19:51:44 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
19:51:44 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/02/16-vcwg-irc
19:51:55 <brent> zakim, start the meeting
19:51:55 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
19:51:56 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), brent
19:52:08 <brent> meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group
19:52:17 <brent> chair: Brent Zundel
19:52:27 <brent> present+
19:55:50 <shigeya> shigeya has joined #vcwg
20:00:35 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #vcwg
20:00:39 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
20:00:46 <DavidC> present+
20:01:34 <mprorock> mprorock has joined #vcwg
20:01:40 <Orie> Orie has joined #vcwg
20:01:46 <mprorock> present+
20:01:47 <mkhraisha> mkhraisha has joined #vcwg
20:01:56 <Orie> present+
20:02:01 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #vcwg
20:02:50 <markus_sabadello> present+
20:02:51 <rgrant> rgrant has joined #vcwg
20:02:53 <kristina> kristina has joined #vcwg
20:02:53 <shigeya> present+
20:02:54 <rgrant> present+
20:02:55 <manu> present+
20:02:57 <kristina> present+
20:03:09 <TallTed> present+
20:03:31 <rgrant> can scribe.  connecting audi
20:03:32 <Orie> I can scribe
20:03:46 <manu> s/can scribe.  connecting audi//
20:03:48 <rgrant> scribe+
20:03:48 <Orie> scribe+
20:03:55 <dlongley> present+
20:04:04 <Wip> Wip has joined #vcwg
20:04:05 <kdeangs1> kdeangs1 has joined #vcwg
20:04:16 <kdenhartog> kdenhartog has joined #vcwg
20:04:21 <kdenhartog> present+
20:05:11 <rgrant> brent: discussion of agenda (https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/488e0b10-2126-4ebd-b898-9cc709b2b01e/20220216T150000#agenda)
20:06:18 <brent> Topic: v1.1 feedback
20:06:22 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
20:06:25 <rgrant> scribe requests people note nicks when speaking.
20:06:30 <selfissued> present+
20:06:33 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/labels/V1.1%20feedback
20:07:05 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/labels/V1.1%20feedback
20:07:12 <rgrant> will: self-introduction joining as an observer with Digital Contract Design
20:07:27 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/862
20:07:37 <rgrant> kdenhartog: <audio issues>
20:08:17 <rgrant> topic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/866
20:08:20 <kdenhartog_> kdenhartog_ has joined #vcwg
20:08:22 <kdenhartog_> present+
20:08:35 <kdenhartog_> +1 to merging now
20:08:44 <rgrant> brent: prosal to merge now
20:08:57 <rgrant> s/prosal/proposal/
20:09:22 <rgrant> manu: this needs to be squashed and merged
20:09:44 <rgrant> brent: all feedback to corrections to v1.1 of VC-data-model has been addressed.
20:10:03 <rgrant> brent: we need to make a proposal for including these corrections in the v1.1 spec
20:10:10 <rgrant> manu: can take a shot at proposal
20:10:48 <rgrant> manu: <talking out loud with proposal>
20:12:26 <brent> PROPOSAL: Publish the final Verifiable Credentials Data Model v1.1 specification including all editorial changes made as a result of review comments on the set of Proposed Corrections.
20:12:29 <kdenhartog_> +1
20:12:31 <Orie> +1
20:12:32 <manu> +1
20:12:32 <dlongley> +1
20:12:33 <shigeya> +1
20:12:34 <brent> +1
20:12:35 <TallTed> +1
20:12:38 <markus_sabadello> +1
20:12:39 <mprorock> +1
20:12:39 <rgrant> +0
20:12:44 <DavidC> +1
20:13:05 <loganporter> loganporter has joined #vcwg
20:13:13 <brent> RESOLVED: Publish the final Verifiable Credentials Data Model v1.1 specification including all editorial changes made as a result of review comments on the set of Proposed Corrections.
20:13:24 <loganporter> present+
20:13:35 <rgrant> brent: thanks everyone.
20:13:58 <brent> Topic: test suite feedback
20:14:12 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/126
20:14:44 <rgrant> brent: who can speak about progress on the issue?
20:14:56 <rgrant> manu: haven't been in touch with Charles
20:15:20 <rgrant> brent: the changes we can make as a WG are reflected in 127 & 128 pulls
20:16:09 <rgrant> brent: those could be pulled in after a conversation
20:16:24 <rgrant> manu: the test suite is non-normative and can be changed anytime.
20:16:34 <rgrant> brent: next issue
20:16:44 <brent> Topic: Updating v1.1 with editorial improvements
20:17:24 <rgrant> kdenhartog_: two pulls are open.
20:17:31 <kdenhartog_> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/868
20:17:45 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/868
20:17:47 <brent> subtopic: Updating v1.1 with editorial improvements
20:18:04 <rgrant> kdenhartog_: a minor change to update the link to point more accurately.  this has multiple approvals and has settled for 14 days.
20:18:15 <rgrant> kdenhartog_: ready to merge.  any objections?
20:18:30 <kdenhartog_> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/847
20:18:34 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/847
20:19:19 <rgrant> kdenhartog_: larger text has seen significant review.  comments addressed and have settled for 7 days.  Manu says ready to merge if no other comments unaddressed.  Ted's comments are in.
20:19:28 <rgrant> kdenhartog_: any objections?
20:20:00 <TallTed> +1 to merge
20:20:04 <rgrant> manu: have looked at this several times, but not most recent changes.  will look at after the merge.
20:20:29 <rgrant> kdenhartog_: your suggestions made it in, and Ted's.  ready to merge.  can fix things later if needed.
20:20:34 <rgrant> manu: sounds great
20:20:46 <rgrant> kdenhartog_: will merge and squash.
20:21:01 <rgrant> manu: could rebase
20:21:19 <rgrant> kdenhartog_: more iterative than organized pulls
20:22:24 <rgrant> manu: would like date added to proposal
20:22:41 <brent> PROPOSAL: Add all of the editorial changes made up until 2022-02-16 to the Verifiable Credentials Data Model v1.1.
20:22:46 <manu> +1
20:22:48 <mprorock> +1
20:22:48 <mkhraisha> +1
20:22:49 <rgrant> +0
20:22:49 <dlongley> +1
20:22:50 <brent> +1
20:22:51 <DavidC> +1
20:22:51 <kdenhartog_> +1
20:22:52 <TallTed> +1
20:22:57 <loganporter> +1
20:22:59 <markus_sabadello> present+
20:23:01 <markus_sabadello> +1
20:23:08 <shigeya> +1
20:23:11 <dmitriz> +1
20:23:24 <brent> RESOLVED: Add all of the editorial changes made up until 2022-02-16 to the Verifiable Credentials Data Model v1.1.
20:24:09 <brent> Topic: VCWG Charter - Registries
20:24:22 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/67
20:25:44 <rgrant> brent: recommendation by Jeffrey that "Each registry should include at least one standardized entry"
20:25:48 <kdenhartog_> q+
20:25:56 <manu> q+
20:25:58 <brent> ack kdenhartog_
20:26:17 <rgrant> kdenhartog_: this is a useful discussion
20:26:45 <rgrant> kdenhartog_: proposed changes would affect the new charter
20:27:14 <rgrant> kdenhartog_: proof would require one
20:27:35 <brent> q+ to say I'm not sure what on this topic we can do, because the charter text already supports this course of action
20:28:17 <rgrant> kdenhartog_: advocating for process documents over notes due to patent protection.
20:28:44 <brent> ack manu
20:29:15 <rgrant> manu: i understand the intent.
20:29:23 <rgrant> manu: it's too early, in some cases.
20:29:24 <kristina> how is CCG patent policy different from/same with W3C WG patent policy?
20:30:10 <rgrant> manu: (if taking this suggestion) if we don't put evidence-related stuff in for the charter, we won't be ready for this go-around
20:30:19 <rgrant> manu: because of that i'm a -1
20:30:32 <kdenhartog_> q+
20:30:33 <rgrant> manu: it's well-intentioned and best for a mature ecosystem
20:30:37 <brent> +1 to allowing for optional extension points to have registered entries that are not rec-level
20:31:14 <brent> ack brent
20:31:14 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to say I'm not sure what on this topic we can do, because the charter text already supports this course of action
20:31:15 <selfissued> q+
20:31:15 <manu> q+ on patent policy
20:31:20 <rgrant> manu: we should strive to put normative mechanisms in here, but if we accepted this we would have to remove things and it would reduce the education of people in the space.
20:31:40 <manu> q+ on patent policy wrt. CCG and WG.
20:31:40 <rgrant> brent: there are decisions that we as a WG cannot make.
20:31:55 <rgrant> brent: we can't decide what the next group is going to do with their registries.
20:31:58 <kristina> some elements could be removed for the registry/interop purpose now, and added back once "mature"
20:32:05 <kristina> if "not ready" is a concern
20:32:07 <rgrant> brent: that makes some of this out-of-bounds
20:32:20 <brent> q?
20:32:24 <brent> ack kdenhartog_
20:32:29 <rgrant> brent: i'd like to explore what charter text changes would be needed for this, because i think the charter already supports this.
20:32:47 <manu> Let's just do a registry and figure out what goes in that registry during the WG... it's premature right now to make broad statements about the registry.
20:33:24 <rgrant> kdenhartog_: defining a registry, and the contents of entries (via the process) must fit definitions.  to make this decision now would affect the charter.
20:33:49 <rgrant> oof
20:33:55 <manu> s/oof//
20:34:03 <brent> ack selfissued
20:34:08 <selfissued> https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/67#issuecomment-1042228925
20:35:01 <rgrant> selfissued: this also gets to standardized vs unstandardized distinction.
20:35:34 <kdenhartog_> My take is that we are fine in terms of the registry being defined in the charter, but if we make the requirement that a REC track document is necessary then we may get forced to re-charter if we don't call out which rec track documents in the charter now
20:35:39 <rgrant> selfissued: there are features like evidence that are not standardized.  we should be clear in the next step which of these things are done, and which are subject to change.
20:36:07 <rgrant> selfissued: jyasskin noted that it should be possible to use only standardized features to implement the spec.  important for interoperability.
20:36:11 <brent> ack manu
20:36:11 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to comment on patent policy and to comment on patent policy wrt. CCG and WG.
20:36:27 <Orie> +1, not registering things does not stop folks from working on them... we should be clear how reliable a registry entry is, if the registry will accept entries of varying reliability.
20:36:33 <rgrant> manu: furthering kdenhartog_ point
20:36:45 <mprorock> +1 Orie
20:36:57 <kdenhartog_> yup that is
20:37:07 <kdenhartog_> q+
20:37:23 <rgrant> manu: it may be that there is better patent and IP protection in a CCG work item than in a WG Note.  there is no patent protection on anything until a patent exclusion period hits: <moments>
20:37:30 <mprorock> +1 manu
20:37:40 <rgrant> manu: however you can get both if things are strategically republished.
20:38:25 <rgrant> manu: W3C has published notes that get sent to recommendation track later on.  that is a signalling mechanism.  CCG doing that carries less weight with the AC.
20:38:52 <brent> ack kdenhartog_
20:39:37 <Orie> Sounds like Kyle is directly contradicting what manu just said.
20:39:50 <Orie> I would like clarity on this topic.
20:40:02 <rgrant> kdenhartog_: manu highlighted the patent point well.  as far as Notes, the process documents state that the point of the note track is for documents that are not intended to be standardized.  showing work this way for the WG introduces a weird patent consideration.  we should state what we are going to standardize.
20:40:03 <selfissued> q+
20:40:13 <brent> q+ to ask what changes need to be made to the charter
20:40:22 <brent> ack selfissued
20:40:46 <kdenhartog_> "A Group Note (NOTE) is published to provide a stable reference for a useful document that is not intended to be a formal standard." Found in section 6.4.1 of the Process document
20:40:52 <kdenhartog_> https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#note-track
20:41:04 <kdeangs1> q+
20:41:06 <manu> +1 to what selfissued just said
20:41:07 <mprorock> +1 mike - and as a Co-chair of CCG it has its place - but it is primarily incubation related
20:41:09 <brent> ack brent
20:41:09 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to ask what changes need to be made to the charter
20:41:10 <manu> q+ on registries expressing "state of industry" -- not documenting extension points doesn't really help.
20:41:13 <rgrant> selfissued: leaving things in the CCG does not ring true to building a standard.  leaving things in the CCG loses control of our destiny.  pull everything that you want to be a standard n theo WG.
20:41:36 <kdenhartog_> q+
20:41:36 <rgrant> brent: in light of that, what concrete changes should be made to the charter?
20:41:56 <manu> q+ on "things in VC registry"
20:42:01 <rgrant> brent: we already have a rec-track doc for proof property.
20:42:07 <brent> ack kdeangs1
20:42:08 <kristina> q+
20:42:12 <rgrant> brent: beyond that, what do we need?
20:42:34 <rgrant> kdeangs1: add voice to standardizing what we can.
20:42:35 <kristina> proof registry is quite general, do we want registry for compatible cryptosuites? curves?
20:42:51 <manu> we do, kristina... I'm on queue to speak to that.
20:42:59 <brent> ack manu
20:42:59 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to comment on registries expressing "state of industry" -- not documenting extension points doesn't really help. and to comment on "things in VC registry"
20:43:06 <mprorock> +1 Kevin - let's try to get what we can in
20:43:08 <rgrant> manu: +1 to Mike Jones
20:44:41 <rgrant> manu: going to suggest... remember when we got the advice to not go to candidate rec?  we could do a first working draft. "FPWD" and say that we're not going to publish final until we have maturity, yet get patent protection.
20:44:54 <rgrant> manu: don't know how AC would respond
20:45:06 <rgrant> manu: i don't think the above is a good idea.
20:45:13 <kdenhartog_> q-
20:45:17 <manu> https://w3c.github.io/did-spec-registries/
20:45:48 <rgrant> manu: on what could go to the registry: we published things in the did-spec registry that should be in this WG, due to constrained charter.
20:45:53 <kristina> btw alternative to "mandatory to implement" is "default", saying "this is a default, but if you agreed otherwise feel free to use other curves/cryptosuites", etc..
20:45:58 <rgrant> manu: <gave examples>
20:46:10 <mprorock> +1 manu - significant learnings as a result of DID WG and FOs / Response that we should take into account here
20:46:20 <kdenhartog_> q+
20:46:20 <Orie> +1
20:46:28 <kristina> q-
20:46:39 <rgrant> verification methods, verification types
20:46:41 <brent> ack kdeangs1
20:46:57 <brent> ack kdeangs
20:47:02 <brent> ack kdenhartog_
20:47:27 <rgrant> kdenhartog_: can put forward a list that is strucutred as an issue.  example of revocation list 2020.  or even FPWD.
20:47:30 <manu> status-list-2021 should be the target... not revocation-list 2020 :)
20:47:40 <rgrant> kdenhartog_: we could set it as recommended status.
20:47:42 <kristina> do we need to agree on all the registries we plan to set up in the charter?
20:47:56 <manu> no, we don't need to do that... typically, the WG decides
20:47:56 <rgrant> kdenhartog_: yes to Manu's suggestion.
20:47:58 <kristina> I assume no, based on did-core registry process
20:48:10 <manu> (because tons of conversations happen during WG that change the contents of registry and structure)
20:48:37 <brent> I don't think we do, but we need to know which extension points would need rec-track documents so we can be sure to include those in the charter
20:48:39 <kristina> ok, then from the charter perspective, we just need to clarify that we intend to leverage registries to ensure interoperability purposes.
20:48:47 <kristina> would be my suggestion, at least
20:48:55 <kristina> to address Jeffrey's issue
20:48:57 <rgrant> kdenhartog_: having an understanding that there are some extensions that will never rec-track (like presentation change) [beneficial]
20:49:18 <brent> Topic: VCWG Draft Charter PRs
20:49:19 <rgrant> brent: moving on
20:49:27 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pulls
20:49:59 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pull/74
20:50:07 <kdenhartog_> to clarify I think presentation exchange could go REC track, but it would depend on whether the VC registries considers DIF to be an SDO in the sense that it can register Required/Recommended/Optional statuses
20:50:31 <rgrant> brent: pull title is Add clarification to description of non-normative deliverables #74
20:50:57 <rgrant> brent: summary is that we'll work on what ever time, attention, and resources permit
20:51:10 <rgrant> brent: we have comments
20:51:16 <rgrant> brent: we have approvals
20:51:21 <rgrant> brent: we have concerns
20:51:29 <rgrant> brent: any opposition to merge?
20:51:45 <kdenhartog_> q+
20:51:57 <brent> ack kdenhartog_
20:52:04 <kristina> q+
20:52:08 <rgrant> kdenhartog_: unrequesting changes and now approve.
20:52:54 <rgrant> kristina: suggested some text.  approved.
20:53:25 <brent> ack kristina
20:53:31 <rgrant> brent: can merge with your suggestion as a comment.
20:53:48 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pull/76
20:54:15 <rgrant> brent: title is " Simplify VCDI deliverable #76 "
20:54:51 <rgrant> brent: this PR attempts to clear up draft status.  apologies to recent comments.
20:54:55 <manu> q+
20:54:58 <selfissued> q+
20:55:06 <brent> ack manu
20:55:23 <rgrant> manu: Christina raised a comment that is good to focus on
20:55:38 <rgrant> manu: we should call out the categories.  i made an attempt to do that.
20:55:51 <rgrant> manu: two categories: container formats
20:56:13 <rgrant> manu: second category: cryptographic suites.
20:56:21 <kdenhartog_> q+
20:56:53 <kristina> thank you, Manu
20:56:58 <brent> ack selfissued
20:57:04 <rgrant> manu: we're not talking about a mishmash of documents that will be sqished in to one document.
20:57:28 <rgrant> selfissued: added an issue comment that this pull removes references to work items.
20:57:35 <manu> +1 to selfissued , we do need to come back in and re-add stuff after the refactoring.
20:57:38 <manu> q+
20:57:49 <rgrant> selfissued: if we're going to consider this pull we should undo removing references
20:57:51 <mprorock> +1 selfissued - we really want JWS explicitly called out based on DID WG experiences
20:57:55 <brent> ack kdenhartog_
20:58:55 <brent> ack manu
20:58:58 <rgrant> kdenhartog_: Manu's categories. key formats.  will define whether we want these cryptosuites to fit the keys in.  are we choosing key formats?
20:59:21 <kristina> +1 to general restructuring
20:59:30 <rgrant> manu: +1 to Mike Jones.  important things have been removed.  this is a restructuring and we'll add the references back in later.
20:59:36 <kristina> and +1 to Kyle's comment on key formats
20:59:50 <mprorock> +1 restructuring good - but i do not want stuff pulled until we know how it is coming back in
20:59:58 <rgrant> brent: state specific feedback.  keep engaging.  consensus seems net-more.
21:00:09 <rgrant> brent: see you in a week
21:00:19 <brent> zakim, who is here?
21:00:19 <Zakim> Present: brent, DavidC, mprorock, Orie, markus_sabadello, shigeya, rgrant, manu, kristina, TallTed, dlongley, kdenhartog, selfissued, kdenhartog_, loganporter
21:00:22 <Zakim> On IRC I see loganporter, kdenhartog_, selfissued, kdeangs1, Wip, kristina, rgrant, markus_sabadello, mkhraisha, Orie, mprorock, DavidC, TallTed, shigeya, RRSAgent, Zakim, brent,
21:00:22 <Zakim> ... dmitriz, tzviya, dlehn, dlongley, manu, cel, wayne, hadleybeeman, stonematt, bigbluehat, cel[m], juancaballero, rhiaro
21:00:37 <brent> present+ dmitriz
21:00:57 <brent> present+ Wip
21:01:23 <brent> zakim, end the meeting
21:01:23 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been brent, DavidC, mprorock, Orie, markus_sabadello, shigeya, rgrant, manu, kristina, TallTed, dlongley, kdenhartog, selfissued, kdenhartog_,
21:01:26 <Zakim> ... loganporter, dmitriz, Wip
21:01:26 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
21:01:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/16-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim
21:01:28 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, brent; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
21:01:32 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg
21:01:35 <brent> rrsagent, bye
21:01:35 <RRSAgent> I see no action items