15:37:44 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
15:37:44 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/11/30-vcwg-irc
15:37:46 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:37:48 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
15:38:10 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
15:38:10 <ivan> Date: 2022-11-30
15:38:10 <ivan> Agenda:https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3094a419-a55e-4608-aac1-6144804c5201/20221130T110000
15:38:10 <ivan> chair: kristina
15:38:10 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2022-11-30: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3094a419-a55e-4608-aac1-6144804c5201/20221130T110000
15:39:00 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #vcwg
15:53:26 <Karen> Karen has joined #vcwg
15:57:53 <ivan> present+
15:57:58 <stenr> present+
15:58:02 <ivan> present+ stenr
15:58:58 <kristina> kristina has joined #vcwg
15:59:01 <kristina> present+
15:59:06 <ivan> present+ orie
15:59:13 <David_Waite> David_Waite has joined #vcwg
15:59:23 <brentz> brentz has joined #vcwg
15:59:39 <brentz> present+
15:59:54 <ivan> present+ dwaite
15:59:55 <David_Waite> present+
16:00:23 <ivan> present+ shigeya
16:00:46 <Kerri_Lemoie> Kerri_Lemoie has joined #vcwg
16:01:30 <oliver> oliver has joined #vcwg
16:01:34 <oliver> present+ oliver
16:01:44 <dlongley> present+
16:01:53 <ivan> present+ oliver, abranson, davidc
16:01:57 <ivan> present+ TallTed
16:02:04 <ivan> present+ drummond
16:02:11 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
16:02:15 <DavidC> present+
16:02:22 <ivan> present+ elfors
16:02:25 <ivan> present+ manu
16:02:41 <ivan> present+ kerri
16:02:49 <SebastianElfors> SebastianElfors has joined #vcwg
16:02:49 <ivan> present+ dlehn
16:02:58 <Phil> Phil has joined #vcwg
16:03:25 <ivan> scribe+ Kerri_Lemoie
16:03:53 <ivan> present+ jandrieu
16:04:19 <ivan> present+ phil
16:04:27 <manu> present+
16:04:41 <ivan> present+ juancaballero
16:05:40 <Kerri_Lemoie> Kristina: agenda... work items, topic: evidence or holder binding?
16:05:43 <manu> +1 to discuss holder binding :)
16:06:11 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
16:06:28 <Kerri_Lemoie> Kristina: asks to indicate in IRC topic choice
16:06:43 <Kerri_Lemoie> kristina: introductions or reintroductions?
16:07:13 <ivan> present+ selfissued
16:07:25 <ivan> topic: Process issues
16:07:51 <cabernet> cabernet has joined #vcwg
16:07:55 <cabernet> present+
16:07:55 <Kerri_Lemoie> brent: process for adoption of work items guidelines suggestions
16:08:00 <ivan> present+ cabernet
16:08:22 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
16:08:32 <ivan> present+ dmitri
16:08:45 <kristina> s/brent:/brentz:
16:09:19 <kristina> - within the scope of the charter
16:09:25 <bumblefudge__> bumblefudge__ has joined #vcwg
16:09:32 <Kerri_Lemoie> brent: proposed work items should be in teh scope of charter & W3C; work item needs to have socialization before proposed: 1 week before proposal should have discussion in mailing list with link to doc with proposal; work item should be supported by min 3 companies; based on those guidelines chairs will accept work item as rough consensus (sufficient because concerns about the work item can still be raised on that work item and issues n[CUT]
16:09:33 <kristina> - proposed by at least 3 participants from different companies
16:09:40 <Kerri_Lemoie> can still be addressed.
16:09:55 <manu> q+
16:10:02 <kristina> ack manu
16:10:27 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
16:10:54 <ivan> present+ shawn
16:10:57 <Kerri_Lemoie> manu: does support for the proposal need to come in from just wg participants? Can implementors outside of the WG chime in?
16:11:03 <selfissued_> selfissued_ has joined #vcwg
16:11:06 <manu> q+ to ask about -1s
16:11:09 <selfissued_> present+
16:11:13 <selfissued_> q+
16:11:52 <Kerri_Lemoie> kristina: supporters defined as co-proposers. If list of implementors included, that will help with the decision.
16:12:23 <Kerri_Lemoie> manu: what happens if there are many -1s on the proposal that outweigh +1s?
16:12:23 <manu> q-
16:12:58 <Kerri_Lemoie> kristina: case by case basis by chairs. Ideally rough consensus is no -1 or few -1.
16:13:29 <Kerri_Lemoie> kristina: case by case decided by chairs
16:13:50 <manu> q+ to note that this could be problematic for VC-* formats.
16:14:11 <kristina> ack selfissued_
16:14:15 <Kerri_Lemoie> brent: agreed.
16:15:11 <Kerri_Lemoie> michael: how do we stop it if we really don't think it should be a work item?
16:15:55 <Kerri_Lemoie> kristina: timeline provides time to express opinions/interest and there will be a discussion. Time built in to support rough consensus.
16:15:56 <kristina> ack manu
16:15:56 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that this could be problematic for VC-* formats.
16:15:57 <ivan> s/michael/selfissued/
16:17:37 <Orie> Orie has joined #vcwg
16:17:39 <Orie> present+
16:17:43 <Orie> q+
16:17:54 <kristina> zakim, close the queue
16:17:54 <Zakim> ok, kristina, the speaker queue is closed
16:18:00 <Kerri_Lemoie> manu: concern about pitting specs against each other. Concerned that put the wg in situation where things the charter will get multiple -1s. Concern that hcanging interpretation of charter by not allowing enough incubation.
16:18:15 <Kerri_Lemoie> s/hcanging/changing
16:18:45 <brentz> q+
16:19:27 <Kerri_Lemoie> manu: speaking about concerns... potentially cut off work items too soon and cause conflict
16:19:44 <shawnb> shawnb has joined #vcwg
16:19:48 <shawnb> present+
16:19:54 <ivan> present+ steve_c
16:20:47 <ChristopherA> ChristopherA has joined #vcwg
16:20:51 <ivan> present+ christoferA
16:20:52 <ChristopherA> present+
16:21:09 <Kerri_Lemoie> kristina: clarification - if there is no consensus that the work shouldn't be included, then it won't be and vice versa.
16:21:10 <manu> q+ to request a re-vote on JSON Web Signature 2020.
16:21:11 <selfissued_> q+
16:21:30 <dlongley> notes: "The Working Group" includes the members that voted the way Manu mentioned.
16:21:57 <selfissued_> It's healthy for a working group to make choices
16:22:12 <manu> it's healthy for a WG to make choices when everyone is on the same page with how the choices were made.
16:22:15 <kristina> ack Orie
16:22:19 <dlongley> It's healthy as long as those choices are well understood / there is a shared understanding by those voting.
16:22:32 <manu> It's clear that we were not on the same page when we voted.
16:23:51 <Kerri_Lemoie> orie: members have limited bandwidth and process to work together leads to velocity but focusing on contentious issues on special topics call causes issues for working together ongoing.
16:24:23 <selfissued_> I agree with Orie that it's important to realize that just because something's in the charter, it doesn't mean that we're going to do it
16:24:27 <bumblefudge__> +1 to the concept of "emotional debt" which really resonates with me
16:24:36 <Kerri_Lemoie> kritsina: process proposalfor new topics not related to special topics calls.
16:24:41 <dlongley> q?
16:24:48 <kristina> zakim, open the queue
16:24:48 <Zakim> ok, kristina, the speaker queue is open
16:24:49 <ivan> topic: work item status updated
16:24:51 <Kerri_Lemoie> s/proposalfor/proposal for
16:24:54 <manu> q+
16:24:58 <kristina> ack manu
16:25:05 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/
16:25:14 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/969
16:25:15 <ivan> subtopic: vcdm
16:25:50 <manu> substopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/987
16:25:55 <Kerri_Lemoie> manu: objections to PR for nonTransferavke property; 969 - could use a special topics call
16:26:35 <ivan> s/nonTransferavke/nonTransferabke/
16:26:38 <Kerri_Lemoie> manu: 987 adds presentation schema - has a couple of reviews, oliver& manu have questions. Explore at special topic call? Please take a look and add your questions.
16:26:52 <ivan> s/substopic/suptopic/
16:27:11 <ivan> s/suptopic/subtopic/
16:27:14 <oliver> q+
16:27:18 <DavidC> q+
16:27:21 <Kerri_Lemoie> kristina: was this filed as PR without discussion?
16:27:34 <Kerri_Lemoie> manu: yes but in the past we allowed for this
16:27:41 <oliver> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/960 might be the issue
16:27:44 <Kerri_Lemoie> kristina: would be better to have an issue for the discussion
16:27:49 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-integrity/
16:27:54 <ivan> s/this/969/
16:27:54 <oliver> q-
16:28:19 <Orie> q+
16:28:20 <Kerri_Lemoie> manu: no open PRs on data integrity
16:28:26 <kristina> ack Orie
16:28:33 <ivan> q+
16:28:41 <Kerri_Lemoie> orie: json web signature 2020 - open PR
16:28:45 <Orie> https://github.com/w3c/vc-jws-2020/pull/24
16:29:55 <Kerri_Lemoie> orie: encourage wg members to review and add comments/questions/suggestions; what role does W3C have in relation to work items outside of W3C?
16:30:23 <Orie> https://github.com/w3c/vc-jwt/pull/11
16:30:49 <kristina> ack ivan
16:30:49 <Kerri_Lemoie> orie: has only one approval -- could indicate general lack of interest and focus on other issues - perhaps pause?
16:30:55 <manu> +1 for pausing VC-JWT work item.
16:31:13 <manu> (given the recent discussion around how we're going to process Work Items)
16:31:15 <dmitriz> I am somewhat surprised at the lack of engagement on that item.
16:31:41 <Kerri_Lemoie> what is ivan's comment in reference to?
16:32:04 <manu> and seeing how VC-JWT duplicates work done in JsonWebSignature2020
16:32:05 <Kerri_Lemoie> ivan: reached out to W3C re: https://github.com/w3c/vc-jws-2020/pull/24
16:32:07 <Kerri_Lemoie> Thanks!
16:32:17 <Orie> There has not been an FPWD for vc-jwt, and I don't recommend we seek one at this time.
16:32:35 <kristina> ack DavidC
16:32:48 <selfissued_> q+
16:32:54 <dlongley> it is true that VC-JWT is duplicative of JsonWebSignature2020
16:33:03 <manu> I would expect multiple -1s for VC-JWT based on engagement and how we're planning to adopt work items now.
16:33:18 <Kerri_Lemoie> DavidC: non-transferrable issue was raised
16:33:42 <Orie> q+
16:33:55 <Kerri_Lemoie> DavidC: lots of interest in JWT- like at JFF plugfest. Lack of time but also implementors are getting it to work ok without so many errors as thought.
16:33:56 <manu> There were 17 different organizations implementing the DI approaches... vs. 6 for VC-JWT -- useful information on each cryptosuite.
16:34:26 <Kerri_Lemoie> DavidC: what is the difference between a credential and a verifiable credential- add topic to future agenda please?
16:34:52 <Kerri_Lemoie> kristina: chairs will discuss how to resolve that
16:35:03 <manu> q+ to note that implementations matter, and you need time to get those.
16:35:04 <JoeAndrieu> +1 to discuss David's question. It's a good one for the group to clear up.
16:35:05 <kristina> ack selfissued_
16:35:16 <kristina> zakim, close the queue
16:35:16 <Zakim> ok, kristina, the speaker queue is closed
16:35:55 <kristina> ack Orie
16:36:10 <Kerri_Lemoie> selfissued_: agree with DavidC that there's a lot of interest in vc-jwot but doesn't indicate that there aren't any problems
16:37:24 <Kerri_Lemoie> orie: issues that remains: 1) mappings to the core data model, 2) concrete documentation on how to define how to obtain a public key to verify a credential.
16:37:38 <DavidC> @Orie did:jwk solves the public key problem
16:38:08 <Kerri_Lemoie> orie: should tackle core-data model issues first
16:38:27 <Kerri_Lemoie> orie: gain wg consensus about core-data model first.
16:38:33 <kristina> ack manu
16:38:33 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that implementations matter, and you need time to get those.
16:38:34 <stenr> +1 to Orie comment that VC-JWT is in a bad shape
16:38:54 <DavidC> @orie the issue that Joe and I are discussing about credential vs verifiable credential is pertinent to jwt-vc
16:39:07 <Orie> its not that JWS/JWT or JOSE is in bad shape... its just W3C "versions" of it.
16:40:19 <Kerri_Lemoie> manu: agree in pursuing consensus on JWT but new process could negatively affect this work. Implementors could indicate what they support.
16:40:58 <Kerri_Lemoie> manu: agree to hit pause until the wg can focus on fixing the core data model concerns then comeback to vc-jwt
16:41:00 <Orie> This is an "unofficial" draft for a vc-jws... which is massively simpler than vc-jwt: https://transmute-industries.github.io/vc-jws/
16:41:11 <stenr> Is there a link to VC-JOSE issue?
16:41:36 <stenr> thanks
16:41:40 <Kerri_Lemoie> kristina: This work can happen within the process. Thank you for raising this topic. Chairs will discuss.
16:41:49 <Orie> Here is the original draft pre IETF 114: https://or13.github.io/draft-osteele-vc-jose/
16:42:03 <kristina> topic: holder binding
16:42:07 <kristina> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Aholder-binding
16:42:20 <Orie> Here is the issue regarding vc-jose proposal: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/971
16:42:45 <stenr> thanks
16:42:56 <kristina> q+ Oliver
16:42:57 <kristina> ack Olive
16:43:01 <kristina> ack Oliver
16:43:05 <oliver>  https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/789
16:43:17 <kristina> zakim, open the queue
16:43:17 <Zakim> ok, kristina, the speaker queue is open
16:44:19 <manu> q+ to be supportive of "holder binding" in some form.
16:44:23 <Kerri_Lemoie> oliver: There's a lot of interest in this binding type so verifier can run checks easier.
16:44:27 <JoeAndrieu> q+  to say as framed, holder binding is out of scope, but there is a way forward
16:46:10 <Kerri_Lemoie> oliver: we have two options: 1) include some info in the VC or in the VP or both; VC: bioemtircs, identifiers, etc. VP: additional proofs or other property
16:46:48 <oliver> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/923
16:46:53 <Kerri_Lemoie> Options described here: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/789#issuecomment-1332318257
16:47:10 <Kerri_Lemoie> oliver: listing issues
16:48:04 <Kerri_Lemoie> oliver: the question is should holder binding be added to the VC, VP or both?
16:48:14 <kristina> ack manu
16:48:14 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to be supportive of "holder binding" in some form.
16:48:23 <Kerri_Lemoie> kristina: suggest poll
16:48:45 <Orie> q+
16:48:54 <Kerri_Lemoie> manu: db is suggested in discussing holder binding; evidence was suggested prior but it doesn't entirely address concerns in the issue.
16:49:07 <Kerri_Lemoie> manu: maybe a special topic call?
16:49:20 <kristina> https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot11-the-hague/blob/master/draft-documents/verfiable-credentials-holder-binding.md
16:49:32 <Kerri_Lemoie> manu: (to oliver) do you have neough info to put together a PR or do you need guidance from the WG?
16:49:38 <TallTed> s/db is suggested in/DB is supportive of/
16:49:43 <kristina> ack JoeAndrieu
16:49:43 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say as framed, holder binding is out of scope, but there is a way forward
16:49:45 <Kerri_Lemoie> s/neough/enough
16:49:47 <oliver> q+
16:50:56 <TallTed> +1 the stuff referred to as "holder binding" is an application of business logic
16:50:57 <Kerri_Lemoie> JoeAndrieu: there's nothing in the charter or spec that discuss control of VCs- use is out of scope. Control handling is a business decision to check.
16:50:59 <ChristopherA> q+
16:51:59 <Kerri_Lemoie> JoeAndrieu: to add certainty to holder verification - define a claims vocab to describe privileges. Need a concrete way for a user to make a claim to claims.
16:52:17 <Kerri_Lemoie> JoeAndrieu: against adding any of this to the core data model.
16:52:24 <kristina> ack Orie
16:52:55 <DavidC> issuer can state facts: I am saying <this> about <subject> to <issuee>
16:53:02 <JoeAndrieu> +1 to fleshing out evidence types
16:53:54 <ivan> s/<this>/`<this>`/
16:53:54 <ivan> s/<subject>/`<subject>`/
16:54:02 <Kerri_Lemoie> Orie: in relation to evidence to holder binding -- opportunity to have evidence that describes holder and binding while also defending use of evidence property.
16:54:08 <kristina> ack oliver
16:54:09 <ivan> s/<issuee>/`<issuee>`/
16:54:58 <manu> +1 to Oliver to create a PR -- understanding that it's probably going to get some push back for trying to do it via `evidence` -- but we do need to discuss this, so supportive of it.
16:55:01 <Kerri_Lemoie> oliver: (to manu) needs more info but can create a PR based on discussions in issues and then take it from there.
16:55:21 <kristina> ack ChristopherA
16:55:25 <Kerri_Lemoie> kristina: yes - creating a pr is a good idea
16:56:25 <Orie> ChristopherA why is this an issue for this WG? W3C already defined WebAuthN and platform authenticators use it.
16:56:28 <Kerri_Lemoie> ChristopherA: potential issues with privacy & correlation for parties to lock in people if this is in the core data model. would like to see some privacy considerations be clearly articulated. More comfortable with it in the VP than VC.
16:56:38 <kristina> q?
16:56:38 <Kerri_Lemoie> kristina: please add those comments in oliver's pr.
16:57:06 <JoeAndrieu> present+
16:57:26 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:57:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/11/30-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
16:58:15 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
16:58:15 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been ivan, stenr, kristina, orie, brentz, dwaite, David_Waite, shigeya, oliver, dlongley, abranson, davidc, TallTed, drummond, elfors, manu,
16:58:18 <Zakim> ... kerri, dlehn, jandrieu, phil, juancaballero, selfissued, cabernet, dmitri, shawn, selfissued_, shawnb, steve_c, christoferA, ChristopherA, JoeAndrieu
16:58:18 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:58:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/11/30-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim
16:58:20 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:58:24 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
16:58:24 <RRSAgent> I see no action items