15:13:11 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
15:13:11 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/02/23-vcwg-irc
15:13:14 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:13:16 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
15:13:25 <ivan> eeting: Verifiable Credentials WG Telco
15:13:25 <ivan> Chair: brent
15:13:25 <ivan> Date: 2022-02-23
15:13:25 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/9628a09d-b86a-4b89-8ccc-3304434ae6f1/20220223T110000
15:13:25 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2022-02-23: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/9628a09d-b86a-4b89-8ccc-3304434ae6f1/20220223T110000
15:27:52 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
16:01:16 <ivan> present+
16:01:23 <ivan> present+ shigeya
16:01:27 <ivan> present+ orie
16:01:36 <ivan> present+ brent
16:01:40 <ivan> present+ manu
16:01:44 <brent_> brent_ has joined #vcwg
16:01:58 <brentz> present+
16:01:59 <ivan> present+ markus
16:02:34 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
16:02:38 <ivan> present+  selfissued
16:02:50 <ivan> present+ oliver
16:02:55 <Orie> Orie has joined #vcwg
16:02:58 <Orie> present+
16:03:00 <selfissued> present+
16:03:00 <Orie> scribe+
16:03:13 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #vcwg
16:03:13 <Orie> Topic: Agenda
16:03:28 <ivan> present+ tallted
16:03:36 <oliver> oliver has joined #vcwg
16:03:46 <ivan> present+ justin
16:03:50 <dlongley> present+
16:03:54 <oliver> present+ oliver_terbu
16:03:54 <Orie> brent: we will talk about test suite, refactor the draft wg charter, then registries
16:04:06 <Orie> ... any proposed agenda changes?
16:04:18 <Orie> manu: I want to focus on PRs that seem ready to merge.
16:04:21 <ivan> present+ kristina
16:04:28 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
16:04:36 <ivan> present+ mahmoud
16:04:48 <kristina_> kristina_ has joined #vcwg
16:04:49 <ivan> present+ davidc
16:04:54 <kristina_> present+
16:05:08 <Orie> brent: yes, we can look at PRs
16:05:24 <Orie> ... also, lets give an update re our publishing status
16:06:13 <Orie> Oliver: I worked on DID spec and VC Spec and now I'm with spruce.
16:06:24 <DavidC> present+
16:06:30 <rgrant> rgrant has joined #vcwg
16:06:40 <Orie> Will: I work with legendary requirements, and I'm here on behalf of Digital Contract Design.
16:06:43 <mprorock> mprorock has joined #vcwg
16:06:52 <Orie> Ivan: .... inaudible
16:06:55 <mprorock> present+
16:07:09 <Orie> ivan: are you officially part of the wg?
16:07:10 <selfissued_> selfissued_ has joined #vcwg
16:07:16 <ivan> guests+ will
16:07:19 <Orie> will: just listening for now
16:07:19 <selfissued_> present+
16:07:33 <manu> q+
16:07:34 <ivan> q+
16:07:36 <brentz> Topic: updated rec
16:07:36 <Orie> brent: update on status on our REC?
16:07:37 <manu> q-
16:08:35 <rgrant> present+
16:08:42 <Orie> manu: the new draft VCDM 1.1 REC has been prepared by editors... a few minor editorials, and link fixes... as far as editors know, it has everything we agreed to.
16:08:48 <Orie> ... the request is to the W3C to publish
16:08:51 <brentz> ack ivan
16:09:10 <Orie> ivan: after this call I will officially request publication.
16:09:25 <Orie> ... targeting 3rd of march
16:09:39 <oliver> q+
16:09:46 <Orie> brent: any questions?
16:09:46 <brentz> ack oliver
16:09:58 <Orie> oliver: what is the status of the WG charter?
16:10:13 <Orie> brent: our charter ends in april, and we are drafting the next wg charter
16:10:24 <Orie> oliver: and the next version of the charter?
16:10:31 <Orie> brent: we will be talking about that today.
16:10:32 <brentz> Topic: test suite feedback
16:10:48 <brentz> https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/126
16:10:50 <manu> q+
16:10:55 <Orie> brent: can someone give us an update on this?
16:10:56 <brentz> ack manu
16:11:42 <Orie> manu: no update, have not met with charles, there are a lot of fairly involved questions... the whole thing is non normative... we should probably not change a lot of stuff until we have 2.0 charter
16:11:50 <brentz> Topic: VCWG Draft Charter Refactor
16:12:06 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pull/77
16:12:10 <manu> q+
16:12:16 <brentz> ack manu
16:12:33 <Will> Will has joined #vcwg
16:12:34 <Orie> manu: lets note that there are other ones that are hanging out for a very long time...
16:12:56 <Orie> ... brent your PR 76 is wrapped into 77... we should look at 66 and 77
16:13:11 <Orie> ... what order should we tackle them?
16:13:19 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pull/66
16:13:33 <Orie> brent: fine to address 66 first
16:14:38 <kristina_> Could we clarify if we are adding "Conditional Normative Specifications"? this was a big new thing introduced in PR #77 that at least I was not aware of
16:15:09 <Orie> mike_p: there were 2 things, mike jones added clarification regarding non normative, and addressing prior experience related to charter topics... I am volunteering to help with developer guides and discussing how VCs are exchanged, we need to be able to comment on work happening elsehwere
16:15:19 <manu> q+
16:15:24 <Orie> ... how to give good guidance on what we know and where its happening
16:15:29 <mkhraisha> mkhraisha has joined #vcwg
16:15:31 <brentz> ack manu
16:15:46 <Orie> manu: at this point, the only person requesting changes is Mike Jones, has your position changed?
16:16:06 <cel> present+
16:16:14 <markus_sabadello> present+
16:16:46 <justin_r> justin_r has joined #vcwg
16:16:46 <Orie> selfissued: has brent's PR been merged, that covers the WG may or may not include other things?
16:16:52 <justin_r> present+
16:16:55 <Orie> ... I want Brent's PRs merged first
16:17:12 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pull/74/files
16:17:16 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pull/74
16:17:49 <Orie> manu: kristina you asked for some changes, do you want you changes applied before we merge?
16:17:54 <selfissued_> q+
16:18:32 <Orie> confusion over PRs...
16:19:18 <Orie> selfissued: we need to merge 74
16:19:27 <Orie> manu: we are talking about 74
16:19:33 <Orie> selfissued: merge 74
16:19:33 <brentz> ack selfissued_
16:19:48 <Orie> brent: did you add kristina's comment?
16:19:51 <Orie> manu: yes
16:19:58 <Orie> brent: objectiosn to mergeing 74?
16:20:07 <Orie> bretn: no objections, merging 74.
16:20:20 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pull/66
16:20:28 <Orie> manu: going back to PR 66, we are not back to talking about 66
16:20:46 <Orie> selfissued: give me a chance to review 66
16:20:49 <justin_r> q+
16:20:56 <brentz> ack justin_r
16:21:26 <Orie> justin_r: my changes have not been carried though.
16:21:34 <mprorock> thanks for clarifying Justin - that was my concern as well
16:21:37 <Orie> manu: my hope is that those changes will be rebased
16:21:48 <Orie> justin_r: lets please merge 66
16:21:56 <Orie> brent: objections to merging 66?
16:22:09 <Orie> brent: no objections, merging 66.
16:22:53 <Orie> selfissued: there are conflicts, I would like a chance to review the changes
16:23:07 <Orie> manu: we are doing a squash and merge, which is only allowed with no conflicts
16:23:25 <Orie> ... if you have concerns, there is a record, and we will fix any reported issues
16:23:31 <ivan> present+ cle
16:23:58 <Orie> selfissued: I am wondering about the line regarding protocols
16:24:11 <Orie> manu: pretty sure we go that right, but let us know
16:24:17 <ivan> s/cle/cel/
16:24:24 <Orie> manu: 75 or 76?
16:24:29 <Orie> brent: lets do 75 first
16:24:32 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pull/75
16:25:07 <Orie> brent: this PR adds direct links to existing data model text, regarding background
16:25:22 <Orie> ... this keeps the charter text simpler
16:25:44 <Orie> ... this PR helps first time readers of the charter make sense of its history
16:26:16 <Orie> brent: i took one of the suggested changes
16:26:25 <kristina_> I just made one suggestion
16:26:30 <kristina_> happy to approve then
16:26:56 <Orie> brent: objections to merging?
16:27:04 <Orie> brent: hearing no objections
16:27:21 <Orie> manu: great we are making progress
16:27:32 <Orie> manu: next item is 76
16:27:33 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pull/76
16:28:24 <Orie> brent: the VCDI deliverable description was becoming messy... this PR simplifies the text... its a step towards the refactoring Manu does in his PR
16:28:35 <Orie> ... I suggest merging 76 and then 77.
16:28:51 <Orie> ... and then try and add remove or move items.
16:28:59 <Orie> ... feedback on suggestions?
16:29:02 <manu> q+
16:29:02 <selfissued_> q+
16:29:08 <brentz> ack manu
16:29:28 <Orie> manu: +1 to that approach, I like the simplification, and the list approach.
16:29:42 <Orie> ... its a good restructuring, the next PR 77 presumes that this is merged.
16:29:50 <brentz> ack selfissued_
16:30:05 <manu> q+
16:30:09 <Orie> selfissued: I commented on 76 some weeks ago asking for the deleted spec references to be restored
16:30:18 <mprorock> +1 mike jones
16:30:28 <Orie> ... I am fine once deleted references are restored, and I am not ok merging this without that
16:31:02 <Orie> brent: its not intentional deletion, I was not sure how to include JWP, PR 77 adds it back in the correct place
16:31:11 <Orie> selfissued: I would prefer that each PR does no damage
16:31:12 <manu> q+
16:31:29 <Orie> selfissued: do one thing well
16:31:33 <kristina_> q+
16:31:46 <Orie> brent: simplest route forward would be for you to suggest were JWP should go.
16:32:14 <Orie> selfissued: it should be listed in non normative deliverables
16:32:21 <Orie> manu: can you make that change?
16:32:40 <Orie> selfissued: i don't know how to edit other peoples PRs
16:33:03 <mkhraisha> http://haacked.com/archive/2019/06/03/suggested-changes/
16:33:52 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
16:33:58 <mkhraisha> @selfissued the link above is a super good resource on it
16:34:02 <Orie> brent: PR 76, we want to make sure JWP is listed in this PR under.... non normative deliverables?
16:34:05 <mprorock> q+
16:34:10 <mprorock> q-
16:34:36 <Orie> manu: JWP should be listed under deliverables assuming IETF progress
16:34:41 <Orie> brent: lets look at 77
16:35:12 <brentz> ack manu
16:35:13 <Orie> manu: we responded to you in PR 77
16:35:18 <brentz> ack kristina_
16:35:25 <Orie> kristina: can i talk about 77?
16:35:33 <selfissued_> q+
16:35:39 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pull/77
16:35:41 <manu> q+
16:35:47 <manu> q+ to explain what 77 does.
16:35:56 <Orie> kristina: 77 seems to do more than just restructuring, because it adds a new section
16:36:06 <Orie> ... I don't understand the new section
16:36:45 <Orie> ... there is a comment about, ... , is it in scope to work on data integrity draft?
16:37:02 <selfissued_> Can we please fix the problems that 76 introduces in 76 rather than hope that another PR will fix them?  Then we could merge 76.
16:37:10 <Orie> ... we can't tell exactly what is going on
16:37:15 <brentz> ack selfissued_
16:37:40 <Orie> selfissued: as I just said, can we please fix the problems in 76, and then consider that independent of other PRs
16:37:48 <brentz> ack manu
16:37:48 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to explain what 77 does.
16:37:58 <Orie> manu: the reason is that brent's simplification takes it out
16:38:09 <Orie> selfissued: why not put it back in the PR?
16:38:19 <Orie> manu: because brent's PR deletes that section
16:38:21 <Orie> q+
16:38:36 <Orie> manu: 77 tries to add that stuff back in under a a section
16:38:51 <selfissued_> q+
16:38:52 <Orie> ... if we undo everything that brent did, we can add JWP back in
16:39:08 <Orie> ... 77 takes brents PR and then seperates what kristina is getting at
16:39:24 <Orie> ... and then adds a section for conditional normative deliverables
16:39:30 <Orie> ... we can't do what you are asking
16:39:42 <brentz> ack Orie
16:39:55 <manu> scribe+
16:40:29 <manu> Orie: I believe we are all in agreement about the changes that we want to see. We want to see 76 merged, and we want to see 77 merged. We can't add VC-JWP back into 76 because of what Manu said. We need to clarify what we mean by conditional deliverables in PR 77.
16:41:06 <manu> Orie: Although these PRs are not perfect, it would be much better to merge 76, then merge 77, then raise new PRs to fix any issues created. The structure that we have today is not great, we can't do what Mike's asking w/ 76 because the structure has to be fixed.
16:41:45 <manu> Orie: Then we need to make additional changes because of the conditional changes... My main point, we need to get to the point of merging 77, this is a new section, Kristina's concerns are valid, we need to move towards merging PRs.
16:41:53 <brentz> ack selfissued_
16:42:18 <manu> q+
16:42:20 <Orie> selfissued: I understand what you are saying Manu, my intent is for you to put things back
16:42:33 <Orie> ... I don't think 77 is ready to merge as is
16:42:42 <TallTed> q+
16:42:49 <Orie> ...  this is not an appropriate use of our resources
16:43:17 <Orie> manu: I proposed adding it back to the end of the sentence
16:43:28 <Orie> selfissued: there are other deletions
16:43:32 <kristina_> I think Orie made a comment that "cryptosuite" term is somewhat misleading, with which I agree. For example, what does "BBS+ Cryptosuite" would cover. BBS+ low level primitives will be defined in IETF. than we define how to use it in data integrity deliverable. why separate conditional deliverables?
16:43:33 <Orie> q+
16:44:01 <Orie> brent: those are still listed,
16:44:22 <Orie> ... JWP is now added back... this should allow us to merge this
16:44:24 <manu> q-
16:44:27 <Orie> ... and then restructure
16:44:29 <Orie> q-
16:44:38 <mkhraisha> i think if you look at the pr preview itll alleviate the concerns
16:44:38 <brentz> ack TallTed
16:45:01 <Orie> TallTed: are we ready to merge?
16:45:07 <Orie> brent: I believe we are
16:45:23 <Orie> brent: anyone opposed to merging 76?
16:45:35 <Orie> brent: no objections, lets merge
16:45:59 <manu> q+
16:46:01 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pull/77
16:46:10 <brentz> ack manu
16:46:13 <Orie> brent: normally we would move to the next topic, but we are actually merging PRs
16:46:29 <Orie> manu: let me explain where this PR is coming from
16:46:42 <Orie> ... we have struggled to classify documents correctly
16:47:06 <Orie> ... the purpose of this PR is to align our documents with the WebAppSec WG's approach
16:47:29 <Orie> ... in their normative spec list, they very clearly state their deliverables
16:47:35 <kristina_> q+
16:47:45 <Orie> ... they also have a section for WICG, which generates input documents for the WG
16:48:27 <Orie> ... this section of the WebAppSec charter which has been approved, says: "we may deliver these things, as long as the prerequisites have been met".
16:48:43 <Orie> ... our charter lists 2 items we intent to deliver
16:49:14 <Orie> ... last week, kyle suggested we also use conditional normative specifications.
16:49:40 <Orie> ... VC-JWP is a normative deliverable if IETF is done before we go to REC, same thing is true of BBS+
16:50:11 <Orie> ... PGP, which orie asked for, if the CCG or some other incubation group finishes this in time, then it can become a normative deliverable of this group
16:50:26 <brentz> ack kristina_
16:50:33 <Orie> ... the intent is to message these documents in the way that we have seen the WebAppSec WG be approved
16:50:40 <Orie> kristina: I understand the logic
16:50:58 <Orie> ... deliverables that are conditional make sens
16:51:02 <manu> q+ to clarify on 3 deliverables as conditional.
16:51:13 <Orie> ... can you clarify the 3 listed deliverables
16:51:48 <Orie> ... I don't understand how these fit togther
16:51:52 <brentz> ack manu
16:51:52 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to clarify on 3 deliverables as conditional.
16:52:04 <Orie> manu: excellent questions....
16:52:34 <Orie> ... typically the way W3C WG behaves, the WG decides how to publish specs (1 document or many)
16:53:02 <Orie> ... what we list in our charter does not need to map 1-1, other than if we say we will publish something as a REC it has to be a REC
16:53:18 <Orie> ... to be clear, this list might not be complete yet
16:53:33 <Orie> ... this is just a preliminary PR that addressed what we already have
16:54:07 <kristina_> q+
16:54:09 <Orie> ... VC-JWP, currently the data model spec requires us to normatively define the mapping for VC-JWT... if JWP is done at IETF, we will need to do the same thing for JWP
16:54:23 <Orie> ... all the core crypto work would need to be done at IETF before that can happen
16:54:33 <Orie> ... this is the exact same model we followed for VC-JWT
16:54:46 <Orie> ... we point to IETF RFCs for JWT
16:55:14 <Orie> ... regarding crypto suites...
16:55:39 <Orie> ... when this WG defines a crypto suite, those suites don't invent new crypto... we are just pointing to IETF crypto
16:55:59 <Orie> ... what we are planning on doing is discussing packaging formats...
16:56:20 <Orie> ... the suites, may be their own individual specs, or we may want to bundle them
16:56:34 <Orie> ... re your question on what is an "input document".
16:56:50 <Orie> ... yes, we intent to take over the data integrity spec
16:57:24 <Orie> ... the W3C process is that a WG takes CG drafts, and says they intend to standardize
16:57:35 <oliver> q+
16:57:38 <ivan> q?
16:57:42 <Orie> ... the VC2.0 WG will list the data integrity spec the CCG has been working on, and then it becomes a WG doc
16:57:46 <TallTed> s/final community group specification/final community group report/
16:57:50 <kristina_> q-
16:58:19 <Orie> ... we take it over, input documents usually have clean IPR, that are taken in to be worked on by a WG
16:58:22 <brentz> ack oliver
16:58:48 <Orie> oliver: can we say its not the intention of the group to produce an exhaustive list?
16:58:49 <TallTed> s/data integrity spec/data integrity report/
16:59:09 <Orie> brent: we are intending for it to be non exhaustive list of input documents
16:59:15 <kristina_> q+
16:59:19 <Orie> ... the charter does not say this list is final
16:59:42 <Orie> oliver: is it the intention of the final specification to be an exhaustive list?
16:59:54 <TallTed> q+ to clarify what comes from community groups
17:00:00 <manu> Oliver, yes, that should still be possible
17:00:04 <manu> We will have failed if we don't allow that.
17:00:04 <Orie> ... in other words, can we keep using other suites that are not listed
17:00:04 <brentz> ack kristina_
17:00:13 <Orie> brent: the charter does not disallow that
17:00:21 <oliver> ok, thanks
17:00:55 <manu> agree with Kristina, having an exhaustive list of CCG input documents would be useful.
17:00:59 <Orie> kristina:  confused regarding CG Drafts and their ability to seek standards track
17:01:03 <brentz> ack TallTed
17:01:03 <Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to clarify what comes from community groups
17:01:31 <Orie> TallTed: CGs produce reports... those repots look like specs, but they are not, thats why they take them to WGs
17:01:37 <Orie> ... a CG has no power over a WG
17:01:56 <kristina_> Thank you for clarifying, Manu, Ted!
17:02:07 <Orie> ... CG's that submit final reports can ask for a WG to adopt a report as an input document, but the WG is not required to take on ANY work from a CG
17:02:20 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:02:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/23-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
17:02:35 <manu> haha, woops :P
17:02:39 <Orie> brent: registries are formally in scope, but we have no registry deliverables
17:02:53 <Orie> ... thanks for coming, please continue on github issues
17:03:00 <selfissued_> We should say that registries are in scope in the charter
17:03:17 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:03:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/23-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
17:03:57 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
17:03:57 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been ivan, shigeya, orie, brent, manu, brentz, markus, selfissued, oliver, tallted, justin, dlongley, oliver_terbu, kristina, mahmoud, davidc,
17:04:01 <Zakim> ... kristina_, mprorock, selfissued_, rgrant, cel, markus_sabadello, justin_r, cle
17:04:01 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:04:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/23-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim
17:04:03 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:04:08 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg
17:04:10 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
17:04:10 <RRSAgent> I see no action items