15:55:12 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
15:55:17 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/01/25-vcwg-irc
15:55:17 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:55:18 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
15:55:25 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
15:55:25 <ivan> Date: 2023-01-25
15:55:25 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/mid/bd400b8e603c3424609e27e9115eaa60@w3.org
15:55:25 <ivan> chair: brent
15:55:25 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2023-01-25: https://www.w3.org/mid/bd400b8e603c3424609e27e9115eaa60@w3.org
15:57:07 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #vcwg
15:59:47 <brentz> brentz has joined #vcwg
15:59:47 <mprorock> mprorock has joined #vcwg
15:59:48 <ivan> present+
15:59:48 <ivan> present+ mprorock
15:59:48 <ivan> present+ brent
15:59:52 <ivan> present+ selfissued
15:59:56 <ivan> present+ markus
16:00:26 <ivan> present+ cabernet
16:00:42 <ivan> present+ dmitriz
16:00:59 <ivan> present+ orie
16:00:59 <ivan> present+ shigeya
16:01:22 <ivan> present+ shawn
16:01:29 <ivan> present+ dlongley
16:02:27 <ivan> present+ kerri
16:02:42 <ivan> present+ manu
16:03:02 <ivan> present+ abramson
16:03:13 <ivan> present+ kristina
16:03:56 <Kerri_Lemoie> Kerri_Lemoie has joined #vcwg
16:03:56 <mprorock> scribe+
16:04:07 <Kerri_Lemoie> present+
16:04:15 <ivan> present+ Phil-ASU
16:04:22 <mprorock> topic: agenda discussion
16:04:24 <ivan> present+ TallTed
16:04:27 <cabernet> cabernet has joined #vcwg
16:04:29 <will> will has joined #vcwg
16:04:30 <cabernet> present+
16:04:34 <will> present+
16:04:37 <mprorock> brentz: ftf meeting, issues, etc
16:04:43 <mprorock> topic: introductions
16:04:55 <mprorock> brentz: calling for any intros or howdys
16:05:05 <Phil> Phil has joined #vcwg
16:05:06 <ivan> present+ bumblefudge
16:05:06 <ivan> present+ dlehn1
16:05:13 <Phil> present+
16:05:14 <brentz> Topic: F2F Meeting
16:05:15 <mprorock> topic: face to face meeting
16:05:18 <Brian> Brian has joined #vcwg
16:05:35 <mprorock> brentz: Miami Feb 14-16, 9am-5pm local time
16:05:37 <ivan> present+ mahmoud
16:05:49 <mkhraisha> mkhraisha has joined #vcwg
16:05:54 <ivan> present+ jandrieu
16:05:54 <mprorock> ... independent dinners, breakfast on your own, lunches provided
16:06:09 <ivan> present+ kdeangs1
16:06:11 <mprorock> ... possible activity wed afternoon
16:06:26 <mprorock> ... any questions on logistics, etc?
16:06:39 <kristina> kristina has joined #vcwg
16:06:41 <brentz> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IguLcaIn8vAo-XDwYXbJTfY2c5SAjA9rgDjo057kKlc/edit#gid=179611341
16:06:42 <mprorock> ivan: requests link for details on face to face
16:06:42 <kristina> present+
16:07:29 <manu> q+
16:07:31 <brentz> Topic: Work Item status updates/PRs
16:07:39 <mprorock> brentz: notes that adding rows to attendance list is fine
16:07:43 <brentz> ack mprorock
16:07:50 <brentz> ack manu
16:08:01 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/987
16:08:14 <Orie> Orie has joined #vcwg
16:08:15 <mprorock> manu: Presentation PR - to add a presentationSchema - use cases and example requested
16:08:17 <Orie> present+
16:08:35 <mprorock> ... some feedback in the PR that is not well understood
16:08:45 <Orie> q+
16:08:58 <mprorock> ... not clear who (holder, verifier, issuer, someone else) should be handling the schema
16:08:59 <brentz> ack Orie
16:09:12 <mprorock> Orie: appreciates example from David
16:09:19 <oliver> oliver has joined #vcwg
16:09:23 <oliver> present+ oliver_terbu
16:09:26 <mprorock> ... added a link to self describing JSON Schemas
16:09:53 <mprorock> ... believes that this example is almost identical to the use case here
16:10:17 <mprorock> ... wants to see clear consensus on whether or not this should be added to the core data model
16:10:32 <decentralgabe> decentralgabe has joined #vcwg
16:10:35 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/999
16:10:41 <mprorock> manu: looking for other folks to weigh in, otherwise just the folks conversing on the pr will contribute
16:11:13 <mprorock> manu: location or removal of ZKP section - might be some issues with moving to impl guide given normative language
16:11:19 <TallTed> q+
16:11:27 <decentralgabe>  present+
16:11:27 <ivan> present+ nadalin
16:11:28 <mprorock> ... don't know what to do with the PR yet
16:11:35 <brentz> ack TallTed
16:11:44 <Orie> q+
16:11:51 <mprorock> TallTed: don't think normative language should be a blocker - could move and change to informative language
16:12:02 <brentz> ack Orie
16:12:04 <mprorock> ... shouldn't necessarily throw away work
16:12:18 <ivan> q+
16:12:21 <mprorock> Orie: notes that the work done is preserved permenantly in 1.1
16:12:26 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
16:12:35 <JoeAndrieu> present+
16:12:42 <mprorock> ... does believe that some of these items may get added back in to core data model at a later date
16:12:53 <mprorock> ... supportive of documenting support
16:13:31 <mprorock> ... concerned that we may be holding onto something that may prevent clean definition of ZKPs in 2.0+ based on work in 1.1
16:13:37 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
16:13:43 <brentz> q+
16:13:46 <brentz> ack ivan
16:13:49 <mprorock> ... also concerned on testing / interop
16:14:10 <mprorock> ivan: the fact that it is part of 1.1 will be "hidden" when 2.0 gets published
16:14:45 <selfissued> present+
16:14:45 <TallTed> +1 about the hiddenness (and forgettability) of 1.1 once 2.0 is out
16:14:56 <mprorock> ... question without knowing all tech details, is this urgent to do know? not at CR point, maybe a flag is better? other options noting potential removal?
16:15:10 <TallTed> s/to do know/to do now/
16:15:11 <mprorock> ...  not sure on urgency of removal
16:15:11 <brentz> ack brentz
16:15:28 <Orie> The text adds burden to reviews....
16:15:34 <dwaite> dwaite has joined #vcwg
16:15:38 <dwaite> present+
16:15:50 <mprorock> brentz: as author (not chair) - the section needs significant reworking, removal likely, but removal at this time may be premature
16:15:53 <manu> q+ to put an issue marker on it and tagging normative statements that should be removed.
16:16:01 <kristina> no urgency does not mean not doing it... this topic has been up for discussion for a while.
16:16:12 <brentz> ack manu
16:16:12 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to put an issue marker on it and tagging normative statements that should be removed.
16:16:16 <mprorock> ... don't think axing now is way to go, even if we are going to axe or rework later
16:16:24 <kristina> q
16:16:26 <mprorock> manu: can try to put a warning in
16:16:26 <kristina> q+
16:16:37 <mprorock> ... clearly communicate that section is at risk
16:16:38 <smccown> smccown has joined #vcwg
16:16:55 <mprorock> ... does want to audit normative statements that should probably be removed or modified
16:17:13 <mprorock> ... rework this section with a mind for future inclusion of BBS
16:17:13 <ivan> present+ smccown
16:17:23 <ivan> present+ gabe
16:17:25 <ivan> present+ oliver
16:17:29 <mprorock> ... get things set up so that BBS can integrate when it is ready
16:17:39 <mprorock> ... is that a workable PR?
16:17:45 <brentz> +1 Manu
16:17:46 <TallTed> +1 on manu's suggested plan
16:17:50 <brentz> ack kristina
16:18:00 <mprorock> kristina: big fan of just a warning
16:18:12 <mprorock> ... may be an issue suggesting shorter text
16:18:15 <TallTed> s/big fan/not a big fan/
16:18:15 <ivan> s/big fan/not a big fan/
16:18:26 <manu> q+ to modify the proposal to "create a new section" that "replaces this section"
16:18:29 <mprorock> ... /me thanks ted
16:18:55 <brentz> ack manu
16:18:55 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to modify the proposal to "create a new section" that "replaces this section"
16:18:55 <mprorock> ... wants to avoid postponing problem
16:19:29 <Orie> That suggestion seems good to me.
16:19:36 <kristina> +1 manu
16:19:40 <Kerri_Lemoie> +1
16:19:40 <brentz> +1
16:19:41 <mprorock> manu: new PR for a new section intending to replace this section, that is shorter and attempts to capture the "spirit" of things in advance of BBS, non-normative for now, that can become normative later if appropriate
16:19:42 <Phil> +1
16:19:42 <dlongley> +1
16:19:44 <mprorock> +1
16:19:46 <TallTed> +1 works for me
16:19:50 <ivan> +1
16:20:06 <Orie> If you request changes, clearly, i will modify my PR.
16:20:17 <mprorock> manu: begs for other folks to help out because his stack is overflowing, otherwise will eventually get to it
16:20:22 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1011
16:20:33 <smccown_> smccown_ has joined #vcwg
16:20:36 <mprorock> manu: ref url in vocab template file
16:21:29 <mprorock> ivan: notes that official vocab points to 1.0, proposing that new version should be official version
16:22:00 <mprorock> manu: *back and forth with ivan to clarify*
16:22:09 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1013
16:22:10 <mprorock> ... straightforward
16:22:29 <mprorock> manu: terms of use PR, syncing with latest changes
16:22:47 <mprorock> ... follow on, mostly editorial
16:22:55 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1014
16:23:00 <Orie> q+
16:23:14 <mprorock> manu: normative requirements for media type and proof, follow on to PR from last week
16:23:45 <mprorock> ... media type "must not be used with embedded proof" is the discussion, as well as general media type discussion
16:24:05 <mprorock> ... please weign in
16:24:08 <brentz> ack Orie
16:24:27 <mprorock> Orie: believe that intention has been made clear in comments, good exchange on intention of PR
16:24:51 <mprorock> ... if you feel intention is not clear, let's clarify that, then we can discuss and clarify text that reflects that intention
16:25:15 <mprorock> manu: moving on to data integrity PRs
16:25:21 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-integrity/pull/75
16:25:48 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-integrity/pull/76
16:25:53 <mprorock> ... 75 is text around verification of relationships, 76 is about canonicaliztion methods for clarity
16:26:12 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-integrity/pull/79
16:26:32 <mprorock> ... 79 is taken sec vocab and refactored to match VC data model
16:26:57 <mprorock> ... would be first revision, won't have all details right on first pass, but is a good first step
16:27:06 <mprorock> ... does not belive anything provacative
16:27:10 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-integrity/pull/80
16:27:33 <mprorock> manu: new section around proof purpose, and why you want validation
16:27:48 <mprorock> manu: onto status list
16:28:06 <ivan> subtopic: status list pr-s
16:28:09 <mprorock> ... looking forward to PRs rolling in
16:28:11 <kristina> +1 to PRs in StatusList :)
16:28:21 <mprorock> ... many issues ready for pr
16:28:39 <mprorock> brentz: ask re VC JWT
16:28:48 <selfissued> https://github.com/w3c/vc-jwt/pull/40
16:28:55 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-jwt/pull/40
16:28:58 <mprorock> selfissued: would like to discuss extensive review on PR 40
16:29:13 <mprorock> ... follows onto data model PR re media types
16:29:40 <mprorock> ... creates a second media type for teh 1.1 VC JWT claimset
16:29:53 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #vcwg
16:29:56 <markus_sabadello> present+
16:30:13 <mprorock> ... just like OIDC tokens, a credential is much more specific that just a general claimset
16:30:38 <TallTed> q+
16:30:45 <dmitriz> scribe+
16:30:52 <mprorock> scribe-
16:30:57 <manu> q+ to note misrepresentation on where we are wrt. consensus
16:30:59 <dmitriz> selfissued: I think we're good to go, and should merge this, can always wordsmith later
16:31:12 <brentz> ack TallTed
16:31:25 <dmitriz> TallTed: I think it needs a bit more than wordsmithing; I'm generally not in favor of merging a thing that needs smithing, since that might never happen
16:31:41 <dmitriz> ... as I commented on the thread there, there are a number of comments that dont appear to understand how media types actually work, which is not useful
16:31:56 <dmitriz> ... I'm not sure people are processing this right
16:32:02 <dmitriz> ... it's frustrating to not have that last comment mentioned
16:32:04 <Orie> q+
16:32:06 <selfissued> q+
16:32:06 <brentz> ack manu
16:32:09 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note misrepresentation on where we are wrt. consensus
16:32:09 <dmitriz> manu: I don't think we have consensus here
16:32:19 <dmitriz> ... I think there's consensus that we might need a media type for this
16:32:35 <dmitriz> ... I think this thing should exist -- that's not under debate. it's "what should this thing be called" - that's what under debate
16:32:43 <dmitriz> ... what we're talking about is a Claims Set
16:33:03 <dmitriz> ... however, the media type makes it sound like the claims set is the credential, in the VC Data Model sense of the word
16:33:16 <dmitriz> ... so the concern is that people will think that it's In VC format, whereas it's in JWT format
16:33:18 <decentra_> decentra_ has joined #vcwg
16:33:30 <dmitriz> ... so the suggestion is - let's call it what it is. the current name is confusing, let's pick a more indicative name
16:33:41 <dmitriz> ... as Ted said, there's a number of comments that confuse how media types work
16:34:05 <dmitriz> ... this is not a popularity contest; concrete changes have been requested. there's big concern about media type confusion; the group needs to talk about that
16:34:19 <brentz> ack Orie
16:34:19 <dmitriz> Orie: I think, like Manu said, there's consensus that this needs to exist
16:34:28 <dmitriz> ... there needs to be SOMETHING. there's debate over the specific name
16:34:52 <dmitriz> ... in the interest of acknowledging that we're definitely intending to add a name, I think we have a couple paths forward
16:35:04 <dmitriz> ... we can file an issue next to the name in the spec, saying WG is considering the name, then we can continue to bikeshed
16:35:20 <dmitriz> ... but at least we can refer to the entity consistently; that's my primary interest, as editor -- we need to be able to refer to this object
16:35:34 <dmitriz> ... and the specific name is less important than it being addressable
16:35:34 <dmitriz> ... the comments regarding the claimset
16:35:47 <TallTed> placeholder name should be something that's blatently not meant to persist, e.g., george/harry+fred
16:35:47 <dlongley> q+ to object to merging the PR until the name is chosen
16:35:48 <andres_> andres_ has joined #vcwg
16:35:56 <dmitriz> ... and whether or not this is really a credential -- I think in the interpretation of v1.1, this is actually a credential
16:35:56 <dmitriz> ... so I think it's named correctly and clearly
16:36:07 <dmitriz> ... I think if we want to change the specific media type that's being registered, we can continue to bikeshed.
16:36:18 <dmitriz> ... but this is blocking additional refinement, not being able to reference
16:36:26 <dmitriz> ... if the name changes after it's merged, it won't change our ability to work
16:36:34 <decentra_> +1 to agility
16:36:38 <manu> q+ to note that the specific name is going to find its way into code, and in the average case, confuse things about the "make @context optional" discussion, propose a way forward.
16:36:39 <dmitriz> ... so, I request we file an issue registering that there's no name consensus, but merge this PR
16:36:49 <brentz> ack selfissued
16:36:56 <brentz> q+
16:36:59 <dlongley> there's already "credential" in 1.1 in JSON format that is NOT a JWT Claim Set much more prominent in the spec (the one specifically called that in the spec) that is easily confused with the media type name "application/credential-1.1+json"
16:37:05 <dmitriz> selfissued: I want to agree with something that Ted said, which is - there IS some confusion among some people who commented about how media types are used
16:37:26 <dmitriz> ... as I said in a private conversation with Orie, we do have an education task in front of us, to get people used to thinking about declaring the types of things
16:37:45 <dmitriz> ... deep background: one of the things that changed in the JWT world, in the 10 years since we invented it, is that IETF and others realized that explicitly typing things has a lot of value
16:37:56 <dmitriz> ... it can prevent confusion between two things
16:38:04 <dmitriz> ... that are intended for different purposes, which is the root for a number of security flaws
16:38:08 <dmitriz> ... which this can prevent
16:38:15 <dmitriz> ... so, I'm happy for the WG to continue the education task
16:38:38 <dmitriz> ... I think that's important; we need to get people used to typing things. And this is part of an initiative of the editors of the JWT spec, and I'd like you to support that
16:38:50 <dmitriz> ... if we want to continue bikeshedding the name, we should file an issue saying we want to rename it
16:39:15 <dmitriz> ... Dave Longley expressed concern in a comment that maybe people won't read the spec and won't understand the definition that it's a claim set. But if people don't read the spec, we have a different world of problems
16:39:20 <mprorock> +1 selfissued
16:39:28 <dmitriz> ... I think it's time to merge this, so we can strongly type things. and continue bikeshedding
16:39:30 <manu> -1 to "merge this"
16:39:43 <dmitriz> dlongley: I'm a strong -1 to merging this without just changing the name
16:39:57 <dmitriz> ... I've said a lot more on the PR regarding what I think the mistakes we're making, around the usage, around assumptions
16:40:05 <selfissued> q+
16:40:17 <dmitriz> ... that if we use a media type in one place, it'll be used differently in other places, that doesn't match what developers tend to do
16:40:27 <dmitriz> ... so, if we can avoid that kind of confusion, we should do so in the name
16:40:34 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say naming is hard, but important
16:40:59 <dmitriz> ... I've responded to comments about redundancy, and pointed out that the RFCs today talk about using the 'cty' claim in JWTs, talking about things that are /not/ in the claimsets
16:41:31 <dlongley> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8725#name-use-explicit-typing
16:41:32 <dmitriz> ... I'm less concerned about that, than I am concerned about calling something jwt 1.1 credential, whereas the spec has it as something different
16:41:47 <dmitriz> ... I responded to Mike's comment, about explicit typing, and here's the link to that
16:41:58 <dmitriz> ... about using the 'typ' claim vs use of 'cty', and what the specs say today,
16:42:22 <dmitriz> ... if there's an argument that people will not read the spec (which is what I said about naming of this), I think it's even more concerning that we DO have a spec that specifically warns against what this spec is proposing
16:42:25 <TallTed> +1 dlongley
16:42:31 <TallTed> -1 merge now
16:42:31 <kristina> kristina has joined #vcwg
16:42:40 <dmitriz> ... it seems very inconsistent that people will go read /that/ spec, ignore the text, then go read our spec, and listen to it
16:42:49 <dmitriz> ... so, I'm really confused, generally, about the approach we're taking
16:42:50 <kristina> but jwt bcp does not prevent specific typing of `cty`
16:43:04 <Orie> -1 I feel there is effort to confuse the issue in the comments, and its leading to confusion... the only problem is the "name".... we can bike shed on an issue.
16:43:11 <dmitriz> ... but all that aside. the main concern is with the name that confuses a JWT Claimset, which is very different from a credential in JWT 1.1 format.
16:43:16 <dmitriz> ... it's easily avoidable confusion
16:43:24 <dmitriz> ... if we change the name, I won't block this PR
16:43:45 <brentz_> brentz_ has joined #vcwg
16:43:46 <dmitriz> manu: I find it troubling that we've repeatedly brought up technical issues on this PR, and they're being ignored
16:43:46 <Orie> q+
16:43:52 <TallTed> I see no effort to confuse the issue in the comments, only confirmation that there is confusion about the issue
16:43:54 <brentz_> ack dlongley
16:43:54 <Zakim> dlongley, you wanted to object to merging the PR until the name is chosen
16:43:57 <brentz_> ack manu
16:43:57 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that the specific name is going to find its way into code, and in the average case, confuse things about the "make @context optional" discussion, propose a
16:44:01 <Zakim> ... way forward.
16:44:03 <dmitriz> ... one could argue that this is a continuation of the 'make context optional' conversation
16:44:11 <dmitriz> ... I'm concerned about fairly simple questions not being answered
16:44:21 <dmitriz> ... that said, if people are saying that names don't really matter, let's just merge the PR,
16:44:28 <dmitriz> ... it would be fine if we changed the name to something like
16:44:30 <manu> `application/credential-1.1+TOBEDETERMINED+json`
16:44:39 <Orie> several CEPC issues have already occurred... assuming folks are not aware of the background, or assuming bad faith... let's not do that please.
16:44:48 <manu> `application/credential-1.1+SOME-KIND-OF-JOSE-CLAIM-SET+json`
16:44:51 <dmitriz> ... so that people don't start shipping it in software
16:45:06 <dmitriz> ... since people are asserting that name doesn't matter. so if we rename it to something like this, I won't block the PR
16:45:09 <TallTed> or even `TEMPORARY/application/credential-1.1+json`
16:45:09 <brentz_> ack brentz_
16:45:21 <dmitriz> brentz: I want to run a straw poll, see where consensus lies
16:45:26 <TallTed> which is an invalid media type, but can be used to refer to the specific thing
16:45:36 <dmitriz> ... I've got the text of a proposal I think a lot of people will hate, and we can run it a few different ways
16:45:41 <brentz_> PROPOSAL: The WG will merge https://github.com/w3c/vc-jwt/pull/40 with the name 'application/credential-1.1+jwt' and raise an issue to track further bikeshedding of the name
16:45:44 <dmitriz> ... so let's see what happens, and iterate
16:45:52 <TallTed> -1
16:45:58 <JoeAndrieu> -1
16:45:58 <manu> -1 that's not what the PR is about, IMHO.
16:45:59 <dlongley> -1
16:46:08 <selfissued> -1
16:46:10 <dmitriz> ... and... people all ahte it, wow
16:46:11 <ivan> -1
16:46:19 <dmitriz> manu: it's not about a JWT, it's about a claims set
16:46:23 <mkhraisha> -1
16:46:25 <oliver> -1
16:46:26 <dmitriz> brentz: ok! well, at least we have consensus on that
16:46:27 <Orie> -1
16:46:32 <mprorock> -1
16:46:35 <cabernet> -1
16:46:40 <smccown_> -1
16:46:41 <dmitriz> kristina: I think you should run the same proposal about application.credential json
16:46:49 <dmitriz> selfissued: yeah, that's what's in the PR
16:46:55 <brentz_> PROPOSAL: The WG will merge https://github.com/w3c/vc-jwt/pull/40 and raise an issue to track further bikeshedding of the name
16:46:59 <selfissued> +1
16:47:00 <Orie> +1
16:47:00 <dlongley> -1
16:47:00 <mprorock> +1
16:47:02 <mkhraisha> +1
16:47:03 <JoeAndrieu> -1
16:47:03 <oliver> +1
16:47:03 <TallTed> -1
16:47:05 <cabernet> +1
16:47:05 <dwaite> +1
16:47:06 <manu> -1 there are significant technical concerns that have not been addressed.
16:47:07 <kristina> +1
16:47:11 <shigeya> +1
16:47:13 <smccown_> +1
16:47:20 <Phil> -1
16:47:33 <kristina> tony says +1
16:47:36 <ivan> -1
16:47:44 <decentra_> +0
16:47:48 <andres_> 0
16:47:53 <dlongley> q+
16:47:56 <dmitriz> brentz: we have 6 '-1s', which is more opposition than I was hoping
16:48:02 <dmitriz> ... let's go back to the queue, but I want to know what the path forward is, for the -1s
16:48:02 <manu> q+ to propose something else.
16:48:03 <ivan> ack brentz_
16:48:13 <dmitriz> ... what changes are being required, and is there further conversation to be had
16:48:17 <ivan> ack brentz
16:48:23 <brentz_> ack brentz_
16:48:48 <dmitriz> selfissued: manu, I don't find it's helpful when you say that technical issues have not been addressed. this is a pattern that you have. if you read the comments, you'll find issues are addressed
16:48:57 <dlongley> no, they were not addressed, "explicit typing" uses the `typ` field, this was ignored
16:48:58 <dmitriz> ... I find it unhelpful to cast aspersions on people operating in good faith
16:49:02 <brentz_> ack selfissued
16:49:18 <dmitriz> ... secondly, if it provides a path forward, it's not the end of the world if we add 'claimset' to the name; I'll run a proposal for that
16:49:26 <dmitriz> ... it is redundant, but if it unblocks, I can live with it
16:49:41 <mprorock> or application/credential-claimset-1.1+json
16:49:45 <selfissued> PROPOSAL:  We should merge the PR after changing the name to application/credential-claims-set-1.1+json
16:49:50 <Orie> +1
16:49:55 <oliver> +1
16:49:56 <selfissued> +1
16:49:57 <dlongley> +1
16:50:04 <mprorock> +1
16:50:06 <JoeAndrieu> -1
16:50:07 <decentra_> +1.1
16:50:07 <manu> +0.7 -- better... feel like we can improve from here, though.
16:50:09 <dmitriz> brentz: the proposal is in, is the 1.1. part necessary?
16:50:12 <selfissued> 1.1 is critical
16:50:12 <ivan> +1
16:50:12 <kristina> +1 can we do application/credential-claimset-1.1+json MikeP is proposing?
16:50:15 <cabernet> +1
16:50:15 <dwaite> +1
16:50:17 <dmitriz> ... ok, seems to be a feeling that it's critical
16:50:18 <mkhraisha> +1
16:50:29 <Phil> +1
16:50:34 <TallTed> media types rarely if ever include version numbers, for good reasons
16:50:36 <dmitriz> ... all right, in general, this is way more consensus
16:50:39 <smccown_> +1
16:50:40 <TallTed> -0.8
16:50:46 <dmitriz> ... I'm only seeing one -1 at this point -- Joe, would you like to speak to it?
16:50:52 <brentz_> ack JoeAndrieu
16:50:52 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say naming is hard, but important
16:50:56 <dmitriz> JoeAndrieu: I think we all know that naming is hard,
16:51:20 <dmitriz> ... my concern with the term 'credential' at all is that we have significant and deep confusion in the marketplace between a VC as a digital object, and the real world credentials/claims that are modeled
16:51:31 <selfissued> "Credential" is the term that this WG defined and uses
16:51:32 <dmitriz> ... since it seems like I'm a lone voice, I won't block it, but I wish we had a better name
16:51:37 <TallTed> `application/claimset+json` MIGHT work
16:51:44 <dlongley> q-
16:51:50 <Orie> agree with joe's comment, but I believe its best resolved by merging the PR, so we can define the requirements associated with the name.
16:51:56 <dmitriz> TallTed: media types rarely if ever include a version number in them, for very good reasons. I dont think it should be included
16:52:00 <Orie> q+
16:52:02 <mprorock> q+
16:52:03 <kristina> we could file an issue to revisit this naming before CR to incorporate JoeAndrieu's comment
16:52:03 <manu> q-
16:52:03 <dmitriz> ... if that's vital, I want to know exactly why, in the technical sense
16:52:21 <dlongley> +1 to TallTed, the technical needs are confusing here
16:52:22 <dlongley> q+
16:52:39 <dmitriz> ... as I've said here and in the issue, I really want the people who are approving this to demonstrate they understand the technical aspect of how media types work, since I still don't think everyone who is participating/voting has that understanding, which is I think why the naming is not proceeding well
16:52:49 <dmitriz> ... if you do the naming wrong, it's difficult to fix stuff in the wild
16:53:04 <dmitriz> brentz: the question for you, Ted, is -- if the issue is raised to continue working on the name, would you still be opposed to the PR
16:53:54 <manu> +1 to TallTed, I'm not convinced that the people voting for one approach understand the ramifications at depth (though, it's always difficult to understand if people truly understand).
16:53:54 <dmitriz> TallTed: yes, because if the thing we settle on is going to continue to percolate, tracking it down to change it again might be difficult
16:54:01 <dmitriz> ... unless we do something drastic like adding 'TEMPORARY' to the media type
16:54:01 <kristina> from my observation we rarely have the same level of "technical understanding" in many issues...
16:54:01 <dmitriz> ... so that it's clearly named, but clearly wrong and temporary
16:54:22 <dmitriz> brentz: before we go back to the queue, Ted, I don't appreciate your assertions that those involved do not have the expertise necessary to have the opiniion
16:54:33 <dmitriz> TallTed: I'm basing my assertion on the comments in the issue, that demonstrate the lack of understanding
16:54:41 <dmitriz> ... I'm sorry if that hurts feelings, but that's how it is
16:54:48 <dmitriz> ... I feel it's a technical point, not a personality poi8nt
16:54:55 <dmitriz> brentz: going back to the queue..
16:55:05 <dmitriz> kristina: I'm sorry Brent, I'm still not OK with the language used...
16:55:07 <ivan> s/poi8nt/point/
16:55:38 <dmitriz> TallTed: that's very different language, and I'm sorry, we should have an offline conversation
16:55:53 <mprorock> other options can include application/1_1.credential-claimset+json
16:55:56 <mprorock> q-
16:55:56 <dmitriz> kristina: thank you, yes, let's have it offline
16:55:56 <dmitriz> brentz: we are over time
16:56:02 <dmitriz> Orie: I was queued to comment on the specific binding to 1.1
16:56:14 <dmitriz> ... it is important, because we have need to describe the requirements associated with this object
16:56:40 <dmitriz> ... based on teh way the conversation has gone here, it does seem that with the sole exception of Ted, it would be possible to merge the PR, and continue to bikeshedding the name
16:56:47 <dmitriz> ... but I'm not sure I'm interpreting Joe's comments fully
16:56:56 <brentz_> ack Orie
16:57:00 <TallTed> I see people's typed comments concurring with my spoken words
16:57:00 <brentz_> ack dlongley
16:57:06 <dmitriz> dlongley: just quickly, I appreciate people moving to change the name to address my concern. I''m no longer blocking the PR on those grounds
16:57:13 <manu> q+
16:57:18 <kristina> +1 dlongley
16:57:18 <brentz_> ack manu
16:57:25 <dmitriz> ... I want to caution people that I made a number of technical arguments quoting different specs, I want to make sure you do the right thing
16:57:31 <Orie> Thanks dave, indeed I have read your comments and appreciate them.
16:57:35 <dmitriz> manu: to echo Dave, I also am no longer blocking the PR
16:57:57 <dmitriz> ... I do want to point out this media type discussion is way deeper than what it seems
16:57:57 <dmitriz> ... I'm not sure what the rush is
16:58:13 <dmitriz> ... and explore the things that have been raised multiple types with regard to media type discussion
16:58:17 <kristina> would consider having a special topic call wrt bringing everyone on the same page wrt  media types
16:58:24 <dmitriz> ... so this is a request to the chairs to maybe have a special topic call on media types
16:58:28 <selfissued> We can have a bigger discussion on Media Types during the F2F, if the chairs think that would be valuable
16:58:28 <kristina> yes, manu, was typing exactly thay
16:58:29 <dmitriz> ... so that we can all get on the same page
16:58:35 <kristina> s/thay/that
16:58:37 <dmitriz> brentz: thank you Manu
16:58:48 <dmitriz> ... we are over time, and can have a special topic call
16:58:54 <dmitriz> ... we do need a decision on the proposal though
16:59:09 <dmitriz> ... my inclination as chair is to say - we are raising an issue to handle it, we hear the objections, and will work on addressing those concerns
16:59:16 <dmitriz> ... but I don't want to block the PR
17:00:07 <dmitriz> kristina: Ted, would you prefer a special topic call before merging
17:00:23 <dmitriz> Ted: no, go ahead and merge, if it goes wrong in deployment, I'll wave my 'told you so' hat
17:00:44 <mprorock> see this comment https://github.com/w3c/vc-jwt/pull/40#issuecomment-1403934090
17:00:51 <brentz_> RESOLVED: We should merge the PR after changing the name to application/credential-claims-set-1.1+json and raise an issue to track further bikeshedding of the name
17:01:05 <mprorock> periods can cause issues with some processors
17:01:06 <ivan> s/Ted:/Tallted:/
17:01:09 <dmitriz> brentz: thank you all for attending and for your comments
17:01:23 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:01:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/25-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
17:02:28 <ivan> zakim, bye
17:02:28 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been ivan, mprorock, brent, selfissued, markus, cabernet, dmitriz, orie, shigeya, shawn, dlongley, kerri, manu, abramson, kristina,
17:02:28 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg
17:03:02 <Zakim> ... Kerri_Lemoie, Phil-ASU, TallTed, will, bumblefudge, dlehn1, Phil, mahmoud, jandrieu, kdeangs1, oliver_terbu, decentralgabe, nadalin, JoeAndrieu, dwaite, smccown, gabe,
17:03:02 <Zakim> ... markus_sabadello
17:03:10 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
17:03:10 <RRSAgent> I see no action items