14:08:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
14:08:23 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/03/23-vcwg-irc
14:08:25 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:08:26 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:09:02 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials WG Telco
14:09:02 <ivan> Chair: brent
14:09:02 <ivan> Date: 2022-03-23
14:09:02 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/9628a09d-b86a-4b89-8ccc-3304434ae6f1/20220323T110000
14:09:02 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2022-03-23: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/9628a09d-b86a-4b89-8ccc-3304434ae6f1/20220323T110000
14:10:20 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #vcwg
14:10:31 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #vcwg
14:54:18 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #vcwg
14:58:08 <shigeya> shigeya has joined #vcwg
15:01:08 <ivan> present+
15:01:16 <shigeya> present+
15:01:19 <ivan> present+ selfissued
15:02:26 <ivan> present+  davidc
15:02:33 <ivan> present+ cel
15:02:38 <ivan> present+ orie
15:02:44 <ivan> present+ brent
15:02:52 <ivan> present+ manu
15:03:18 <dlongley> present+
15:03:22 <ivan> present+ marty_reed
15:03:25 <brentz> brentz has joined #vcwg
15:03:43 <ivan> present+ elfors
15:03:48 <ivan> present+ TallTed
15:04:40 <brentz> present+
15:04:50 <ivan> scribe+ slefissued
15:05:01 <ivan> scribe+ selfissued
15:05:07 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #VCWG
15:05:07 <Orie> Orie has joined #vcwg
15:05:14 <Orie> present+
15:05:24 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
15:05:28 <DavidC> present+
15:05:30 <selfissued> present+
15:05:32 <ivan> present+ gnatran
15:05:50 <gnatran> gnatran has joined #vcwg
15:06:01 <martyreed> martyreed has joined #vcwg
15:06:13 <selfissued> scribe+
15:07:23 <selfissued> brentz: Our working mode is working through issues.
15:07:40 <selfissued> ... We will determine what we want to do for each issue and who is going to do it.
15:07:53 <manu> q+
15:07:58 <selfissued> ... If we don't know what to do, we will close the issue.
15:08:14 <manu> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/materials/agenda-113-mediaman-00
15:08:18 <selfissued> manu: IETF 113 is going on
15:08:35 <selfissued> ... We are dependent on the media types work.  It is going fine.
15:08:35 <brentz> ack manu
15:09:09 <selfissued> ivan: Are we sure that everyone on the call has been here before?
15:09:37 <selfissued> Sebastian ? introduced himself. He used to work for Yubico.
15:09:57 <dlongley> s/\? introduced/Elfors/
15:10:06 <dlongley> s/\? introduced/Elfors introduced/
15:10:38 <selfissued> Participants were urged to join IRC
15:10:44 <brentz> Topic: PR 104
15:10:47 <manu> q+
15:10:56 <brentz> https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pull/104
15:11:01 <brentz> ack manu
15:11:17 <sebastianelfors> sebastianelfors has joined #vcwg
15:11:40 <selfissued> manu: PR #104 tries to clean up capitalization.
15:11:50 <ivan> q+
15:11:57 <selfissued> brentz: It appears to be truly editorial.
15:12:03 <brentz> ack ivan
15:12:30 <selfissued> ivan: Proposed that if the reviewers are in agreement, it should be merged.
15:12:38 <selfissued> ... Let me go through it before you merge it.
15:13:03 <selfissued> ... I will do it later today during my evening.
15:13:16 <brentz> Topic: Issues
15:13:24 <brentz> https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc
15:13:34 <selfissued> brentz: This is the order we're going to follow.
15:13:36 <manu> present+ sebastianelfors
15:13:38 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/84
15:14:20 <selfissued> brentz: Is there anything that needs to be done to the charter to address #84?
15:14:36 <selfissued> Orie: Resulting from conversation in CCG
15:15:11 <selfissued> ... People will base64url-decode the VC-JWT.  You only see a decoded VC-JWT.
15:15:34 <selfissued> ... Someone decoded one, added something looking like a linked data proof, and called it something else.
15:15:46 <selfissued> ... We need to define the JSON representation of a credential.
15:16:03 <manu> q+
15:16:13 <selfissued> ... We need to define the serialized representations - either as a compact JWT or a linked data proof
15:16:14 <manu> q+ to note that I expect this will be put in the VC-JWT spec.
15:16:29 <selfissued> ... We need to make sure we're defining things corrrectly
15:16:45 <selfissued> ... We need to include examples that can be cut-and-pasted by implementers
15:17:02 <selfissued> ... If we need to add specific capabilities to the charter to enable this, we should do so.
15:17:17 <selfissued> ... We need to gather more feedback.  There's been no feedback in the last 21 days.
15:17:25 <brentz> ack manu
15:17:25 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that I expect this will be put in the VC-JWT spec.
15:17:34 <selfissued> manu: It's a good point that Orie raises.
15:17:47 <selfissued> ... I expect the work to be done in the VC-JWT spec.
15:17:53 <manu> https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/#example-usage-of-the-id-property
15:18:01 <selfissued> ... I expect us to pull that out and make it its own specification.
15:18:11 <selfissued> ... We have 1.0 VC-JWT examples.
15:18:17 <Orie> Those examples are from v1.1 not 1.0
15:18:31 <Orie> but +1 to what manu is saying.
15:18:32 <selfissued> ... We have examples of VC-JWTs through the spec - both unencoded and encoded.
15:18:51 <manu> s/1.0 VC-JWT/1.1 VC-JWT/
15:18:56 <selfissued> brentz: I don't think the charter needs to be changed for this to happen.
15:19:15 <ivan> +1 to brentz
15:19:21 <selfissued> ... People can raise issues to ensure this is tracked.
15:19:26 <manu> +1 to close issue, we can address it per the current VCWG charter.
15:19:36 <selfissued> Orie: I closed the issue and left a comment on it.
15:19:51 <ivan> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/89
15:20:02 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/89
15:20:29 <selfissued> Orie: Objections to the DID spec included social and environmental issues.
15:20:40 <ivan> q+
15:21:00 <selfissued> ... The TAG seems to be taking us in a direction to require environmental statements, etc.
15:21:14 <selfissued> ... There's a cultural shift to acknowledge the implications of the work that we do.
15:21:32 <selfissued> ... I want us to explicitly decide whether to add this to the charter or not.
15:21:48 <selfissued> ... ZKPs are notoriously expensive in terms of computation.
15:22:00 <selfissued> ... New ZKP cryptography is expensive
15:22:15 <selfissued> ... New ZKP is subject to attacks, etc.
15:22:28 <brentz> ack ivan
15:22:32 <selfissued> ... I want to have the conversation at the start while chartering, rather than at the end when we can't fix it.
15:22:51 <selfissued> ivan: We don't know yet how this discussion will evolve at the W3C.
15:23:14 <selfissued> ... I would be very concerned about putting anything specific into the charter.
15:23:45 <brentz> +1 Ivan
15:23:47 <dlongley> +1 to ivan
15:23:48 <selfissued> ... Like internationalization, we may have to deal with it in any case.
15:23:56 <selfissued> ... I don't see what might need to change.
15:24:03 <selfissued> +1 to Ivan
15:24:08 <manu> +1 to close and deal w/ it when something concrete happens.
15:24:35 <selfissued> Orie: I have not closed the issue.
15:24:43 <selfissued> ... I will leave a comment and then close the issue.
15:24:55 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/72
15:25:05 <manu> q+
15:25:06 <selfissued> ... I remain concerned about the W3C's ability to address objections of this nature.
15:25:29 <selfissued> brentz: This led to a good conversation about IPR for notes versus specifications.
15:26:10 <selfissued> brentz: I do not believe this should be a blocker for the charter.
15:26:19 <brentz> ack manu
15:26:20 <selfissued> ... Should any potential notes be removed?
15:26:28 <selfissued> ... If so, who is going to do it?
15:26:45 <selfissued> manu: We've hit a steady state and shouldn't rock the boat.
15:26:57 <selfissued> ... We have multiple mechanisms for patent protection.
15:27:20 <selfissued> ... Should we ask Wendy or Rodrigo what mechanisms are available to us for patent protection of the note?
15:27:34 <Orie> q+ to ask about W3C LE "escape ropes" in licenses.
15:27:40 <ivan> q+
15:27:42 <brentz> ack Orie
15:27:42 <Zakim> Orie, you wanted to ask about W3C LE "escape ropes" in licenses.
15:27:49 <selfissued> ... For instance, could companies get together and submit the note as a member submission?  (Not that I think this is a good idea.)
15:28:00 <selfissued> Orie: This is related to the issues around licenses.
15:28:11 <selfissued> ... I'm not sure how to safely ask this question.
15:28:30 <selfissued> ... There have been concerns about what happens to the W3C if the legal entity issue is not resolved.
15:28:45 <selfissued> ivan: Let's not go there.
15:28:56 <brentz> ack ivan
15:29:03 <selfissued> Orie: Does anyone with more experience think this is relevant to the topic at hand?
15:29:22 <selfissued> ivan: Wendy is the right person to ask?
15:29:37 <selfissued> ... This is the first time I've hit this issue in any working group.
15:29:38 <brentz> q+ to say that previous versions of the VC Data Model are already licensed such that it can be moved to another organization
15:29:53 <selfissued> ... There is a remote possibility of the W3C finding itself in a strange spot.
15:30:07 <selfissued> ... If that happens, there will be a W3c-wide line of actions to take.
15:30:19 <manu> Reminder that all of our specs are published under a permissive license: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document
15:30:24 <selfissued> ... We do not need to do anything special in this working group.
15:30:26 <kristina> kristina has joined #vcwg
15:30:28 <kristina> present+
15:30:36 <brentz> ack brentz
15:30:36 <Zakim> brentz, you wanted to say that previous versions of the VC Data Model are already licensed such that it can be moved to another organization
15:30:37 <selfissued> ... We are using the most liberal license already.
15:30:38 <manu> also, +1 to what ivan is saying and what brentz is about to say. :)
15:30:56 <Orie> good, as long as we have already picked the most permissive, thats all we can do.
15:31:07 <selfissued> brentz: The licenses we've already used for the VC Data Model are already the most permissive ones.
15:31:23 <selfissued> ... Worst comes to worst, the documents could move to another organization.
15:31:33 <selfissued> ... With nothing more to be said about this issue, I'm going to close it.
15:31:34 <manu> You can fork the spec today, if you wanted to -- I mean, you'd be shunned, SHUNNNNNNnnnnED... but you could do it. :)
15:31:48 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/82
15:32:23 <selfissued> brent: Normatively defined crypto suites MUST fully define both public and private key representations
15:32:38 <selfissued> Orie: I'm just going to close it.  We've had a great conversation.  You can read the thread.
15:32:44 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/82
15:32:53 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/67
15:33:11 <ivan> note to mysefl: 82 was a mistake...
15:33:13 <selfissued> brentz: Each registry should include at least one standardized entry
15:33:31 <selfissued> ... The WG came to consensus on language that largely addresses this issue.
15:33:40 <selfissued> ... Kyle requested that the issue be left open.
15:33:56 <manu> q+
15:34:02 <manu> q+ to say we've done what we can
15:34:05 <brentz> ack manu
15:34:05 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to say we've done what we can
15:34:06 <selfissued> ... Kyle wants to expand that to "for everything else, there SHOULD be ..."
15:34:14 <selfissued> manu: I think we've done what we can.
15:34:22 <Orie> I don't think we use MUST or SHOULD on charter documents either... right?
15:34:34 <selfissued> ... We shouldn't add SHOULD statements that we know that we're not going to satisfy.
15:34:48 <selfissued> ... We shouldn't create a charter that doesn't reflect reality.
15:35:04 <brentz> +1 manu
15:35:12 <selfissued> brentz: Charters don't have RFC2119 statements.
15:35:53 <selfissued> brentz: I'm going to close it.  I hear no screams.
15:35:58 <selfissued> ... We have three more issues.
15:36:08 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/97
15:36:21 <Orie> q+ to add a comment
15:36:34 <selfissued> brentz: Definition of all key formats are left out of scope of the VC data model and crypto suites
15:36:35 <brentz> ack Orie
15:36:35 <Zakim> Orie, you wanted to add a comment
15:36:46 <selfissued> Orie: Kyle and I have been chatting about this a lot
15:37:02 <selfissued> ... I've encountered an argument in favor of his position.
15:37:23 <selfissued> ... Basically, we have envelope formats we intended to support - for embedded and external proofs
15:37:34 <selfissued> ... JOSE and COSE define key formats
15:37:51 <selfissued> ... There are non-standard key formats that aren't defined by the IETF
15:38:20 <selfissued> ... If you're defining a new envelope format, should you concretely bind the signature format to the key format?
15:38:29 <selfissued> ... By convention, the answer to that may be yes.
15:38:42 <selfissued> ... Kyle is objecting to making that a normative requirement.
15:39:05 <selfissued> ... Imagine you have a CWT signed by a key represented in JWK format.
15:39:19 <selfissued> ... The two can be represented in different formats.
15:39:39 <selfissued> ... This could get very painful if there is an unbounded number of key formats per signature format.
15:39:40 <manu> q+ to note there is nothing we're doing that prevents key conversion... but saying people SHOULD do it w/o providing precise guidance or a test suite is dangerous guidance for a WG to provide.
15:39:41 <selfissued> q+
15:39:47 <brentz> ack manu
15:39:47 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note there is nothing we're doing that prevents key conversion... but saying people SHOULD do it w/o providing precise guidance or a test suite is dangerous
15:39:50 <Zakim> ... guidance for a WG to provide.
15:40:00 <brentz> scribe+ manu
15:40:01 <ivan> scribe+ manu
15:40:17 <selfissued> manu: There's nothing we're doing that prevents arbitrary key format conversion
15:40:31 <selfissued> ... We aren't preventing this in the charter
15:40:50 <selfissued> ... Telling people that they have to do arbitrary key conversion isn't doing people any favors
15:41:09 <selfissued> ... -1 to not strictly saying what the input key types are for crypto suites
15:41:35 <selfissued> ... We need to provide a full-blown test suite if we're asking for arbitrary conversions.
15:41:38 <brentz> ack selfissued
15:41:40 <manu> selfissued: Two points
15:41:57 <manu> selfissued: Remember we talked about how protocol usage affects data structure design? This is one of those places, I think, in practice.
15:42:37 <Orie> +1 to what Mike is saying.
15:42:50 <manu> selfissued: Again, modelling after OpenID Connect, there are places where JWTs are used, but there are places where keys are included and those keys are JWK format. That promotes interop. To the extent that keys will be passed as protocol elements, we are better off having a small or singleton set to promote interoperability. I'm not asking to put this into the charter, but once we're in the WG, whether we want to make JWK support mandatory is a fair
15:42:50 <manu> question.
15:43:18 <brentz> q+ to suggest closing the issue as charter changes are not called for
15:43:26 <manu> selfissued: I agree with Manu that arbitrary key conversion is evil both from implementation and interop mechanism, would rather we have a small set of key formats when moving forward.
15:43:26 <brentz> ack brentz
15:43:26 <Zakim> brentz, you wanted to suggest closing the issue as charter changes are not called for
15:43:47 <selfissued> brentz: This is something the WG needs to continue talking about
15:43:57 <selfissued> ... Charter changes aren't needed to have these conversations
15:43:59 <dlongley> +1 to brent, we should have the WG continue this discussion, no charter changes required
15:44:09 <selfissued> ... I'm going to close this issue on that basis if there are no objections
15:44:11 <manu> +1 to close and take conversation up in VC2WG.
15:44:31 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/83
15:44:31 <ivan> present+ kristina
15:44:48 <manu> q+
15:44:54 <selfissued> brentz: New PR needed if did:key/multibase is going to be in scope
15:44:55 <brentz> ack manu
15:45:08 <selfissued> manu: I think this is already covered by the charter
15:45:24 <selfissued> ... The WG can decide whether multikey should go to recommendation
15:45:40 <manu> In other words, this is clearly in scope and the VC2WG can discuss whether or not they want to make this a REC.
15:45:46 <selfissued> brentz: Any other comments on this before I close it on the basis that no changes are required in the charter?
15:45:52 <selfissued> ... We are at our final issue
15:45:56 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/88
15:46:17 <selfissued> brentz: algorithms-related input documents for all proofs of integrity types
15:46:40 <selfissued> kristina: This data is whether we want to add additional RFC input documents for VC-JWT work
15:47:00 <selfissued> ... We don't need to remove any CCG documents for LDP work
15:47:01 <manu> q+
15:47:08 <brentz> ack manu
15:47:17 <selfissued> ... It would be good to have these RFCs referenced
15:47:30 <Orie> PR welcome.
15:47:34 <selfissued> manu: JWS will reference the RFCs.  VC-JWT should do so as well.
15:47:53 <selfissued> ... I don't think there's an issue adding references based on the input documents we already have?
15:47:56 <Orie> q+
15:47:57 <selfissued> q+
15:48:21 <brentz> ack Orie
15:48:34 <manu> q+ to huh? -1?
15:48:36 <selfissued> brentz: If there was a theoretical PR, would people be opposed to merging it.
15:48:41 <brentz> ack selfissued
15:49:00 <selfissued> Orie: I would be in favor of a PR adding the RFCs relative to VC-JWT.
15:49:08 <selfissued> kristina: I would be glad to do that.
15:49:28 <Orie> q+
15:49:47 <manu> selfissued: I had a practical question, are there RFCs not transitively referenced by JWS or some of the other JOSE related input documents that we should be adding because there isn't a transitive reference to them?
15:50:13 <brentz> ack manu
15:50:13 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to huh? -1?
15:50:17 <selfissued> manu: The answer to Mike's question is that I don't think there are documents not transitively referenced.
15:50:26 <selfissued> ... We could add input documents.
15:50:44 <selfissued> ... I don't understand what we're trying to include.  I'm against modifying the charter at this point.
15:50:44 <brentz> ack Orie
15:51:06 <selfissued> Orie: I queued to answer Mike's question about transitive reference.
15:51:12 <selfissued> ... VC-JWT has no input documents.
15:51:13 <manu> q+ to -1 VC-JWT has no input document, not true.
15:51:15 <selfissued> q+
15:51:41 <selfissued> ... I think it's a bad idea to not have input documents for VC-JWT.  The charter should reference them.
15:51:59 <selfissued> ... Having directly links to the IETF RFCs is incredibly useful to people reading the charter.
15:52:03 <brentz> q+ to say there is an input document listed
15:52:06 <brentz> ack manu
15:52:06 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to -1 VC-JWT has no input document, not true.
15:52:09 <manu> https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/#json-web-token
15:52:30 <selfissued> manu: The input document to VC-JWT is defined in the VC 1 spec
15:52:44 <kristina> q+
15:52:46 <selfissued> ... It contains normative references to the JOSE specs.  I don't see the problem here.
15:53:09 <selfissued> ... It doesn't make sense to me.
15:53:09 <brentz> ack selfissued
15:53:16 <kristina> Could we add a sentence that clarifies that input for VC-JWT is vc-data-model v1 and normative references there?
15:53:35 <manu> selfissued: Since there aren't input documents other than previous version of our own specification, I would support WG considering a PR to do so, probably authored by Kristina and approved by Orie.
15:53:49 <brentz> ack brentz
15:53:49 <Zakim> brentz, you wanted to say there is an input document listed
15:53:57 <manu> selfissued: Let's try that as good due diligence.
15:54:05 <selfissued> brentz: We have an input document, which is the previous version of the specification.
15:54:24 <selfissued> ... If there aren't RFCs already referenced in that way, I support adding them.
15:54:25 <Orie> I don't see any problem making the link between VC-JWT in VCDM 1.1 and IETF RFCs more explicit.... thats a helpful thing for folks who don't have the background information that we all have.
15:54:32 <brentz> ack kristina
15:54:32 <selfissued> ... I would not be opposed to a PR adding them.
15:55:12 <selfissued> kristina: My suggestion would be to explicitly add a sentence saying that the previous specification is an input document for the VC-JWT work.
15:55:19 <manu> but we already do that... :(
15:55:33 <selfissued> ... I can investigate whether there are additional RFCs we should be adding.
15:55:33 <manu> "Container Formats: VC-JSON Web Token (JWT)" <-- right there
15:55:45 <manu> It links to VC Data Model spec -- VC JWT section.
15:56:02 <manu> (which then references the IETF specs)
15:56:07 <selfissued> brentz: There is a link in the charter.
15:56:08 <Orie> given how poorly defined VC-JWT was in the previous versions, I think its prudent to do better with IETF RFCs.
15:56:16 <selfissued> kristina: Can I have a few days to investigate?
15:56:21 <manu> I'm fine w/ checking...
15:56:30 <selfissued> brentz: I am fine with that course of action.
15:56:43 <ivan> q+ on the future steps
15:56:45 <selfissued> ... We need to see that PR by the end of the week to be able to review it our next meeting.
15:57:03 <selfissued> ... With that, we have closed all but one of our issues.
15:57:12 <selfissued> ... I am assigning the remaining issue to Kristina.
15:57:20 <selfissued> ... We'll see what happens.
15:57:25 <selfissued> ... Thank you all for being here.
15:57:29 <brentz> ack ivan
15:57:29 <Zakim> ivan, you wanted to comment on the future steps
15:57:31 <ivan> topic: future steps
15:57:32 <selfissued> ... Thank you to Mike for scribing.
15:58:02 <selfissued> ivan: There are numerous issues we have closed because no changes are needed to the charter.
15:58:06 <Orie> Luckily github tracks closed issues for us
15:58:13 <selfissued> ... I don't want to have these things lost.
15:58:29 <selfissued> ... Can we label them somehow for future consideration?
15:58:42 <selfissued> brent: I will take an action item to add such a lable.
15:58:57 <selfissued> ivan: The next step is to send the charter to the W3C for review.
15:59:03 <selfissued> ... We need to do this ASAP.
15:59:10 <selfissued> ... The AC meeting is soon.
15:59:28 <selfissued> ... We should be prepared to approve or object during our meeting in a week.
15:59:45 <selfissued> brent: Any other comments before we close the meeting?
16:00:03 <selfissued> brent: I have created a label FutureVCWorkingGroupConversation
16:00:12 <selfissued> ... Thanks for coming and for your hard work
16:00:17 <selfissued> ... We have created a great charter
16:00:26 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:00:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/23-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
16:00:32 <selfissued> ... I look forward to being the working group and doing the work.
16:00:41 <selfissued> ... I'll see you all next week.
16:01:06 <selfissued> s/being the working group/being in the working group/
16:01:22 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:01:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/23-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
16:01:38 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
16:01:38 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been ivan, shigeya, selfissued, davidc, cel, orie, brent, manu, dlongley, marty_reed, elfors, TallTed, brentz, gnatran, sebastianelfors,
16:01:41 <Zakim> ... kristina
16:01:41 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:01:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/23-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim
16:01:43 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:01:48 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg
16:01:55 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
16:01:55 <RRSAgent> I see no action items