15:09:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
15:09:38 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/02/09-vcwg-irc
15:09:41 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:09:42 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
15:10:01 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials WG Telco
15:10:01 <ivan> Chair: brent
15:10:01 <ivan> Date: 2022-02-09
15:10:01 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/9628a09d-b86a-4b89-8ccc-3304434ae6f1/20220209T110000
15:10:01 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2022-02-09: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/9628a09d-b86a-4b89-8ccc-3304434ae6f1/20220209T110000
15:46:09 <shigeya> shigeya has joined #vcwg
15:59:51 <ivan> present+
15:59:59 <ivan> present+ shigeya
16:00:09 <ivan> present+ joe
16:00:27 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
16:01:16 <justin_r> justin_r has joined #vcwg
16:01:22 <ivan> present+ davidc
16:01:27 <justin_r> present+
16:01:55 <ivan> present+ kristina
16:02:02 <ivan> present+ brent
16:02:06 <ivan> present+ manu
16:02:17 <ivan> present+ cel
16:02:23 <ivan> present+ selfissued
16:02:32 <ivan> present+ mahmoud
16:03:11 <ivan> present+ mandic
16:03:14 <brentz> brentz has joined #vcwg
16:03:24 <mprorock_> mprorock_ has joined #vcwg
16:03:30 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
16:03:31 <mprorock_> present+
16:03:35 <mkhraisha> mkhraisha has joined #vcwg
16:03:37 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
16:03:39 <brentz> present+
16:03:41 <DavidC> present+
16:03:42 <selfissued> present+
16:03:43 <ivan> present+ mprorock
16:03:43 <ivan> present+ TallTed
16:04:04 <ivan> scribe+ DavidC
16:04:17 <dlongley> present+
16:04:32 <DavidC> agenda review
16:04:46 <Kristina> Kristina has joined #vcwg
16:04:51 <Kristina> present+
16:05:15 <ivan> q+
16:05:18 <Patrick> Patrick has joined #vcwg
16:05:24 <brentz> ack ivan
16:05:33 <DavidC> Do we want to add TPAC meeting to the agenda?
16:05:58 <DavidC> Ans. Yes we do
16:06:11 <DavidC> New attendees
16:06:32 <manu> s/New attendees/Topic: Introductions and Reintroductions/
16:06:44 <manu> s/Do we/brentz: Do we/
16:06:46 <DavidC> Mahmood Alkraishi
16:06:49 <brentz> Topic: TPAC 2022
16:07:00 <DavidC> Patrick Mandic
16:07:12 <manu> s/brentz: Do we/ivan: Do we/
16:07:28 <manu> s/Mahmood/Mahmoud/
16:07:42 <selfissued> q+
16:07:45 <JoeAndrieu> present+
16:07:51 <brentz> ack selfissued
16:08:07 <manu> q+
16:08:14 <DavidC> selfissued. Get more done in person than virtual. No substitute for it
16:08:14 <TallTed> q+
16:08:16 <brentz> ack manu
16:08:19 <brentz> +1 Mike
16:08:52 <ivan> q+
16:09:12 <DavidC> Manu. If we plan to meet in person in the Fall, it is a long way off and difficult to predict
16:09:18 <Kristina> regardless of a time per day, time difference-wise, someone is always disadvantaged..
16:09:37 <DavidC> Manu. We should not do a hybrid. Either a virtual 4 day, or a one day in person
16:09:47 <ivan> s/Manu/Manu:/
16:10:01 <brentz> ack TallTed
16:10:01 <Kristina> +1 justin
16:10:40 <DavidC> TallTed: Things move faster in person. For myself I might have a limited travel budget so remote attendance is always welcome
16:10:42 <brentz> ack ivan
16:11:28 <DavidC> Ivan: Face to face would be in Vancouver. W3C travel team has not yet decided whether remote or not
16:11:55 <justin_r> ^-- this makes sense for us to follow what TPAC does
16:11:57 <DavidC> Ivan: travel team needs to get the feelings of the membership.
16:12:31 <DavidC> brentz: we will do a poll of this group
16:12:40 <brentz> Topic: v1.1 feedback
16:12:53 <brentz> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/labels/V1.1%20feedback
16:13:08 <DavidC> brentz: we have addressed the feedback to the best of our ability so far
16:13:57 <DavidC> manu: google are asking us to state that data is expected at the end of these URIs.
16:14:24 <DavidC> manu: kyle has added this to the feedback
16:14:35 <brentz> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/866
16:14:56 <DavidC> brentz: this PR addresses all that we can do non-normatively
16:15:01 <ivan> q+
16:15:04 <manu> q+
16:15:06 <brentz> ack ivan
16:15:31 <DavidC> ivan: we will need a WG resolution to say we will go to final rec at some point in time
16:15:53 <DavidC> ivan: we need one paragraph to answer google's concern
16:16:40 <DavidC> ivan: we need to make sure that no further changes are in the final doc to be published (including the proposed editorials)
16:17:16 <DavidC> brentz: we will have a further resolution to include the editorials after the final version is published
16:18:15 <DavidC> ivan: putting editorials in the final version that address the comments of google (and others) is fine. It is other editorials that should be excluded
16:18:17 <brentz> ack manu
16:19:08 <ivan> q+
16:19:28 <DavidC> manu: respec was updated to do linting on the specification. So when you reference these 13 terms that are defined in the spec, they can be referenced using the specification
16:19:47 <DavidC> manu: the other option is to remove these 13 definitions
16:19:52 <brentz> +1 to just publishing, raise an issue to track cleanup, imo.
16:20:06 <brentz> ack ivan
16:20:29 <DavidC> ivan: I advise we do not make any further changes.
16:20:46 <mprorock_> +1 ivan
16:20:57 <brentz> Topic: test suite feedback
16:21:00 <DavidC> ivan: in version 2 we are free to do whatever we want, but not in v1.1
16:21:06 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/126
16:21:57 <DavidC> cel: Tallted has commented on this
16:22:25 <cel> https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/pull/123#discussion_r800718574
16:22:32 <Kristina> need to run in 8min, apologies
16:22:37 <brentz> https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/pull/123
16:22:38 <DavidC> cel: when a test has not been evaluated or when feature did not previously exist, I still need to repond to TallTed
16:22:43 <brentz> https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/pull/127
16:23:08 <manu> q+
16:23:20 <DavidC> brentz: is there anyone on the call that can review these
16:23:25 <brentz> ack manu
16:23:41 <DavidC> manu: you can add me
16:24:42 <DavidC> manu: we did not copy 1.0 test suite to a new one. Instead we should add tests to the 1.0 test suite
16:25:07 <DavidC> manu: this will not require testers to re-run all their previous tests
16:25:38 <DavidC> manu: there will be a proposal to change the way we run tests for v2.0
16:25:46 <brentz> Topic: VCWG Draft Charter
16:25:59 <brentz> subtopic: ISO Liaison
16:26:28 <ivan> -> new charter's draft https://w3c.github.io/vc-wg-charter/
16:27:01 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pull/66#issuecomment-1033855656
16:27:38 <DavidC> manu: Tony Nadalin noted that ISO is doing work on vc data model in  23220
16:27:58 <justin_r> ISO23220 is MDL (mobile drivers license)
16:28:00 <DavidC> manu: we need to have our WG experts involved in this if this is true
16:28:03 <mprorock_> +1 manu
16:28:16 <DavidC> q+
16:28:21 <justin_r> got it, thanks
16:28:34 <brentz> ack DavidC
16:28:36 <ivan> scribe+ manu
16:29:21 <manu> DavidC: There are two people from this group, Kristina and myself, attend the ISO meetings. You already have representation there. I'm not aware of data model work instead of using it... I don't know if there have any proposals that change the data model. Yes, I've seen an appendix that uses the VC Data Model to formulate mDocs, but I'm not aware of any changes at the moment.
16:29:23 <Kristina> q+
16:29:31 <brentz> ack Kristina
16:29:48 <manu> Kristina: Yes, VC Data Model mapping is in an annex, it's an example how MSO can be mapped into VC.
16:29:55 <manu> Kristina: Nothing new is being defined.
16:30:00 <mprorock_> q+
16:30:05 <DavidC> Kristina: confirmed what DavidC said
16:30:18 <brentz> ack mprorock_
16:30:39 <Kristina> q+
16:31:11 <manu> mprorock_: Can we hae some clarifications -- if there is some work in ISO referencing VCs, then the WG should 1) be able to review that material to make sure it's conformant with current spec and v2.0, and 2) this is part of the reason behind PR 66 -- can we have clarification -- is there anything touching on how to exchange credentials? We might need to non-normatively discuss that.
16:31:11 <brentz> ack Kristina
16:31:32 <DavidC> mprorock-: is there work on protocols to transfer VCs?
16:31:50 <ivan> q+
16:32:00 <brentz> ack ivan
16:32:06 <manu> Kristina: Because there is already a liaison, members of this WG can start joining ISO calls any time, and I think you should have access to the documents as well. I don't think there is any action needed, maybe we need to reach out to ISO secretariat. When we say ISO Liaison, is that W3C -> ISO, or this WG -> ISO.
16:32:15 <TallTed> q+
16:32:18 <DavidC> ivan: there are too many ISO groups so we have many liaison officers
16:32:33 <DavidC> ivan: so liaisons are very specific
16:32:56 <DavidC> @manu, thanks anyway I appreciate it
16:33:32 <manu> q+ to note, we need access to the material if we are going to review it, how does that happen?
16:33:45 <mprorock_> @manu - is a liason role something you would consider?
16:33:48 <ivan> -> list of ISO liaisons at W3C https://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison#I
16:33:51 <DavidC> Kristina: there should be a liaison between VCWG and WG4
16:34:38 <DavidC> Kristina: part 1 is the interfaces, part 2 is only data model
16:35:01 <DavidC> part 3 ... is part 5 is holder authentication
16:35:06 <mprorock_> @Kristina - thanks - that is helpful - so transport is defined separate, but may handle transfer of VCs?
16:35:20 <brentz> ack TallTed
16:35:22 <ivan> q+
16:35:34 <DavidC> Kristina: data objects are in cbor and it is that that is being transferred
16:36:04 <brentz> q+ to ask specific liaison
16:36:17 <mprorock_> Ted - thanks for bringing that to my knowledge - which CCG work item is that?
16:36:18 <DavidC> TallTed: joint project between DIF and VCWG requires everyone to enrol in DIF, so it is not a proper joint project
16:36:26 <brentz> ack manu
16:36:26 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note, we need access to the material if we are going to review it, how does that happen?
16:36:33 <DavidC> TallTed: so is there something similar for ISO
16:36:59 <DavidC> manu: if VC data model is being used then this group needs to be able to see how this is happening
16:37:07 <Kristina> q+
16:37:15 <Kristina> It's NOT closed-door
16:37:24 <DavidC> manu: because ISO is relatively closed how do we get access to get feedback
16:37:24 <brentz> qq+ Kristina
16:37:26 <Kristina> establish liaison and you get access to meetings and material
16:37:49 <DavidC> manu: only have one or two reps is not broad enough for all the group is too narrow
16:37:51 <TallTed> DIF project is "Secure Storage" a/k/a "Identity Hub" at https://lists.identity.foundation/g/sds-wg/wiki/Home and https://github.com/decentralized-identity/identity-hub/
16:37:56 <selfissued> q+
16:38:00 <brentz> ack Kristina
16:38:00 <Zakim> Kristina, you wanted to react to manu
16:38:04 <brentz> ack Kristina
16:38:15 <DavidC> Kristina: closed door is not correct
16:38:21 <mprorock_> Thanks @TallTed
16:38:21 <DavidC> q+
16:38:42 <manu> +1 to getting access for everyone in the group vs. a few of us... just need it for transparency.
16:39:09 <DavidC> Kristina: this group defines VC data model we should not need to supervise its use in all other groups
16:39:11 <manu> q+ to note why this group cares about how data model is used in ISO.
16:39:31 <DavidC> Kristina: if the data model is well specified everyone should be able to use it without our group being present
16:40:01 <brentz> ack ivan
16:40:02 <ivan> -> ISO Liaisons currently https://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison#I
16:41:09 <Kristina> FHIR did the same as ISO - they have their own data model, and after that, they mapped it to a VC.
16:41:15 <DavidC> ivan: formally I am already the liaison
16:41:37 <manu> Kristina, yes, and they did it in a way that was not interoperable <-- this is the problem.
16:41:43 <DavidC> ivan: I already recieve notification of all documents. So if I see they are relevant then I can forward them to this group
16:41:55 <Kristina> if they cannot map it correctly to a vc-data-model by reading the spec, we need to go back to the spec and add improvements, instead of going to every single group and educating them
16:42:03 <DavidC> ivan: the problem is that I get overloaded with too many ISO documents so filtering is very time consuming
16:42:04 <Kristina> that is not scalable
16:42:14 <brentz> ack brentz
16:42:14 <Zakim> brentz, you wanted to ask specific liaison
16:42:23 <brentz> ack selfissued
16:42:23 <DavidC> q-
16:42:30 <manu> q- to move on, I think we've raised the concern here.
16:43:05 <DavidC> selfissued: the fact that other groups are using vc data model is a victory so we should concentrate on PRs
16:43:16 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pull/70
16:43:25 <Kristina> (sorry, need to run!) Ivan, let me know if any help on ISO liaison needed
16:43:41 <justin_r> q+
16:43:50 <brentz> ack justin_r
16:44:03 <DavidC> justin_r: I agree with the text as written
16:44:06 <manu> +1 to what justin is saying
16:44:08 <manu> q+
16:44:14 <ivan> +1 to justin
16:44:32 <DavidC> ... it does not mean that discussion of protocols and APIs are out of scope, we can talk about whatever we want to
16:44:45 <DavidC> ... it just means that we wont standardise any of them
16:45:05 <brentz> Justin's reading matches my interpretation
16:45:06 <brentz> ack manu
16:45:14 <mprorock_> +1 justin
16:45:41 <DavidC> manu: +1 to @justin_r and this PR text should be included
16:46:08 <dlongley> +1 to pulling in this PR and that doing so does not mean that we will not discuss protocols/apis in the group
16:46:21 <DavidC> brentz: any objections to pulling in this PR
16:46:44 <DavidC> ... I hear no objections so I will merge the PR
16:47:14 <mprorock_> PR 66
16:47:15 <manu> q+
16:47:18 <manu> q-
16:47:19 <TallTed> PRs are more concrete progess
16:47:21 <brentz> ack manu
16:47:40 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pull/66
16:48:08 <DavidC> brentz: this PR adds a similar line to the scope section
16:48:25 <DavidC> ... do we have concensus on this PR today?
16:49:12 <brentz> q+ to set the record straight about non-normative work
16:49:20 <justin_r> q+ to discuss gnap in here
16:49:39 <DavidC> Mike Prorock: this is a minor conflict on the PR now due to a previous merge
16:49:55 <manu> q+
16:50:35 <DavidC> brentz: addressing things non-normatively in a note is against ??
16:51:07 <DavidC> ... scope of non-normative notes is limited by the scope of our charter and time and effort of our group
16:51:14 <ivan> s/addressing things non-normatively in a note is against ??/addressing things non-normatively in a note does not raise IPR issues/
16:51:24 <brentz> ack brentz
16:51:24 <Zakim> brentz, you wanted to set the record straight about non-normative work
16:51:28 <brentz> ack justin_r
16:51:28 <Zakim> justin_r, you wanted to discuss gnap in here
16:51:32 <DavidC> ... the note itself does not need to reflect the concensus of the group, but is something that someone needs to say
16:52:28 <DavidC> justin_r: there are other protocols coming down the line e.g. gnap, that mesh with VCs by design. So we must not have language in the charter that stops these being discussed
16:52:45 <mkhraisha> +1
16:52:57 <DavidC> ... we must not stop the WG from doing work that it sees is valuable to the community
16:54:01 <DavidC> ... whether this results in a note in V2.0 or in a document elsewhere is a mute point
16:54:40 <justin_r> s/mute/moot/
16:54:41 <selfissued> +1 to Justin's points
16:54:44 <brentz> ack manu
16:54:50 <DavidC> ... there was vast knowledge that went into OIDC and JWTs due to discussions in the respective groups even if neither group published this
16:55:05 <DavidC> ... in contradiction to their charters
16:55:59 <DavidC> manu: we do not want to cut off the ability to cut of discussions of new things that might come up
16:56:16 <ivan> q+
16:56:28 <brentz> ack ivan
16:56:33 <DavidC> ... we should talk about things we know people want to work on and leave the door open for discussions about relevant topics
16:57:00 <DavidC> ivan: I slightly disagree with @manu. The list of topics is huge
16:57:52 <mprorock_> @ivan - we are requesting the explicit ability to discuss certain items in a non normative fashion in the context of a developer guide - and I am more than willing to volunteer to do the work for that dev guide
16:57:59 <DavidC> ... protocols are out of scope of standardisation but the list of other topics is too huge that we could get pushback when trying to get this charter accepted
16:58:21 <manu> I submit the Web Apps charter as a counter-example to Ivan's concerns: https://www.w3.org/2019/05/webapps-charter.html
16:58:24 <manu> q+
16:58:25 <TallTed> q+
16:58:52 <DavidC> ivan: the work that people would like to do does not have to be listed in the charter
16:58:59 <brentz> ack manu
16:59:03 <manu> q+
16:59:22 <brentz> ack TallTed
16:59:50 <DavidC> TallTed: the reason for a 3 year period is due to a shorter period leading to rushed recommendations with sub-par results
17:00:02 <DavidC> ... 18 months work requires a 2 year charter
17:00:14 <mprorock_> +1 TallTed
17:00:25 <manu> +1 TallTed
17:00:27 <justin_r> +1 to TallTed -- this is the weaponizing that I've talked about all call
17:00:34 <mprorock_> i will hard object to not explicitly including these items
17:00:47 <DavidC> ... we know these topics are going to come up so we need the ability to write about. This is why they should be in scope
17:00:49 <brentz> ack manu
17:00:55 <mkhraisha> +1 to everything ted just said
17:00:59 <manu> Web Applications Working Group Charter: https://www.w3.org/2020/12/webapps-wg-charter.html
17:01:06 <DavidC> ... because we have had pushback in the past for topics which other said were out of scope
17:01:37 <DavidC> manu: it is not unusual for W3C to approve charters  with a long list of items
17:01:53 <DavidC> ivan: I can concede on this point
17:02:08 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:02:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/09-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
17:03:14 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
17:03:14 <RRSAgent> I see no action items