14:17:34 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
14:17:34 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/08/10-vcwg-irc
14:17:38 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:17:38 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:17:50 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
14:17:50 <ivan> Date: 2022-08-10
14:17:50 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2022Aug/0007.html
14:17:50 <ivan> chair: kristina
14:17:50 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2022-08-10: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2022Aug/0007.html
14:55:20 <brentz> brentz has joined #vcwg
14:56:56 <kristina> kristina has joined #vcwg
14:57:57 <kristina> kristina has changed the topic to: VCWG Agenda 2022-08-10
14:58:23 <kristina> zakim, start meeting
14:58:23 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:58:24 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), kristina
14:58:32 <kristina> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
14:58:38 <ivan> Kristina, all is set
14:58:41 <mprorock> mprorock has joined #vcwg
14:58:43 <ivan> i have done it...
14:59:37 <ivan> present+ kristina, brent, ivan, mprorock
15:00:22 <ivan> present+ peacekeeper
15:01:40 <phila_> phila_ has joined #vcwg
15:02:14 <manu> present+
15:02:45 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
15:02:54 <selfissued> present+
15:03:12 <ivan> present+ juancaballero, phila_, abramson
15:03:16 <TallTed> present+
15:03:16 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #vcwg
15:03:20 <decentralgabe> decentralgabe has joined #vcwg
15:03:21 <ivan> present+ manu, dlongley, orie, gabe
15:03:28 <markus_sabadello> present+
15:03:39 <ivan> present+ TallTed
15:03:54 <ivan> present+ sebastian
15:03:55 <juancaballero> present+
15:04:03 <markus_sabadello> scribe+
15:04:10 <ivan> present+ awhitehead
15:04:21 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Anyone who wants to (re-)introduce themselves?
15:04:27 <kristina> q?
15:04:34 <ivan> present+ kevin
15:04:47 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Editors talked about the work mode
15:04:59 <will_abramson> will_abramson has joined #vcwg
15:05:08 <decentralgabe> present+
15:05:11 <markus_sabadello> kristina: We want to keep these main calls. We may have special calls to dig deeper.
15:05:12 <ivan> Topic: WG Work Mode
15:05:20 <ivan> present+ oliver
15:05:36 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Those who participated in the WG before, the work will be happening async in the Github repos.
15:05:44 <ivan> present+ dwyer
15:05:45 <oliver> oliver has joined #vcwg
15:05:51 <markus_sabadello> kristina: If there are no objections of PRs and approval of 3 editors, then editors will go ahead and merge
15:06:01 <oliver> present+ oliver_terbu
15:06:08 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
15:06:09 <ivan> present+ jandrieu
15:06:11 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Issues will be triaged. If labeled "pending close", it will be closed in 7 days if no objections.
15:06:19 <markus_sabadello> kristina: So please participate in Github as well as calls.
15:06:21 <manu> +1 on the work mode
15:06:29 <ivan> Topic: TPAC
15:06:31 <markus_sabadello> Topic: TPAC
15:06:34 <Orie> Orie has joined #vcwg
15:06:38 <Orie> present+
15:06:41 <markus_sabadello> kristina: I sent out agenda.
15:06:44 <kristina> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Du-3G4d08OWxW1fNtn_8BLNsAIT4GETvk7F7v_Mu_dA/edit#gid=0
15:07:09 <markus_sabadello> kristina: People can contribute in the spreadsheet what they would like to discuss as TPAC.
15:07:29 <markus_sabadello> kristina: We can spend the time on discussing bigger issues that will benefit from F2F discussion. We will have 2 full days.
15:07:39 <phila_> q+
15:08:05 <markus_sabadello> kristina: There is a list of possible topics. Please type the topic and estimate time.
15:08:11 <kristina> ack phila_
15:08:17 <kdeangs1> kdeangs1 has joined #vcwg
15:08:28 <markus_sabadello> phila_: Markus and I started to make noise about RCH WG (RDF canonicalization and hashing).
15:08:40 <markus_sabadello> phila_: Thanks to VC WG chairs for allowing time for our group.
15:09:14 <markus_sabadello> phila_: Our general plan is to use this slot on Wednesdays when VC WG is not using it, i.e. every other week.
15:09:30 <kristina> q?
15:09:38 <markus_sabadello> See my message about RCH WG today: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2022Aug/0013.html
15:10:01 <kristina> Topic: A brief introduction to VC components
15:10:05 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
15:10:09 <DavidC> present+
15:10:13 <markus_sabadello> kristina: We wanted to talk about different components of VC WG
15:10:30 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Not opening the floor for discussion yet, just flag to the people, then will discuss at TPAC.
15:10:50 <markus_sabadello> kristina: There is a data model, then there is a serialization (right now JSON, JSON-LD), and then there is the securing part (JWT, DAta Integrity)
15:11:31 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Later in WG we want to think about where the serialization part "sits". Is that in the data model, or securing, etc? Just flagging that the chairs and editors believe we want to slowly tackle the "where sits what" question in components.
15:11:34 <kristina> q?
15:11:38 <manu> q+
15:11:59 <manu> q-
15:12:09 <Mary> Mary has joined #vcwg
15:12:15 <kristina> Topic: VC Data Model Issues - A Question of Relevance
15:12:28 <kristina> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Arelevant%3F+sort%3Aupdated-asc
15:12:30 <markus_sabadello> manu: Wanted to reinforce what Orie said above. At some point the suggestion of an "abstract data model" may come up.
15:13:13 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Question to the WG is, do we want to discuss these issues in the WG? Is this the right place?
15:13:26 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/76
15:13:43 <manu> q+
15:13:50 <juancaballero> shackle
15:13:54 <markus_sabadello> kristina: This is about SHACL constraints.
15:14:00 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Some conversation going on in that issue.
15:14:00 <kristina> ack manu
15:14:13 <ivan> q+
15:14:17 <Orie> q+
15:14:29 <juancaballero> help wanted tag?
15:14:31 <kristina> ack ivan
15:14:34 <markus_sabadello> manu: It was a suggestion that nobody really followed up on. Some people could write SHACL constraints. But until somebody actually puts in a PR, I don't feel we need to keep this open. Maybe we close until someone comes up with a PR.
15:15:07 <markus_sabadello> ivan: I did that for the DID model, which is simpler than this one. We can close it and I look at it later. I don't know yet.
15:15:22 <markus_sabadello> ivan: It would also be good to have JSON schema, but I'm less familiar with that.
15:15:34 <kristina> ack orie
15:15:38 <markus_sabadello> ivan: It's good to keep with low priority.
15:15:53 <gregoryn> gregoryn has joined #vcwg
15:16:04 <gregoryn> present+
15:16:21 <markus_sabadello> Orie: We looked at the same issue with DIDs. We looked at JSON Schema, CDDL, SHACL. Machine-parsable structured format for the data model is helpful. Having 3 of them is maybe even more helpful. But takes a lot of WG contributions to make it high quality.
15:16:30 <brentz> present+ Mary
15:16:46 <markus_sabadello> Orie: I would like to have at least 1 of these types of languages. Each has their own trade off. I don't think we should limit it to just one language.
15:16:49 <kristina> q?
15:17:05 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Preference to keep issue open with low priority.
15:17:15 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/760
15:18:02 <kristina> q?
15:18:12 <markus_sabadello> kristina: This is about authentication relationship. Looks like it has been idle for a while, I suggest closing. Anyone can speak up on it?
15:18:28 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Will mark "pending close"
15:18:39 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/756
15:18:45 <Orie> q+
15:18:52 <kristina> ack orie
15:18:56 <markus_sabadello> kristina: In the last comment it looks like there is agreement to talk about it in CCG
15:19:36 <markus_sabadello> Orie: I remember the context for this. In the 2 data model objects Credentials and Presentations, there is something people have been doing, which is related to the previous issues. Proof of possession. The current data model doesn't support this.
15:20:08 <markus_sabadello> Orie: I wantet to discuss the relevance of capabilities related to delegation
15:20:26 <markus_sabadello> Orie: I would love for VCs to be a solution for capability systems, but we need to agree on this issue.
15:20:45 <markus_sabadello> Orie: If we think of capability systems as subset of VCs, then we get a "for free" representation of capabilities.
15:20:57 <manu> +1 - we should discuss this, -1 for VCs being used as capabilities.
15:21:12 <markus_sabadello> Orie: Mostly related to what do we mean by "authentication"
15:21:15 <kristina> q?
15:21:26 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Will keep the issue open.
15:21:36 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/755
15:22:10 <Orie> q+
15:22:12 <manu> +1 to keeping it open, it's relevant.
15:22:12 <manu> q+
15:22:13 <markus_sabadello> kristina: I think the previous WG didn't do this because it was a normative change
15:22:14 <kristina> ack orie
15:22:16 <manu> q-
15:22:28 <markus_sabadello> Orie: We definitely need to start a new version of the context file, so we can make changes to it.
15:22:45 <markus_sabadello> Orie: In favor of getting us capable of making changes to the context asap.
15:22:55 <manu> q+
15:22:58 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Is this the right issue to do that?
15:23:16 <mprorock> +1 to new context file
15:23:16 <kristina> ack manu
15:23:17 <markus_sabadello> Orie: I'm requesting we have a v2 context file. This issue asks the question if we have permission to do that.
15:23:31 <dlongley> +1 to close the issue, we can now define a v2 context in this WG
15:23:42 <ivan> +1 to Manu, a v2 context will come up anyway
15:24:02 <markus_sabadello> manu: Short answer is yes we can create a v2 context. We should close the issue since it's misleading what it's asking for. v2 context will happen naturally. If we need an issue for that, we should open a new issue dedicated to this.
15:24:16 <Orie> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/904 - define a v2 context.
15:24:30 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/42
15:25:06 <dlongley> q+
15:25:10 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Looks like there is agreement to close this issue. Dave, any context?
15:25:14 <kristina> ack dlongley
15:25:47 <markus_sabadello> dlongley: We decided to defer this to 2.0, and I believe we should do this work. We should add name, description, etc. to the data model. There are further things about rendering hints, etc.
15:25:50 <phila_> q+
15:25:56 <kristina> ack phila_
15:25:57 <markus_sabadello> dlongley: I think there was agreement this would be addressed in v2
15:26:11 <kdeangs1> +1
15:26:15 <markus_sabadello> phila_: I think it's relevant too. In GS1 issued VCs we want to include some human-readable information
15:26:26 <markus_sabadello> phila_: I wonder about internationalization and accessibility. This should be considered
15:26:30 <brentz> there is also this https://github.com/decentralized-identity/wallet-rendering
15:26:30 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Will keep the issue open
15:26:43 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/480
15:27:10 <phila_> s/wonder/worry/
15:27:16 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Issue raises issues about "credentialSubject".
15:27:33 <kristina> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/480
15:27:54 <kristina> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/480#issuecomment-897640232
15:28:03 <markus_sabadello> kristina: There is a comment by Manu that summarizes the discussion. I suggest we close it, considering that the question has been answered.
15:28:15 <manu> +1 to close
15:28:21 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Anyone opposed to "pending close"?
15:28:25 <Orie> +1 to close
15:28:26 <dlongley> +1 to close
15:28:45 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/164
15:29:20 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Manu commented that this belongs not in the data model, but transport protocol or other places.
15:29:23 <Orie> +1 to keeping transport protocol concerns out of the data model, and closing
15:29:38 <manu> +1 to close
15:29:51 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Marking as "pending close"
15:29:59 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/865
15:30:18 <manu> q+
15:30:23 <kristina> ack manu
15:30:24 <markus_sabadello> kristina: This is about images in the document text. chaals did great work. Can we close it?
15:31:00 <markus_sabadello> manu: I thought it was done and I closed, then it was re-opened. My suggestion is we give David Lehn 30 days to address it, then close if it is not addressed.
15:31:19 <ivan> q+
15:31:27 <kristina> ack ivan
15:31:30 <markus_sabadello> manu: I will add a comment
15:32:04 <markus_sabadello> ivan: I understand we need chaals to do what he is referring to. His points about quality of diagrams, these things are good styling warning.
15:32:34 <markus_sabadello> ivan: I wouldn't like to lose the bullet items chaals put into the issue. This is editorial styling, we need to be good about this.
15:32:54 <markus_sabadello> ivan: Now we will have multiple documents in parallel, we need some editorial consistency among the documents. This is part of it.
15:33:24 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Can we leave it to the editors to make sure that this is addressed?
15:33:40 <markus_sabadello> ivan: Sounds good if the editors can make sure that this is not forgotten.
15:33:42 <ivan> present+ samsmith
15:33:44 <manu> q+
15:33:51 <kristina> ack manu
15:34:07 <brentz> or we can leave it open with an editorial tag . . .
15:34:21 <Orie> +1 to closing, i'm in favor of fixing all the diagrams as part of regular review... and addressing that in a case by case basis.
15:34:21 <markus_sabadello> manu: I went through and made a lot of the changes chaals suggested, I did this as far as I could. It's more complex with some diagrams, this may confuse the diagram and be a step in the wrong direction.
15:34:33 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
15:34:40 <selfissued> q+
15:34:48 <markus_sabadello> manu: Understanding what exactly is remaining would be better. Perhaps we ask David and chaals what exactly the editors need to do.
15:35:24 <kristina> ack selfissued
15:35:33 <markus_sabadello> selfissued: In favor of closing in 30 days
15:35:49 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/32
15:35:51 <markus_sabadello> manu: Will add a comment
15:36:31 <markus_sabadello> kristina: This is about VCs for web of trust. How can one entity state that they know another entity. Manu has been answering questions in this issue.
15:36:50 <manu> q+
15:36:52 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Do we still want to have a write-up on web of trust mechanisms, or can we close this? Any opinions?
15:36:54 <kristina> ack manu
15:37:33 <markus_sabadello> manu: This has been out there for 5 years. The question is can we get a set of example credentials. The WG needs to determine if it wants to define these credentials. There are other places where example credentials can be defined.
15:37:49 <ivan> +1 to the CCG
15:37:49 <mprorock> +1 ccg
15:37:59 <dlongley> +1 to CCG
15:38:01 <markus_sabadello> manu: E.g. the CCG is creating examples via the CHAPI playground. This may be better suited for CCG.
15:38:12 <Orie> +1 to any place other than a format WG (including DIF / CCG)
15:38:34 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Marking "pending close" and adding a comment. Anyone interested can continue to work this in CCG.
15:38:56 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/421
15:39:07 <manu> q+
15:39:08 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Recent comments seem to make it clear we want to keep the issue open.
15:39:11 <kristina> ack manu
15:39:12 <markus_sabadello> kristina: This is about MIME types
15:39:39 <markus_sabadello> manu: We kicked off an IETF work item to address this issue. This was kicked off by DID WG. There is active work here.
15:39:59 <markus_sabadello> manu: This group should review if this meets this group's requirements
15:40:45 <ivan> -> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mediaman-suffixes/01/ the IETF proposal work
15:40:47 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Let's keep this issue scoped to the IETF discussion, then let's create another issue to discuss what MIME types we need?
15:41:11 <markus_sabadello> manu: Maybe this issue is "define a MIME type for VC syntaxes", and the "media type conversation" is a separate issue. We could do this either way
15:41:42 <markus_sabadello> manu: Maybe we edit this issue to say "define 1 or more media types for VCs". So we keep it as one issue and make this one concrete. The WG needs to define media type(s)
15:41:44 <Orie> +1 to defining media types.
15:41:47 <ivan> q+
15:41:49 <markus_sabadello> manu: And we linke to the work happening in IETF
15:41:52 <kristina> ack ivan
15:41:53 <markus_sabadello> s/linke/link
15:42:30 <markus_sabadello> ivan: When you have a W3C spec, then you can include the necessary MIME type document in the specification itself. It doesn't need a separate work submitted to the usual channels.
15:42:52 <TallTed> q+
15:43:09 <kristina> ack TallTed
15:43:11 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Removing the relevant tag
15:43:25 <ivan> q+
15:43:34 <markus_sabadello> TallTed: I'm concerned about the agreement. W3C will create a lot of media types and not list them on the definitive IANA page. That's where you're supposed to list them.
15:44:04 <kristina> ack ivan
15:44:09 <markus_sabadello> TallTed: If you create a VC, then you find it in the W3C spec. But it should also be on the IANA page, since if you don't work with VCs per se, you want to look up the media type and learn about it. If it's not listed in IANA, that's problematic.
15:44:18 <markus_sabadello> ivan: You misunderstood, it will be listed there.
15:45:04 <markus_sabadello> ivan: Normally you have to create a separate document with its own syntax and style, that is more work. Instead, that text has to be included in a specification. It still goes through the usual review and the list, but it's a shortcut for editors.
15:45:07 <kristina> q?
15:45:24 <Mary> q+
15:45:28 <brentz> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Adiscuss+sort%3Aupdated-asc
15:45:33 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Brent should we go through issues labeled "discuss"?
15:45:33 <kristina> ack Mary
15:45:35 <markus_sabadello> brentz: Agree
15:46:25 <markus_sabadello> Mary: I'm a new member of the group. I work for Difinity Founation. I want to ensure the Internet Computer can operate with the relevant technologies. I worked on identity since 2016. I've been following this work and am happy to be in a role to contribute.
15:46:30 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Welcome Mary
15:46:52 <brentz> s/Difinity/Dfinity/
15:46:53 <kristina> Topic: issues with discuss tag
15:47:12 <ivan> s/Founation/Foundation/
15:47:37 <manu> +1 to defer until Tony is here.
15:47:45 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/789
15:48:00 <cel> regrets+
15:48:01 <manu> q+
15:48:07 <markus_sabadello> kristina: This is about explicit holder binding. This has been brought up a few times.
15:48:12 <kristina> ack manu
15:48:45 <markus_sabadello> manu: Stephen and I talked about it several times. I'm still a bit confused what the issue is about, other than figure out how to reference the holder in a way that is more compatible with how Aries does it. But I'm not certain.
15:48:58 <markus_sabadello> manu: There have been multiple calls about referring to the holder in other ways.
15:49:09 <markus_sabadello> manu: I'm not sure how intermixed the things are
15:49:12 <juancaballero> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/882
15:49:16 <markus_sabadello> manu: My suggestion is we involve Stephen
15:49:24 <manu> q+
15:49:25 <mprorock> +1 30day
15:49:32 <kristina> ack manu
15:49:42 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Should we do a 30 day period like in a previous issue?
15:49:54 <ivan> q+
15:50:01 <markus_sabadello> manu: My concern is that this is a complex topic that will take longer, and we should give Stephen more time to have the discussion
15:50:09 <kristina> ack ivan
15:50:10 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:50:31 <markus_sabadello> ivan: Perhaps we can get him to TPAC as a guest? For a longer discussion?
15:50:31 <mprorock> q+ TPAC
15:50:37 <kristina> ack markus_sabadello
15:50:48 <mprorock> q- TPAC
15:51:00 <manu> markus_sabadello: Is this a duplicate of issue 882?
15:51:02 <mprorock> q+ to mention related items at TPAC
15:51:04 <markus_sabadello> Is this related to https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/882 ?
15:51:05 <juancaballero> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/882
15:51:14 <manu> q+
15:51:18 <brentz> I will reach out to see if Stephen is available to join us at TPAC
15:51:26 <juancaballero> oliver queue yourself! haha
15:51:37 <juancaballero> it would allow for a CL/AnonCreds profile/type, non?
15:51:48 <markus_sabadello> oliver: There was a long discussion, we haven't resolve it, still ongoing.
15:52:22 <markus_sabadello> oliver: General idea is that in the current VC data model spec, it's not possible how to tell the verifier how they can verify a binding of the presentation of the credential.
15:52:43 <mprorock> q-
15:52:51 <markus_sabadello> oliver: Verifier wants to know if the holder is the actual entity the issuer made claims about. The "holder" property can be anything. The data model allows that any holder can present the VC.
15:53:13 <markus_sabadello> oliver: Verifier could look up a property in the presentation to check how to verify the binding between the presentation and the credential.
15:53:31 <markus_sabadello> oliver: A simple mechanism is to check the "id" property in the VC and the proof.
15:53:44 <markus_sabadello> oliver: Discussion hasn't been resolved yet
15:53:44 <kristina> ack manu
15:54:08 <markus_sabadello> manu: Oliver's issue is valid and needs to be discussed. Not sure if this is the same as what Stephen raised.
15:54:19 <dlongley> there seems to be a general desire to allow the issuer to say who the holder (really the presenter) should be when the VC is presented (which is separate from actually proving that to be the case)
15:54:43 <juancaballero> right, no one mentions linked secrets or AnonCreds on that PR thread, so it would be good to get explicit buy-in from the AC folks that one entry in that registry would solve the open issue
15:54:44 <mprorock> 50 or 55
15:54:51 <markus_sabadello> kristina: We should end the call at 55.
15:55:00 <markus_sabadello> brentz: That's the goal, we can end here
15:55:20 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Thanks everyone, we made a lot of progress. Please go through issues and continue next week.
15:55:46 <markus_sabadello> mprorock: I've got a side conversation about a panel on TPAC, this might be interesting to Stephen.
15:55:56 <markus_sabadello> kristina: Let's coordinate
15:56:03 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:56:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/08/10-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
15:56:50 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
15:56:51 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been kristina, brent, ivan, mprorock, peacekeeper, manu, selfissued, juancaballero, phila_, abramson, TallTed, dlongley, orie, gabe,
15:56:53 <Zakim> ... markus_sabadello, sebastian, awhitehead, kevin, decentralgabe, oliver, dwyer, oliver_terbu, jandrieu, DavidC, gregoryn, Mary, samsmith
15:56:53 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:56:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/08/10-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim
15:56:56 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:56:59 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg
15:57:13 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
15:57:13 <RRSAgent> I see no action items