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