14:40:49 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
14:40:50 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/09/07-vcwg-irc
14:40:52 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:40:52 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:41:10 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
14:41:11 <ivan> Date: 2022-09-07
14:41:11 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2022Sep/0004.html
14:41:11 <ivan> chair: kristina
14:41:11 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2022-09-07: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2022Sep/0004.html
14:59:09 <brentz> brentz has joined #vcwg
14:59:27 <kristina> kristina has joined #vcwg
14:59:37 <kristina> present+
14:59:37 <brentz> present+
14:59:51 <ivan> present+
15:00:06 <ivan> present+ cabernet
15:00:12 <Chris_Abernethy> Chris_Abernethy has joined #vcwg
15:00:24 <ivan> present+ elfors
15:01:07 <ivan> present+ Will_Abramson
15:01:16 <ivan> present+ dlongley
15:01:17 <decentralgabe> decentralgabe has joined #vcwg
15:01:26 <ivan> present+ gabe
15:01:39 <ivan> present+ justin
15:01:48 <justin_r> justin_r has joined #vcwg
15:02:06 <ivan> present+ shigeya
15:03:35 <manu> present+
15:03:38 <justin_r> present+
15:03:48 <Chris_Abernethy> present+
15:03:54 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
15:03:59 <manu> q+
15:04:00 <ivan> present+ selfissued
15:04:09 <kristina> ack manu
15:04:11 <ivan> present+ manu
15:04:19 <selfissued> present+
15:04:26 <selfissued> scribe+
15:04:39 <selfissued> manu: We could go over registry proposals
15:05:12 <ivan> present+ phila
15:05:22 <phila> phila has joined #vcwg
15:05:27 <ivan> present+ mahmoud
15:05:33 <phila> present+
15:05:33 <selfissued> kristina: The TPAC agenda is set
15:05:42 <selfissued> ... We're using the regular Zoom link
15:05:58 <brentz> q+
15:06:10 <kristina> ack brentz
15:06:12 <sebastianelfors> sebastianelfors has joined #vcwg
15:06:13 <selfissued> ... People who have been asked to present should have received a deck to add slides to from Brent and me
15:06:33 <selfissued> brentz: Please get your slides in as soon as possible
15:06:44 <kristina> please put the attendance here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Du-3G4d08OWxW1fNtn_8BLNsAIT4GETvk7F7v_Mu_dA/edit#gid=179611341
15:06:45 <selfissued> ... We have dinner reservations on Thursday evening
15:06:51 <manu> woo, thank you Avast! Very generous to support the dinner :)
15:07:06 <selfissued> ... The restaurant is Joe Fortez
15:07:15 <decentralgabe> https://www.joefortes.ca/
15:07:43 <selfissued> kristina: The convention is to cancel the WG meeting the week after TPAC
15:07:56 <selfissued> ... But RWoT is two weeks hence
15:08:05 <ivan> s/Fortez/Fortes/
15:08:06 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
15:08:09 <selfissued> ... So could we instead cancel the call two weeks after TPAC?
15:08:17 <selfissued> ... There was agreement to do that
15:08:19 <manu> q+
15:08:26 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
15:08:31 <kristina> topic: PRs
15:08:33 <DavidC> present+
15:08:34 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
15:08:41 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/795
15:08:41 <mkhraisha> mkhraisha has joined #vcwg
15:08:51 <kristina> ack manu
15:08:52 <selfissued> manu: 795 is going to remain open until we discuss the holder stuff at TPAC
15:08:53 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/922
15:09:06 <selfissued> ... 922 is a suggestion that we update the editors' list
15:09:22 <brentz> q+
15:09:28 <ivan> present+ JoeAndrieu
15:09:37 <selfissued> ... I have objected to the change because it removes people from the bibliography
15:09:54 <selfissued> ... The editors list is really long now
15:10:17 <Snorre_> Snorre_ has joined #vcwg
15:10:28 <selfissued> ... I suggest that we update respec to list the primary editors then et. al.
15:10:32 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/924
15:10:48 <selfissued> ... 924 Orie has suggested removing proof from the VC context
15:11:06 <selfissued> ... I suggest waiting until after TPAC
15:11:15 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/927
15:11:41 <ivan> q+
15:11:41 <selfissued> ... Finally, the last one remaining open is 927. Ivan updated the vocabulary to match the VC context.
15:11:56 <selfissued> ... We need one more update of the PR by the editors
15:12:00 <kristina> ack brentz
15:12:19 <selfissued> brentz: I have no wish to deprive people of credit
15:12:55 <selfissued> ... But our editors' list is ginormous.  I propose move people out of the list who are not actively editing now.
15:13:11 <kristina> ack ivan
15:13:14 <selfissued> ... Let's move them into a Former Editors section.  Respec can do that.
15:13:32 <selfissued> ivan: For 927, I have a question there that it would be good to have an answer to.
15:13:51 <selfissued> ... I don't know whether the JSON schema should be deprecated
15:14:03 <selfissued> manu: It has been decprecated
15:14:13 <selfissued> ivan: After that, then we can merge
15:14:22 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-integrity/pull/35
15:14:23 <ivan> present+ shawn_butterfield
15:14:54 <Snorre_> present+
15:15:02 <selfissued> manu: On Data Integrity, we are waiting for changes from Mike Prorock
15:15:11 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-integrity/pull/49
15:15:41 <selfissued> manu: Ginesh has a change to a potential direction we might go in after TPAC discussions
15:15:44 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
15:16:27 <dlongley> scribe+
15:16:36 <dlongley> selfissued: I'm not able to do that right now but do plan on paging that in before TPAC.
15:16:45 <selfissued> kristina: For JWT-VC there are two PRs open
15:16:55 <selfissued> ... These are the same PRs that Orie discussed last week
15:17:07 <kristina> Topic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Adiscuss+sort%3Aupdated-asc
15:17:49 <selfissued> kristina: Let's do 2909
15:17:50 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/909
15:18:12 <selfissued> ... Manu, can you update us on this?
15:18:30 <ivan> s/2909/909/
15:18:37 <selfissued> manu: We theoretically have a registry for VC Extensions registries
15:18:47 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/909#issuecomment-1236394966
15:18:49 <selfissued> ... I took an action to propose answers to these questions
15:19:02 <selfissued> ... I modelled it on the DID registries
15:19:06 <selfissued> q+
15:19:29 <selfissued> ... These are the initial rules.  We will have two years to refine them.
15:19:42 <selfissued> ... This is a starting point.
15:19:46 <manu> proposals are here: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/909#issuecomment-1236394966
15:20:02 <selfissued> ... People should read these proposals before TPAC
15:20:36 <selfissued> ... The other thing to note about the proposals is that we're trying to make the registries have a specific format
15:20:46 <selfissued> ... Registrants will fill out a form
15:20:52 <selfissued> ... Then we can create tooling
15:21:13 <kristina> ack selfissuer
15:21:15 <ivan> scribe+ dlongley
15:21:42 <dlongley> selfissued: I have a question for Ivan and really for the W3C staff, I know that there have been action items for the W3C in the last few years to create registries and policies so WGs don't have to manage their own registry entries, where are we on that, Ivan?
15:21:59 <dlongley> ivan: I think the only thing that does exist now, is a formal way of declaring something as a registry.
15:22:03 <selfissued> ivan: I think the only thing that exists now is a formal way of declaring something as being a registry
15:22:09 <manu> The first proposal provides this text: The VC Extensions Registry will be operated as a W3C Registry by the VCWG as defined in the W3C Process here: https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#registries
15:22:36 <selfissued> ... The only thing that that entails today is that the policy of maintaining the registry has to be approved by the AC
15:22:52 <Orie> Orie has joined #vcwg
15:22:55 <Orie> present+
15:22:58 <selfissued> ... The other person who was involved was Phil Archer
15:23:07 <selfissued> q+
15:23:20 <kristina> ack selfissued
15:23:43 <dlongley> selfissued: First, confirming, there is no plan to develop the equivalent of IANA so there's a neutral party for registries in W3C, right?
15:23:47 <dlongley> ivan: What you say is correct.
15:24:12 <justin_r> +1 on using IANA and established processes
15:24:34 <ivan> q+
15:24:34 <phila> q+ to comment on neutrality of registries
15:24:35 <dlongley> selfissued: I'll put this in the issue. The alternative is to use IANA, which is a neutral 3rd party which won't do what the DID WG did and make value judgments about whether things are good or bad entries. An example of that is the WebAuthn WG established a tool to create registries for IANA.
15:25:01 <dlongley> selfissued: I want us to at least consider that since W3C has no registry mechanism of its own. My personal experience watching the DID WG try to maintain its own registries ... I was horrified and we shouldn't do that.
15:25:04 <kristina> ack ivan
15:25:25 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #vcwg
15:25:34 <selfissued> ivan: I'm not aware of any attempt at the W3C to establish the equivalent of IANA
15:25:40 <dlongley> selfissued: I wanted to put some of that out for those on the call now and agree we should discuss at TPAC, I'm on the hook for doing a registries presentation already.
15:25:40 <shigeya> +1 to mike.
15:26:00 <kristina> ack phila
15:26:00 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to comment on neutrality of registries
15:26:12 <selfissued> kristina: The purpose of raising this was for people to be aware of the registry issue
15:26:48 <selfissued> phila: When I add things to an IANA registry it basically just has to be in a stable document
15:26:49 <manu> +1 to "the neutrality comes from the process"
15:26:53 <kristina> q?
15:27:00 <selfissued> ... It goes to a designated expert, often Mark Nottingham
15:27:16 <selfissued> ... It's the process that ensures neutrality
15:27:18 <kristina> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/913
15:27:21 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/913
15:27:41 <selfissued> kristina: validFrom ... validUntil
15:27:42 <selfissued> q+
15:27:47 <manu> q+
15:28:03 <TallTed> present+
15:28:09 <kristina_> kristina_ has joined #vcwg
15:28:16 <kristina_> ack selfissued
15:28:20 <dlongley> selfissued: There's a discussion, which I understand predates my involvement about possibly deprecating `issuedDate` and replacing it with `validFrom` and possibly deprecating `expirationDate` and replacing it with `validUntil`.
15:29:00 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/927
15:29:14 <dlongley> selfissued: There was a useful discussion on the issue about what use cases might exist for having a `validFrom` period that differs from the `issuanceDate`. In particular, the example was given of a future-dated coupon which starts being valid on maybe July 4th 2023 and is valid through July 4th 2024 but you could hand that out to people now. I understand that and it's a reasonable thing to do.
15:29:16 <DavidC> q+
15:29:18 <Snorre> Snorre has joined #vcwg
15:29:30 <dlongley> selfissued: That said, I believe the predominant case is that stuff is valid when issued and that's what we should optimize for. That's the same that we did in JWTs.
15:29:59 <dlongley> selfissued: There's typically always an issued at (iat) time and an expiration time. If you want it to be valid from a different time from the issuance then you add the optional claim to indicate that.
15:30:05 <dlongley> selfissued: (nbf)
15:30:28 <kristina_> ack manu
15:30:38 <dlongley> selfissued: If it ever valuable to have a valid until that is different from the expiration date -- and no one has given a use case so I'd be happy to just leave `expirationDate` alone and not have that.
15:30:46 <Orie> q+
15:30:47 <selfissued> manu: There are a couple of things wrapped up in this issue
15:31:11 <selfissued> ... Manu said that people thought that people couldn't include a time
15:31:25 <selfissued> ... We put in a deprecation warning because of that
15:31:36 <selfissued> ... We said that we were going to rename it
15:31:48 <shawnb> shawnb has joined #vcwg
15:31:56 <selfissued> ... The first issue is that we named these properties in a misleading way
15:32:21 <selfissued> ... The second issue is that there's a strict difference between the validity period of a credential and when it was signed
15:32:32 <Orie> +1 manu, we also want to separate "the data model" from "securing it".
15:32:39 <selfissued> ... As Mike said, when a coupon was signed and when it becomes valid are different
15:32:55 <selfissued> ... Retailers need to distribute digital coupons before they come into play
15:33:03 <selfissued> ... This is a real retail use case
15:33:06 <selfissued> q+
15:33:33 <selfissued> ... The other side of that is that the validity period of a credential can be different from the validity period of a digital signature
15:34:08 <selfissued> ... A passport or driver's license has a validity period independent of the signature validity period
15:34:33 <kristina_> ack DavidC
15:34:36 <selfissued> ... A driver's license that has expired doesn't change a person's birthday
15:34:44 <selfissued> ... We shouldn't conflate them
15:35:14 <selfissued> DavidC: A UK driver's license expires when you become 65
15:35:28 <selfissued> ... Whereas the signature will expire well before that
15:35:30 <kristina_> ack Orie
15:35:44 <selfissued> ... Some of these pertain to the claims and some pertain to the cryptography
15:36:13 <kristina_> ack selfissued
15:36:15 <selfissued> Orie: The validity period for a credential is different from the validity period for crypto
15:36:24 <Orie> +1 DavidC, all cryptography has a shelf life that does not match always match the life of the claims the issuer is making.
15:36:46 <dlongley> selfissued: I was going to advertise Orie's presentation at TPAC, which is, I believe he's going to explicitly talk about clear semantic distinctions between properties of the Verifiable Credential and properties of the signatures used to secure them.
15:36:52 <Orie> I will attempt to cover this in my TPAC talk, I make not promises for success.
15:37:09 <dlongley> selfissued: I think some of this discussion would be well informed by a clear separation of those two concerns. There may be relationships between the two sets of dates but we should be clear about them.
15:37:24 <TallTed> q+
15:37:37 <ivan> present+ orie
15:37:41 <ivan> present+ TallTed
15:37:44 <manu> we have been clear in the textual description, some developers don't have time to read specs. :)
15:37:48 <kristina_> ack TallTed
15:37:49 <dlongley> selfissued: Also responding to a comment Manu made a few minutes ago -- the fact that it's called `issuanceDate` and that you couldn't put a time, is a documentation time. We should just be clear in the definition what it means. That's not sufficient for making a breaking change, we should just fix the documentation, not change the property name.
15:38:05 <selfissued> TallTed: It's not a documentation error.  The documentation was quite clear.
15:38:24 <selfissued> ... The humans will still make the mistakes
15:38:40 <manu> +1 to what TallTed is saying, we have to take the human element into consideration here.
15:38:46 <selfissued> ... Documentation does not fix issues like this
15:38:50 <selfissued> q+
15:39:14 <kristina_> ack selfissued
15:39:30 <TallTed> q+
15:39:31 <dlongley> selfissued: If implementers aren't using our specifications, there's not much point in us writing them.
15:39:44 <kristina_> ack TallTed
15:40:11 <selfissued> TallTed: Humans are fallible.  They do not recall everything they read.
15:40:27 <selfissued> ... We are writing the spec for humans to implement them
15:40:36 <selfissued> ... What we can fix, we should fix
15:40:39 <justin_r> Naming things is hard. Really hard.
15:40:52 <selfissued> ... We can fix things by using better names
15:41:12 <selfissued> kristina: It seems like people care a lot about this
15:41:20 <kristina_> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/902
15:41:24 <Orie> q+
15:41:26 <selfissued> ... Please read the specs and suggest ways to make things clearer
15:41:29 <kristina_> ack orie
15:41:52 <selfissued> Orie: We created the spec to have a term for presenting
15:42:08 <selfissued> ... It's important to acknowledge the different roles for being a holder
15:42:48 <selfissued> ... It's dangerous to have terms in VPs that are undirected.  The holder label is undirected.
15:43:12 <selfissued> ... It would be better for the entity making the presentation to be able to assert that "I am presenting or I am receiving".
15:43:21 <selfissued> ... We want directed intentionality in the data model
15:43:34 <selfissued> ... That's why we need additional terms related to the holder role.
15:43:41 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:43:50 <selfissued> kristina: There's a suggestion to use presenter
15:43:51 <kristina_> ack JoeAndrieu
15:44:26 <selfissued> JoeAndrieu: It makes sense to add both recipient and presenter for what we're currently calling holder
15:44:30 <manu> +1 to defining the roles in a directional manner.
15:44:33 <manu> q+
15:44:35 <selfissued> ... That's an iteration on this conversation
15:44:49 <kristina_> ack manu
15:44:51 <selfissued> kristina: There is a consensus to have two terms
15:45:07 <selfissued> manu: Are we talking about getting rid of holder or saying that holders have two things that they can do
15:45:09 <Orie> +1 to the latter formulation manu
15:45:27 <selfissued> ... I wondering if issuers can receive and present as well
15:45:28 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:45:39 <kristina_> ack JoeAndrieu
15:45:41 <selfissued> ... It's a question we have to answer for each of the current roles we have
15:45:55 <selfissued> JoeAndrieu: We would benefit from keeping holder and clarifying it
15:45:59 <brentz> +1 Joe
15:46:16 <selfissued> ... The issuer/holder/verifier is a very powerful group of terms
15:46:33 <selfissued> ... We should elaborate on them
15:46:53 <JoeAndrieu> +1 to chat at TPAC
15:46:54 <selfissued> kristina: This is the first time we're talking about this issue
15:47:03 <selfissued> ... Let's give people time to think about it
15:47:23 <kristina_> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/895
15:47:34 <selfissued> kristina: Authentic Chained Data Containers (ACDC)
15:47:52 <selfissued> ... Sam Smith will give us a presentation on ACDC on the first day of our TPAC meetings
15:48:06 <selfissued> kristina: I'd like to move to issues without the tag Discuss
15:48:13 <kristina_> topic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc
15:48:37 <kristina_> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/758
15:48:38 <selfissued> kristina: Issue: Fix the data model namespace
15:49:04 <selfissued> orie: It seems that someone has fixed some parts of this recently
15:49:19 <selfissued> ... There are term definitions that we're working to create
15:49:28 <selfissued> ... We want to be able to read the definitions for those terms
15:49:41 <ivan> q+
15:49:43 <selfissued> ... You can read them in the registry where they're specified
15:50:09 <selfissued> ... You want to be able to click the link for a term definition and read the definition
15:50:23 <selfissued> ... We should make sure that our term links are clickable
15:50:23 <kristina_> ack ivan
15:50:35 <selfissued> ivan: This is exactly what the vocabulary work does
15:50:54 <selfissued> ... Now it's such that if you take the URL of a term, it will go there
15:51:10 <selfissued> ... Temporarily, the links go to the V1 vocabulary
15:51:28 <selfissued> ... Eventually we will point to the official V2 vocabulary
15:51:28 <Orie> I suggest closing after PR is merged
15:51:33 <selfissued> ... I think this issue can be closed
15:51:34 <manu> We shoudl wait until PR is merged.
15:51:44 <manu> s/shoudl/should/
15:51:53 <selfissued> kristina: We will close it after the PR is merged
15:51:57 <kristina_> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/731
15:52:24 <selfissued> kristina: There's a lot of comments in the issue
15:52:35 <manu> q+
15:52:43 <kristina_> ack manu
15:52:51 <selfissued> DavidC: I don't know where this issue stands.
15:53:08 <selfissued> manu: There's a suggestion that we add a non-transferrable property to the context
15:53:25 <selfissued> ... The part of the spec that talked about non-transferrable was non-normative
15:53:40 <selfissued> ... I don't know if there are new use cases or new data for this property
15:53:43 <Orie> there are use cases for non transferable... see NFTs.
15:54:03 <selfissued> ... You can always add this by putting it in an extension context and using it
15:54:04 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:54:20 <kristina_> ack JoeAndrieu
15:54:21 <selfissued> ... Do we want to define this in the base data model or is it something people should define if they need it
15:54:43 <selfissued> JoeAndrieu: I think this is an unfortunate property and I don't think we should support it
15:54:58 <selfissued> ... VCs are statements.  It makes no sense to transfer statements.
15:55:00 <DavidC> q+
15:55:05 <ivan> +1 to JoeAndrieu
15:55:08 <kristina_> ack DavidC
15:55:11 <selfissued> ... What does it mean to transfer the statement "The sky is blue"
15:55:42 <selfissued> DavidC: Some of the plastic cards in my wallet are not transferrable
15:55:51 <selfissued> ... That's why the property was invented
15:56:00 <brentz> what if the statement is, "the holder of this credential is my friend." ?
15:56:06 <selfissued> kristina: It was a bit ambitious to try to tackle this in 5 minutes
15:56:11 <selfissued> ... Please review
15:56:25 <selfissued> ... See you all virtually or in person at TPAC!
15:56:34 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:56:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/07-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
15:57:28 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
15:57:28 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been kristina, brentz, ivan, cabernet, elfors, Will_Abramson, dlongley, gabe, justin, shigeya, manu, justin_r, Chris_Abernethy, selfissued,
15:57:31 <Zakim> ... phila, mahmoud, DavidC, JoeAndrieu, shawn_butterfield, Snorre_, Orie, TallTed
15:57:31 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:57:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/07-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim
15:57:33 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:57:34 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
15:57:34 <RRSAgent> I see no action items