20:02:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
20:02:08 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/01/18-vcwg-irc
20:02:08 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
20:02:10 <kristina> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
20:02:10 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), kristina
20:02:12 <decentralgabe> decentralgabe has joined #vcwg
20:02:16 <decentralgabe> present+
20:02:18 <kristina> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
20:02:23 <dlongley> present+
20:02:27 <kristina> Chair: kristina
20:02:29 <dmitriz> present+
20:03:44 <gkellogg_> gkellogg_ has joined #vcwg
20:03:48 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
20:03:56 <Orie> Orie has joined #vcwg
20:03:56 <kristina> present+
20:03:58 <Orie> present+
20:04:01 <Orie> scribe+
20:04:12 <kristina> Date: 2023-01-18
20:04:26 <Kerri_Lemoie> Kerri_Lemoie has joined #vcwg
20:04:34 <Kerri_Lemoie> present+
20:04:58 <kristina> q?
20:04:59 <WillAbramson> WillAbramson has joined #vcwg
20:05:07 <Orie> Topic: Face 2 Face
20:05:34 <smccown> smccown has joined #vcwg
20:05:34 <kristina> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IguLcaIn8vAo-XDwYXbJTfY2c5SAjA9rgDjo057kKlc/edit?usp=sharing
20:05:35 <Orie> kristina: chairs will be at the face to face, same date as announced before in Miami.
20:05:38 <kdeangs1> kdeangs1 has joined #vcwg
20:05:43 <Orie> ... please fill in the google doc
20:05:56 <Orie> ... we need to estimate attendance size
20:06:09 <przemek> przemek has joined #vcwg
20:06:28 <JoeAndrieu> do we have an address for the F2F?
20:06:39 <Orie> ... chairs and editors are refining agenda for F2F, its in progress.
20:06:40 <manu> q+
20:06:55 <shigeya_> https://www.w3.org/2017/vc/WG/Meetings/F2F/Miami
20:06:58 <Orie> ... main goal is to cover issues critical to CR that would benefit from face to face
20:07:08 <shigeya_> 1010 NE 2nd Avenue
20:07:08 <shigeya_> Miami, FL, USA
20:07:08 <shigeya_> 33132
20:07:21 <Orie> ... the "activity" column is related to the "social bounding event"
20:07:24 <manu> q-
20:07:29 <Karen> Karen has joined #vcwg
20:07:33 <kristina> q?
20:07:34 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
20:07:40 <Orie> ... questions re face to face?
20:07:43 <shigeya_> q+
20:08:09 <Orie> ... for the observers, feel free to invite observers, please notify the chairs, regarding attendees
20:08:11 <kristina> ack shigeya_
20:08:24 <Orie> shigeya: when does it end last day?
20:08:33 <Orie> kristina: its 9-5 all three days.
20:08:55 <Orie> ... before we move to agenda, lets remind of the code of conduct
20:09:22 <Orie> ... please remember to abide by the code of conduct in all interactions you have with working group members
20:10:03 <Orie> ... please assume positive intent, and be respectful... chairs and staff are reviewing activity regularly.
20:10:10 <Orie> Topic: Discussion
20:10:19 <Orie> kristina: PR #999
20:10:38 <Orie> ... there will likely be a special topic call on this, related to ZKPs (zero knowledge proofs)
20:10:45 <manu> q+
20:10:48 <Orie> .... any updates or PRs?
20:11:06 <Orie> ... we did merge PR #1000 on the vc-data-model
20:11:15 <Orie> ... we also reviewed #40 on vc-jwt
20:11:16 <BrianRichter> BrianRichter has joined #vcwg
20:11:16 <kristina> ack manu
20:11:27 <Orie> manu: first PR up....
20:11:40 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/987
20:12:06 <Orie> ... action was to write an example, but there has yet to be responses to what david has provided.
20:12:18 <Orie> ... if you requested changes, please re-review
20:12:31 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1001
20:12:35 <Orie> ... next item is remove zkp, we will address in special topic call later.
20:13:06 <Orie> ... next is PR 1001, it covers the @vocab URL, and provides terms for anything that are related to the issuer.
20:13:31 <Orie> ... we intend to provide better developer and user experience by for folks built on this feature
20:13:49 <Orie> ... there are no objections, we intend to merge by end of day
20:13:51 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1005
20:14:29 <Orie> ... this PR is related to the use of "type" information... david is asking for additional changes, I intend to make them
20:14:36 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1011
20:14:51 <Orie> ... this PR is related to vocabulary files.... we just need reviews
20:15:22 <Orie> ... the other heads up to the group, ivan and I have been working on automatic generation and publishing magic
20:15:57 <Orie> ... we will be adding linting to critical files, and we will auto publish changes.... the automation is landing / here.
20:16:04 <Orie> ... thats it for VC Data Model
20:16:24 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-integrity/pull/79
20:16:24 <Orie> ... there are open PRs for data integrity, but I have not had chance to process them
20:16:40 <kristina> q?
20:16:56 <Orie> ... keep an eye on Data Integrity #79 ... this relates to long standing issues with the security vocabulary
20:17:08 <Orie> ... status list 2021 has new issues, but no PRs
20:17:26 <Orie> ... see the new issues related to ordering of statuses, and caching
20:17:43 <kristina> q?
20:17:49 <Orie> kristina: are there any other updates?
20:18:11 <Orie> ... reminder, there is a conversation on the mailing list regarding vc-jws-2020
20:18:12 <Orie> q+
20:18:21 <Orie> ... see the comments on the list
20:18:25 <kristina> ack Orie
20:18:26 <manu> scribe+
20:18:43 <manu> Orie: Thanks for reminding us of that email. I wanted to introduce the topic on the call today to introduce to the group.
20:18:56 <manu> Orie: The potential impact that it might have, message to email (coming soon)
20:19:29 <manu> Orie: There are two items 1) a request from IETF to clarify specification name, saying "JSON Web Signature" is confusing, WG members agree, proposed new name for spec is provided
20:21:22 <manu> Orie: 2) Conversation around jws-2020 not strong, regarding use of media type in PR 1000, as you know I sent two other proposals to the list regarding making use of media type, now that we've merge 1000, we're able to use that media type, PR1000 links to proposals and updated test vectors that use media type. Key issue for WG to consider is whether JWS-2020 provides sufficient value in its current form, or whether proposals that went to list are superior
20:21:22 <manu> long-term solutions. Refactor work item to not use URDNA2015 but use new registered media type, complexity in term of implementers, change nature of what that item is about (a way to secure data model), but way to do it more closely to resemble VC-JWT than data integrity proof.
20:21:44 <manu> Orie: I've asked the question on the list, providing notice here, if you're interested in having a discussion around this, happen to engage in list, happy to talk here about it.
20:21:46 <manu> q+
20:21:52 <kristina> ack manu
20:22:24 <Orie> manu: responding to the second item... I think its problematic, to change the spec, and make a new deliverable under the same title
20:22:45 <Orie> ... we might be able to get to what you want, without the approach you are taking
20:22:59 <Orie> ... its not clear what the future of the work items might be
20:23:08 <Orie> ... +1 to having a discussion around it
20:23:18 <Orie> ... we should treat this as adopting a new work item
20:23:28 <Orie> ... sounds like a special topic call item
20:23:32 <kristina> q?
20:23:42 <dlongley> +1 to manu
20:23:58 <Orie> kristina: recommend discussing on the mailing lists, or raise issues on the work item.
20:24:13 <Orie> ... on vc-jwt, there has been conversation on issues and PRs
20:24:27 <Orie> ... please remember to review the active work items
20:24:44 <Orie> ... lets go to issue review
20:25:10 <kristina> Topic: Issues
20:25:11 <Orie> ... we've done some grooming of issues, between calls.
20:25:14 <kristina> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Adiscuss+sort%3Aupdated-asc
20:25:19 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
20:25:38 <Orie> ... we're reviewing issue #887
20:25:44 <Orie> ... again
20:25:49 <manu> q+
20:26:01 <kristina> Subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/887
20:26:12 <Orie> manu: what we have is a lot of suggestions, we can run a poll...
20:26:26 <Orie> ... lets have the editors run a poll
20:26:41 <Orie> ... we need to create a defintion for the word we will pick
20:27:04 <Orie> ... usually a poll helps us pick, action is on the editors
20:27:33 <Orie> kristina: we're removing discuss, we will run a poll per the suggestion from Manu.
20:27:47 <Orie> manu: lets mark it as ready for PR and assign me.
20:27:55 <kristina> Subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/909
20:28:06 <Orie> kristina: we're discussing the extension registries
20:28:21 <manu> q+
20:28:25 <kristina> ack manu
20:28:28 <Orie> ... suggest removing discuss, not sure how to process this
20:28:55 <Orie> manu: we could run orie's proposal... for what would go into it
20:29:19 <Orie> kristina: ok, i see the proposal
20:29:25 <Orie> ... we can discuss now
20:29:43 <manu> scribe+
20:30:23 <gkellogg_> gkellogg_ has joined #vcwg
20:30:43 <manu> Orie: I am looking at the proposal, we have a DID Spec Registry that looks something like this.
20:31:09 <manu> Orie: We could have a NOTE that has this in there, we could refer elsewhere, I don't know how to proceed. I know how to maintain a registry, I don't know how this WG wants to handle a registry and potential extensions.
20:31:18 <manu> q+
20:31:30 <manu> Orie: I do think we should decide on this soon since we're seeing extensions pop up.
20:31:43 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say we don't need a registry
20:31:51 <Orie> kristina: well, I might be remembering wrong, but there seemed to agreement on using IANA to manage registries, instead of W3C
20:32:02 <kristina> ack manu
20:32:14 <Orie> manu: there was a suggestion to that effect, but there were objections
20:32:58 <Orie> ... at the face to face, i proposed a lightweight approach like what we did for did spec registries... which i hesitate to suggest, but it has worked well for terms / extensions
20:33:10 <Orie> ... we could propose an empty registry
20:33:19 <Orie> ... and establish a process for updating it
20:33:27 <Orie> ... and then let it grow from there
20:33:51 <Orie> ... I like the structure orie proposed, more than what we did in did core
20:34:11 <Orie> ... proposal would be to create a blank document with a process, and use a note to maintain it
20:34:24 <kristina> ack JoeAndrieu
20:34:24 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say we don't need a registry
20:34:49 <decentralgabe> q+ to say context is not the only way to extend
20:34:58 <Orie> JoeAndrieu: we only need to define terms in a spec... because we have @context, any community can extend without a registry
20:35:01 <manu> q+ to ask Joe if he'd be opposed to just listing "other specs that we know of" in a document the VCWG controls?
20:35:44 <Orie> ... if we create our own registry, we will elevate certain terms above others... and it can create problems where people think they need to register things to use them... it undermines our entire model...
20:35:59 <Orie> ... it prevents decentralization, and disables the promise of this work
20:36:24 <smccown> +1 for JoeAndrieu's comments about registries
20:36:24 <dlongley> +1 to joe -- doesn't seem like we necessarily need a registry (nor want to maintain them) and it can be harmful in the ways he says
20:36:24 <Orie> ... we also have a horrible track record, wrt registries... if we do this again, its going to make things worse.
20:36:33 <kristina> ack decentralgabe
20:36:33 <Zakim> decentralgabe, you wanted to say context is not the only way to extend
20:36:48 <Orie> gabe: I don't think we're undermining decentralization
20:36:59 <Orie> ... we would be undermining the JSON-LD data model though
20:37:07 <JoeAndrieu> +1 for other options
20:37:08 <Orie> ... adding more options for extension helps
20:37:23 <JoeAndrieu> -1 for this work centralizing a de facto registry
20:37:24 <kristina> ack manu
20:37:24 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask Joe if he'd be opposed to just listing "other specs that we know of" in a document the VCWG controls?
20:37:48 <Orie> manu: joe would you be ok with a list of "known" specs?
20:38:15 <Orie> ... just a list of items, not a "namespace" for terms... just a "list of specs" with their change controllers
20:38:38 <Orie> JoeAndrieu: agree up until the point of "change controllers".
20:38:49 <manu> q+
20:38:50 <kdeangs1> +q
20:38:56 <Orie> ... as soon as we add change controllers, it violates the consensus model, and creates problems
20:39:22 <Orie> kristina: manu proposes a blank document and a process, that seems like a path forward.
20:39:23 <JoeAndrieu> q+
20:39:45 <kristina> ack manu
20:39:53 <manu> q- later
20:39:59 <decentralgabe> @manu mispoke. yes, we are json-ld data model, even if json-ld is not the only mechanism for extension
20:40:11 <Orie> kdeangs: good to publish, but not as a normative specification
20:40:42 <kristina> ack JoeAndrieu
20:40:48 <kristina> ack kdeangs
20:41:08 <Orie> JoeAndrieu: I agree with gabe, we deserve additional mechanism for extensibility, i just don't think the W3C should manage it.
20:41:19 <Phil-ASU> Phil-ASU has joined #vcwg
20:41:21 <Orie> ... I've not seen an proposals other than have the W3C run it
20:41:22 <kristina> ack manu
20:41:36 <Phil-ASU> +present
20:41:55 <Orie> manu: not hearing an objection to ceating a blank document, that has a process that does not favor anything, and just points to other stuff...
20:42:00 <JoeAndrieu> Q+
20:42:05 <Orie> ... should I do that?
20:42:09 <kristina> ack JoeAndrieu
20:42:21 <Orie> JoeAndrieu : don't call it a registry, call it a directory of related work
20:42:35 <Orie> kristina: where would this be?
20:42:39 <decentralgabe> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-extension-registry/
20:42:49 <Orie> manu: we have a thing... we either create a new repo
20:42:51 <Orie> q+
20:42:57 <kristina> ack Orie
20:43:01 <decentralgabe> q+
20:43:10 <manu> Orie: I suggest creating a new repo so we don't pull in political baggage.
20:43:31 <manu> Orie: +1 to create new blank repo and basic process, named as Joe has requested, send it to list for review. I would not take anything as input to the work.
20:43:36 <kristina> ack decentralgabe
20:43:38 <manu> +1 Orie
20:43:54 <Orie> gabe: we do have an extension registry... I have an issue to move it over, sounds like we don't want to do that.
20:44:01 <manu> This thing sounds like it's controversial now: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-extension-registry/
20:44:04 <Orie> ... we should do something to the existing registry
20:44:11 <manu> +1 to deprecate/rename CCG registry.
20:44:42 <Orie> kristina: any objections to editors creating a blank document and process for the group to review
20:44:54 <Orie> ... ok, lets start with that
20:45:29 <Orie> ... adding ready for PR... gabe, can you open an issue... are there objections to deprecating the ccg registry
20:45:32 <manu> q+
20:45:35 <dlongley> no objection, just seems like it might be unnecessary work... seems like it might cause headaches in the future -- maybe depends on what the process says in the PR.
20:45:43 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
20:45:50 <kristina> ack manu
20:45:56 <Orie> kristina: can you document we need to do something to the existing registry
20:46:19 <Orie> manu: we don't have authority over ccg, lets do things 1 at a time
20:46:36 <decentralgabe> issue opened: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-extension-registry/issues/14
20:46:52 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/882
20:47:10 <Orie> kristina: next issue, extension methods for holder binding...
20:47:13 <Orie> q+
20:47:20 <kristina> ack Orie
20:47:27 <manu> Orie: We have a series of holder binding related issues...
20:48:03 <manu> Orie: We had previously agreed to have a special topic call to discuss them, I'm in favor of grouping them together and discussing them. I also feel that it's possible that there isn't anything underneath them. I have yet to hear/see something concrete on this front. I've heard people say they're working on it.
20:48:14 <andres_> andres_ has joined #vcwg
20:48:15 <gkellogg_> gkellogg_ has joined #vcwg
20:48:27 <dlongley> +1 to Orie... seems like we need external incubation based on specific use cases.
20:48:46 <manu> Orie: Given it has substantial security/privacy implications, so if this comes up as we're transitioning to the next stage, I will most likely to be opposed to it. Because of the security implications of it, it's dangerous to allow this to loom around.
20:48:59 <manu> Orie: I don't think we should allow this to float around in our backlog, we need to address it.
20:49:09 <manu> manu: +1 to what orie says above.
20:49:20 <Orie> kristina: the next steps were specific use cases, we have yet to receive them
20:49:35 <Orie> ... we should group them, and action on them as a whole
20:49:50 <kristina> q?
20:49:56 <Orie> ... we are parking this issue until use case or special topic call.
20:50:06 <kristina> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/893
20:50:23 <Orie> kristina: this is regarding evidence and assurance
20:50:31 <Orie> ... there as not been much movement on this
20:50:49 <DavidC> q+
20:50:53 <Orie> ... chair hat off, I would be ok closing this, if we had better detail on the use of evidence property
20:51:08 <manu> +1 for special topic call on Evidence.
20:51:09 <kristina> ack DavidC
20:51:16 <Orie> kristina: there are several issues labled evidence, it seems like a potential special topic call
20:51:35 <Orie> davidC: W3C CCG is attempting to define a standard evidence property type
20:51:49 <Orie> ... this new work item would create a standard evidence type for OIDC
20:52:03 <Orie> ... the data structure would be controlled by OIDF
20:52:12 <manu> q+ to ask for a link.
20:52:14 <Orie> ... its a proposed item, it was very recently introduced
20:52:29 <Orie> ... its written with arcaine
20:52:33 <manu> q-
20:52:42 <Orie> kristina: please link to the issue
20:53:12 <manu> q+
20:53:15 <DavidC> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1htujrb-_1kh8tkV4MXYRmZ44m_D7yFrY09aFJkAz7io/edit
20:53:16 <Orie> ... seems the CCG item could resolve the issue
20:53:16 <kristina> ack manu
20:53:23 <Orie> q+
20:53:37 <Orie> manu: we should discuss here
20:53:59 <Orie> davidC: we didn't think it was in scope for this WG, happy to move it here, if thats preferred
20:54:19 <Orie> ... what I pointed out to the CCG, there were 2 features that were interesting...
20:54:29 <Orie> ... people change their names, and that can impact evidence...
20:54:39 <Orie> ... evidence can disagree with credentials
20:54:50 <Orie> ... another issue was wrt selective disclosure...
20:55:01 <Orie> ... you can accidentally leak information through use of evidence
20:55:08 <kristina> ack Orie
20:56:54 <manu> Orie: If we refer to this evidence type from our document, I don't believe we can point directly at a W3C CCG work item. We are compelled to provide testable solutions for the property or remove it from our specification, this feels further along, but we can adopt the work item as the WG, use the work item as one of the registered types, then we are protected by downref. I'm concerned about pointing to something that's not within the group and a
20:56:54 <manu> different timeline. I'm excited about the work. I'm concerned about potential objections, there's process issues here that we might want to consider. There are potential objections that could come if we don't have a strong evidence type in our next spec.
20:56:58 <manu> q+
20:57:06 <manu> q-
20:57:13 <Orie> kristina: please review the document that was been shared
20:57:32 <Orie> ... lets end here today
20:57:32 <DavidC> @Orie arcaine to Mark Haine
20:58:13 <JoeAndrieu> present+
20:58:19 <kristina> rrsagent, draft minutes
20:58:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/18-vcwg-minutes.html kristina
20:58:36 <kristina> zakim, end meeting
20:58:36 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been decentralgabe, dlongley, dmitriz, kristina, Orie, Kerri_Lemoie, present, JoeAndrieu
20:58:38 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:58:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/18-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim
20:58:45 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, kristina; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
20:58:46 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg
20:58:51 <kristina> rrsagent, bye
20:58:51 <RRSAgent> I see no action items