15:22:07 RRSAgent has joined #vcwg 15:22:07 logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/01/19-vcwg-irc 15:22:08 RRSAgent, make logs Public 15:22:09 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan 15:22:15 Meeting: VC WG Telco 15:22:15 Chair: brent 15:22:15 Date: 2022-01-19 15:22:15 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/bb66da93-e029-41cb-9d9e-32bfe0ea6f67/20220119T110000 15:22:15 ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2022-01-19: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/bb66da93-e029-41cb-9d9e-32bfe0ea6f67/20220119T110000 15:22:15 ivan, sorry, I did not recognize any agenda in https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/bb66da93-e029-41cb-9d9e-32bfe0ea6f67/20220119T110000 15:22:16 Regrets+ manu 15:22:29 agendabot, bye 15:22:29 agendabot has left #vcwg 15:59:07 present+ 15:59:12 present+ TallTed 16:01:18 present+ 16:01:28 DavidC has joined #vcwg 16:01:38 present+ 16:02:01 rgrant has joined #vcwg 16:02:06 present+ 16:02:13 brentz has joined #vcwg 16:02:23 present+ 16:02:55 markus_sabadello has joined #vcwg 16:03:02 present+ 16:03:09 michaelklein has joined #vcwg 16:03:33 present+ wayne 16:04:21 present+ michaelklein 16:05:28 gnatran has joined #vcwg 16:05:30 scribe+ wayne 16:05:47 present+ 16:05:54 present+ 16:07:50 topic: agenda review 16:08:12 brentz: talk briefly about meetings in the future, look at the v1.1 editorial improvements + make resolution on set of those to fold into 1.1 sepc 16:08:22 brentz: whatever remaining time, look at the vcwg draft charter 16:08:22 q+ 16:08:28 brentz: questions/concerns? 16:08:30 ack ivan 16:08:50 ivan: 2 things, voting period for v1.1 has closed, pulling the final results. 16:09:15 ivan: 16 voters who are okay to publish as-is, 1 public comment, link incoming 16:09:17 -> Google's comments on 1.1 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2022JanMar/0060.html 16:09:50 ivan: we must address these as a wg, as publishing 1.1 requires this 16:10:17 ivan: we have to plan for this. microsoft has officially joined the wg, which is great 16:10:30 ivan: as part of the charter discussion, we can talk about the co-chairing? 16:10:35 brentz: yes, that's the plan 16:10:59 Topic: Meetings moving forward 16:11:02 q+ 16:11:35 brentz: meetings moving fwd, the goal of this wg is to publish corrections to the vc-data-model 1.0. we're on track to publish 1.1 with those corrections and will continue to meet weekly until that happens 16:12:03 brentz: once we have addressed those concerns raised and settled on a set of additional editorial changes we want to make, we plan to stop meeting except as necessary to discuss anything to do with the draft charter 16:12:10 ack DavidC 16:12:24 DavidC: i clicked on the link ivan put, but it says i have insufficient access rights 16:12:36 ivan: charles posted a public one 16:12:39 DavidC: thanks 16:12:49 brentz: any questions around the meeting plan moving forward? 16:13:15 brentz: after addressing the comments made by google, we will consider this done except for hammering out the next draft charter 16:13:19 Topic: Concerns about v1.1 16:14:34 brentz: changes requested include one changing URL to URI could cause more confusion in interpretation of the vc-data model 16:14:52 brentz: another corretion made was modifying a statement in the ZKP section to make them more compatible with actual implementations 16:15:16 brentz: those concerns are around how the looser set of restrictions could make it even more difficult to implement the spec 16:15:28 brentz: i understand many of us are seeing this for the first time, but welcome conversation 16:15:45 q+ 16:15:51 ack juancaballero 16:15:52 q+ 16:15:59 present+ juancaballero 16:16:25 juancaballero: question/refresher. it sounds to me like two of these would be addressed by adding a few non-normative explanatory sentences, and the third would be to add additional test vectors. is it too late to make those kinds of changes? 16:16:36 brentz: not too late to make any non-normative changes, which include the test vectors 16:16:44 ack DavidC 16:16:57 q+ 16:17:10 DavidC: it seems to be that Correction 2 could be to do with DIDs, because DIDs aren't included in URLs but they are in URIs. iirc, google objected to the DID spec moving forward, perhaps these are linked 16:17:26 brentz: we're not sure that's why, that seems like speculation 16:17:32 relevant pull-request for Correction 2: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/819 16:17:54 DavidC: number 3 is a bit odd, because there we've loosened normative statements, while you said we couldn't tight them. would that violate the edit procedure? 16:18:04 brentz: if we were to revert our changes to the version of 1.0, that could work 16:18:21 ack ivan 16:18:22 DavidC: if you're saying 1.0 didn't allow us to do something and that's clearly specified, that could help us with correction 3 16:18:28 Correction 3's PR: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/818 16:18:46 ivan: back to the URL/URI issue, but i don't think that's the reason why they've added comments. 16:19:11 ivan: it's more of the fact that in a growing number of web specifications these days, the term URI has been dropped because the claim is in practice, no one uses that term, everyone uses URL and not URI 16:19:17 q+ 16:19:44 ivan: there has been a lot of confusion about these terms in the past decades, and WhatWG refers to it was URL 16:20:07 ivan: the URL spec by the WhatWG is not an easy read, but the way i understand it is that the URL spec actually syntactically speaking does include DIDs as well 16:20:21 ivan: the URL spec is not just for HTTP URLs, but we should confirm this 16:20:40 the change was made inresponse to this issue: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/748 16:20:47 ivan: that's probably where they're coming from, benefit of the doubt, i don't think it's related to formal objection 16:20:50 ack DavidC 16:21:24 DavidC: a new IETF spec from OIDC group, proposing URI scheme based on JWT key hashes, and i'm proposing a similar one with JWKs 16:21:44 DavidC: so we can see in the IETF, there are still people referring to things as URIs and not URLs 16:21:52 ivan: the confusion is still rampant 16:22:50 ivan: if that work is used in VCs, and the WhatWG spec would preclude using that work, then it's potentially an argument to keep them as URIs 16:22:58 DavidC: indeed it would be an argument 16:23:14 PR: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/819 16:23:20 -> IETF JWT Key Hash URLS https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-jones-oauth-jwk-thumbprint-uri-01 16:23:35 brentz: question for the group, should we raise an issue, point them to the issue/PR? or should we proceed with changes 16:23:57 ivan: initiating a discussion via github sounds like the right and clean way to do it 16:24:55 brentz: another possible solution is continuing v1.1 as-is, and work on addressing the conversation in the next working group as part of the scope 16:25:15 ivan: let's be friendly and constructive where possible 16:25:25 brentz: i'll make the issue to track this concern. anything else? 16:25:50 brentz: should we take any different action for the correction 3 around ZKPs? 16:26:47 brentz: the last one is the testing. it may be accurate that our test suite needs an update according to 1.1 16:26:54 q+ 16:27:08 ack wayne 16:28:01 wayne: cel, would you have interest in working on improving the test suite? 16:28:04 cel: can look into it 16:28:14 cel: can try to add some more test vectors for those combinations 16:28:29 brentz: just to make sure the test suite reflects the most recent set of normative changes 16:28:32 q+ 16:28:47 ack ivan 16:29:19 ivan: just looking at the very last paragraph, he emphasizes a process problem about how it's difficult for a reader to find out where those changes come from 16:29:43 ivan: not a criticism at us, but the process, so we can accomodate by adding refs to PRs and issues to add context for the changes 16:29:46 brentz: anything else on this topic? 16:30:14 Topic: v1.1 Editorial Improvements 16:30:18 brentz: we'll talk about the v1.1 editorial improvements, coming to a resolution on these hopefully 16:30:48 brentz: we have been as a group, since we started the conversation, we've also been working on a set of editorial changes, many already added to the v1.1 branch on github 16:31:03 brentz: there are a number of pull requests that are labeled v1.1 editorial and merge after 14 days. 16:31:36 q+ 16:31:37 brentz: the gist of the proposal is that we will publish the editorial changes already incorporated in the v1.1 branch plus the v1.1 editorial merge-after-14-days PRs as the set of editorial changes we will make the to the v1.1 spec as soon as it is published 16:31:41 brentz: any questions/concerns? 16:31:47 ack ivan 16:32:10 ivan: i just tried to exactly understand what you just said....let's suppose that we get an agreement with jeffrey on the comments that google had, that means 1.1 will incorporate those changes once and for all 16:32:35 ivan: then we can ask for re-publication. do you mean when we request re-publication we will also include both changes in one? 16:32:50 brentz: original intent was to have two publications, but would defer to experience 16:33:08 ivan: i have an opinion but not very strong, it could be cleaner if we publish the voted-upon stuff without changes, then after that we do another editorial changes of the 1.1 16:33:20 ivan: we have to be careful right now not to merge any PRs. 16:33:40 brentz: the reason we separated the branches (doc in PR space voted on), and another branch with changes we want to make. 16:33:47 ivan: if that's the properly organized in the repo, that's fine 16:34:08 ivan: we shouldn't change the version voted upon by any merge 16:34:20 brentz: i'm drafting proposal language, if anyone has feedback, please jump on the queue 16:34:35 q+ 16:35:09 DavidC: so this is a clarification question to ivan, are you saying it's better to jump two small hurdles than one big one? 16:35:15 ivan: yes 16:35:23 DavidC: we publish what we have that has been voted on, then we can make some editorial changes. 16:36:01 ivan: i personally think that would be the more appropriate course of action. in the old days, after the proposed recc was accepted, the published recc must be the same as what was voted on except for grammatical mistakes, etc. 16:36:21 ivan: the new process is fuzzier, but it's still a good practice to publish what people actually voted on. that's why i prefer we take two steps 16:36:31 ivan: again, it's a personal opinion, and not an official policy 16:36:34 DavidC: sounds more cautious 16:36:56 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22v1.1+%28editorial%29%22+label%3A%22merge+after+14+days%22 16:37:21 q+ 16:37:26 brentz: please check out these four PRs 16:37:32 DavidC: now i'm a bit confused 16:37:55 DavidC: curious about "additional editorial corrections" 16:38:20 ivan: if you look at the sentence, we will indeed publish the 1.1 model 16:38:35 DavidC: what does already merged mean? 16:38:43 ivan: v1.1 branch.... 16:38:49 DavidC: oh v1.1 is not actual data model 16:38:57 brentz: added a little bit to hopefully clarify 16:39:27 wayne ->v1.1 to v1.1 branch 16:39:47 brentz: any further comments before we run the proposal? 16:40:13 ha ha 16:41:04 PROPOSAL: Following the publication of VC Data Model v1.1, we will publish a second set of additional editorial corrections comprising the changes already merged into the v1.1 branch (https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/tree/v1.1) plus the PRs currently labeled both "v1.1 (editorial)" and "merge after 14 days" 16:41:16 +q 16:41:19 q- 16:41:21 +1 16:41:21 +1 16:41:25 q- 16:41:30 +1 16:41:33 +1 16:41:39 +1 16:41:43 +1 16:41:49 +1 16:42:30 +1 16:42:34 +1 16:42:40 RESOLVED: Following the publication of VC Data Model v1.1, we will publish a second set of additional editorial corrections comprising the changes already merged into the v1.1 branch (https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/tree/v1.1) plus the PRs currently labeled both "v1.1 (editorial)" and "merge after 14 days" 16:42:40 cel: voting as orgs or individuals? 16:42:49 ivan: usually individual vote unless otherwise specified 16:42:51 oops sorry 16:42:52 brentz: thanks for that 16:42:53 +1 16:43:33 brentz: any other comments on this topic before the final topic of the day? 16:43:42 Topic: VCWG Draft Charter 16:43:53 https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc 16:43:57 brentz: jumping into our charter for the last 15m 16:44:08 -> charter proposal https://w3c.github.io/vc-wg-charter/ 16:44:21 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/38 16:45:00 brentz: does anyone have anything more on this issue? 16:45:18 brentz: still looking for a PR from shigeya 16:45:31 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pulls 16:45:46 brentz: with that, we have two PRs to look at it. the first one is PR 41 16:45:54 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pull/41 16:46:23 brentz: proposal to add Kristina Yasuda from Microsoft as the next cochair for the WG 16:46:26 q+ 16:46:35 ack wayne 16:46:42 scribe+ 16:47:02 wayne: I want to speak in support of Kristina/Microsoft taking a chair position. 16:47:20 ... With their interested in the VC spec, we can move towards production readiness and satisfying customers. 16:47:32 ... it's a balance to get different ecosystems conforming to a data model. 16:47:42 ... Very impressive contributions, looking forward to it. 16:48:10 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pull/40 16:48:13 brentz: please add your checkmarks to the PR itself, if no more comments please move to the other PR 16:48:18 brentz: final business for today, PR 40 16:48:44 brentz: significantly improves readability, any feedback on 40? 16:49:01 brentz: already approvals, if no objections, let's merge 40 today 16:49:19 ivan: i would merge 40, and leave 41 for now? 16:49:21 brentz: sounds good 16:50:05 brentz: raised an issue to track the concerns, looking forward to the conversation 16:50:28 brentz: any conversation we can have before we meet next, will help that conversation to be productive. i invite you all to engage this week as your schedules permit 16:50:36 brentz: thanks everyone! we have done a significant amount of work 16:50:42 q+ 16:51:09 ack wayne 16:51:12 topic: new memnber intro 16:51:34 michaelklein: worked for the last years working on smart contracts, coming up with protocols for off-chain signing, great to meet you all 16:51:42 brentz: see you next week! 16:51:59 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:51:59 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/01/19-vcwg-minutes.html ivan 16:52:48 zakim, end meeting 16:52:48 As of this point the attendees have been ivan, TallTed, cel, DavidC, rgrant, brentz, markus_sabadello, wayne, michaelklein, gnatran, juancaballero 16:52:50 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:52:50 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/01/19-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim 16:52:53 I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 16:52:53 rrsagent, bye 16:52:53 I see no action items