we have to, fine -- we can say we'll address errors in previous versions -- of course we're going to do that. 20:23:33 q+ 20:23:41 TallTed: I agree that it'll be unnecessary, but it'll remove mike's objections. 20:23:52 TallTed: We may also produce errata updates to 1.0 and 1.1. 20:24:00 brent_: ok, I'll assign myself. 20:24:09 ack gnatran 20:24:33 gnatran: Just wanted to say, looking at context of it -- he just wants an explicit mention in scope, seems to be only concern -- explicit marker that says we'll look at specific problems. 20:24:46 TallTed: Might be helpful to get him to enumerate the things he wants. 20:24:48 ack JoeAndrieu 20:25:02 q+ 20:25:11 JoeAndrieu: My concern is I think this is an anchor for him to say "these 5 things that are wrong need to be fixed" -- that creates debate/arguments rather than moving forward. 20:25:37 JoeAndrieu: I wouldn't mind a neutral statement, improve 1.x -- but I think Mike's trying to anchor specific fixes that he wants the charter to say "this will be resolved". 20:25:41 ack DavidC 20:26:19 DavidC: Mike is in the OpenID Connect group, he's aware of the JWT problems -- the inconsistencies, he might be implicitly referring to that. I wouldn't look deeper into this than what it appears to be on the surface. It is a genuine request to fix these problems. 20:26:29 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/25 20:26:57 brent_: I raised a PR that adds 3 words to the charter to explicitly say "such as a DLT", that was the intent of this out of scope. 20:27:19 brent_: I think it's been addressed, we'll have to wait to hear from Mike. 20:27:25 q+ 20:27:30 ack TallTed 20:28:09 TallTed: Similar to the other one, the text here does not read to me as if mandating X -- if this line came out of the old charter, "we're not developing APIs" ... but this time we might, this line would make it so, no, we can't. 20:28:25 TallTed: We might want to change "The mandate of any" 20:28:34 s/change/change to/ 20:28:47 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/20 20:29:34 brent_: The set of external organizations that we liaise with was missing, I raised a PR that adds two of them back specifically, and Kristina has noted another WG that is specifically at ISO working on mobile DL as VCs -- change my PR to add that one as well. 20:29:39 q+ 20:29:49 ack manu 20:30:09 Verifiable Driver's Licenses and ISO-18013-5 (mDL) -- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2021Nov/0105.html 20:30:32 q+ 20:31:01 manu: I would like to find a way to add that VC DL as a work item to the group. nothing normative, just a note 20:31:16 ... it would help us talk about how these two disparate ecosystems can interop 20:31:24 brent_: would you be able to open a PR? 20:31:27 ack DavidC 20:31:30 manu: yes, I'll do that. Just wanted to bring it up. 20:32:04 DavidC: With respect to the latter point, looked at VC -- specifying a proof format, don't mind if we limit it to the credential and contents of credential, but not go into specifying the proof format -- VC data model doesn't specify proof format. 20:32:06 q+ 20:32:12 ack manu 20:32:26 manu: the test suite has multiple types of digital signatures, just to show that you can. 20:32:46 ... it's hard to demonstrate selective disclosure without actually having a proof that allows selective disclosure to happen. 20:32:54 ... so, because the re-charter will have proof formats in scope, 20:33:02 ... I don't see how we can object to talking about proof formats. 20:33:21 DavidC: the standard already has a Selective Disclosure mechanism based on JWTs 20:33:29 ... where the value is hashed, and the whole thing is signed. 20:33:45 ... so if we go down that route, we could use the existing mDL selective disclosure mechanism. 20:33:49 DavidC: There is a proof format already for mDL -- taht's already there -- if we go down that route, and we use existing mDL selective disclosure mechanism, that would be ok, or a different one if we have one. 20:33:51 q+ 20:33:51 ... or even a different mechanism, if they have one 20:33:59 ack manu 20:34:12 manu: the thing that's confusing me is -- you said 'if we have a different mechanism'. And we have one of those, BBS+ 20:34:34 ... and you're saying it's fine to do that. But also, simultaneously, you seem to be saying "we can't talk about any other proof format, other than what's in the mDL" 20:34:47 ... and again, proof formats are specifically in scope, for the 2.0 charter 20:34:55 ... so we're either talking about proof formats, or we're not 20:35:06 DavidC: your specific work on mDL specifies one single proof format 20:35:12 manu: it does not. 20:35:16 ... that may be where the miscommunication is. 20:35:27 DavidC: I read it as "the proof format must be BBS+" 20:35:42 manu: no, the interop report shows at least two different formats, and does not mandate any proof format 20:35:48 DavidC: no problem, I missed that. 20:35:54 https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pulls 20:36:11 brent: There are a number of PRs open to address open issues. I can tweak those. 20:36:24 brent: Feel free to jump in on PRs , suggest changes, don't need to go over them one at a time now. 20:36:28 topic: Review PRs 20:36:38 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22v1.1+%28editorial%29%22+sort%3Aupdated-asc 20:36:52 q+ 20:36:59 ack manu 20:37:07 manu: these PRs have been out there for a while 20:37:17 ... I feel like we went over these on the last call. We've got multiple reviewers saying it's fine 20:37:21 ... except for PR 780 20:37:30 ... so I wonder if we can just skip this part. (aside from 780) 20:37:42 brent: I am fine with that! 20:37:46 brent: Fine w/ skipping these 20:37:50 q+ 20:37:57 ack manu 20:38:11 manu: we have this thing where we're supposed to be notifying the CCG about things that are going on (spec changes, etc) 20:38:24 ... and we now have automated tooling to do that. every week, the CCG will get a summary email about everything we've been doing here. 20:38:27 [INFRASTRUCTURE] New feature: Weekly updates on Verifiable Credentials progress -- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2021Nov/0107.html 20:38:32 ... so just want to give everyone a heads up about it. 20:38:50 topic: Triage Issues 20:38:51 brent: great, thanks for setting that up 20:38:56 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+-label%3Av2.0+-label%3A%22v1.1+%28editorial%29%22+sort%3Aupdated-asc 20:39:09 brent: A few issues to look at that have not been triaged -- goal of triage is "is this in scope for v1.1, who is going to do it? 20:39:15 brent: otherwise it's labeled as v2.0 20:39:28 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/836 20:40:24 manu: this was a request from DavidC (to see the intermediate output). And, I implemented that, in a recent PR 20:40:31 DavidC: thank you, that's great. 20:40:58 DavidC: I would have liked a footnote, something like "Note: all of these examples are using "in addition to"" 20:41:11 manu: we could put it as a comment to the example? 20:41:21 DavidC: yeah 20:41:28 manu: I can put it in the example itself, no prob. 20:41:42 manu: I'll do that as an editorial change 20:42:07 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/837 20:42:23 brent: I believe kyle did an update here. 20:42:24 q+ 20:42:28 ack manu 20:42:45 manu: Ted, correct me if I'm wrong -- I think Kyle looked, and when he looked that almost all the text was updated except for that small chunk you found 20:42:55 ... so, we did actually apply all the PRs properly. We just missed some of that text 20:43:05 ... and I think Kyle raised a PR to remove that 20:43:18 TallTed: my read was -- there was one commit that wasn't cherry-picked 20:43:32 brent: once 841 is merged, that will be addressed. 20:43:41 TallTed: I think that's correct. 20:43:55 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/846 20:44:18 brent: This seems like it's v2.0, anyone disagree? 20:44:58 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/845 20:45:34 brent: There's a question whether this is v2.0 which could take substantive changes or v1.1 to clarify editorially. 20:46:27 DavidC: Both Microsoft and myself implemented "instead of" and Orie implemented "as well as" -- Kristina wants the standard to support Microsoft way, and Orie and I agree that that's not the best thing to do always -- we need implementation guidance here. 20:46:41 brent: She does suggest specific language -- the language she suggests is editorial -- is this v2.0 or v1.1? 20:46:42 q+ 20:46:48 q- 20:46:52 DavidC: It's definitely v2.0 20:47:09 DavidC: That's a normative change -- it forbids as well as, it has to be v2.0 20:47:24 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/844 20:47:41 brent: This is pretty straightforward v2.0, any objections? 20:47:45 No objections... 20:48:02 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/842 20:48:53 brent: I think this has been addressed, any other suggestions? Suggest closing -- objections? 20:48:58 No objections. 20:49:14 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/843 20:49:28 brent: This is clearly a v2 issue, any objections? 20:49:31 No objections. 20:49:48 topic: v1.1 issues 20:49:58 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22v1.1+%28editorial%29%22+sort%3Aupdated-asc 20:50:23 brent: These are all v1.1 issues in least recently updated order -- we'll go through them as time permits. 20:50:23 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/734 20:50:54 brent: We discussed this two months ago -- assigned to Dmitri - update? 20:51:32 dmitriz: IIRC, need a PR... this is a reminder to do that PR. 20:51:42 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/781 20:51:49 kdenhartog has joined #vcwg 20:52:39 q+ 20:52:51 kdenhartog: I still have a partial branch here... need to write a few paragraphs, translate email thread that Orie pointed out wrt. @context purpose what credential schema is for -- status is ongoing, could fit in v1.1, haven't done it yet. 20:52:58 brent: anticipated timeline to PR? 20:53:05 ack DavidC 20:53:06 kdenhartog: in a few weeks. 20:53:35 DavidC: For my team, they also wanted to know this -- wrote a document that describes difference between context/schema/type -- I have that document, happy to share it w/ Kyle and the group. 20:53:44 DavidC: If we want to use that as basis for PR, would be happy with that. 20:53:58 DavidC: It's a page of content. 20:54:15 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/751 20:54:47 manu: if there is a PR, it's not linked... 20:54:52 brent: PR 829 20:55:06 manu: ah yes, ok. The status is -- hey, there's a PR! :) 20:55:13 ... that Charles wrote. so we should assign him. 20:55:55 please review: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/829 20:56:15 kdenhartog: This is a PR to discuss intricacy of what we mean by "verifiable" -- Charles has written a PR, still some time for responses, majority of responses look good -- should be ready to go soon... probably have a few minor suggestions and we're waiting for 14 day merge. 20:56:20 which pr is this? 20:56:48 TallTed: That PR will help w/ the subtitle... but we should get rid of the subtitle. 20:56:59 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/209 20:57:34 brent: I raised a PR to address this, got some feedback, that PR has existed for 21 days, but not labeled properly -- waiting for PR to formally be accepted. 20:58:12 brent: Last thing I think Ted made, requested some changes, accepted your suggestions -- re-review would be good. 20:58:14 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/830 20:58:20 TallTed: I'll look at that. 20:58:40 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/732 20:59:26 kdenhartog: I think this was in Ivan's hands, link looks right -- vocab definitions have been published at the right link. 20:59:33 brent: any objections to closing? 20:59:38 No objections. 21:00:11 brent: We're done - thanks everyone for coming, be sure to jump in -- conversation happening on draft charter as well as v1.1 issues that we have agreed to get in some time after v1.1 21:00:14 RRSAgent: draft minutes 21:00:14 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/12/01-vcwg-minutes.html phila_ 21:00:24 Zakim: end meeting 21:00:31 brent: Thanks for coming, thanks Manu and Dmitri for scribing, looking forward to seeing you all next week. 21:00:35 rrsagent, draft minutes 21:00:35 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/12/01-vcwg-minutes.html manu 21:00:42 present+ 21:01:17 rgrant has left #vcwg 21:02:04 zakim, who is here? 21:02:04 Present: DavidC, shigeya, brent_, phila_, dmitriz, rgrant, JoeAndrieu, manu, loganporter, gnatran, wayne, kdenhartog 21:02:07 On IRC I see gnatran, loganporter, JoeAndrieu, DavidC, RRSAgent, Zakim, brent, TallTed, tzviya, dlehn1, shigeya, hadleybeeman, bigbluehat, stonematt, agendabot, dlongley, manu, 21:02:07 ... juancaballero, cel, wayne, cel[m], rhiaro 21:02:26 present+ TallTed 21:02:47 zakim, end the meeting 21:02:47 As of this point the attendees have been DavidC, shigeya, brent_, phila_, dmitriz, rgrant, JoeAndrieu, manu, loganporter, gnatran, wayne, kdenhartog, TallTed 21:02:51 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 21:02:51 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/12/01-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim 21:02:55 I am happy to have been of service, brent; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 21:02:57 rrsagent, bye 21:02:57 I see no action items