15:47:53 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
15:47:57 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/02/08-vcwg-irc
15:48:02 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #vcwg
15:50:43 <brentz> zakim, start the meeting
15:50:43 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:51:16 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), brentz
15:51:16 <brentz> meeting: VCWG Teleconference
15:51:16 <brentz> chair: Brent Zundel
15:52:32 <brentz> brentz has changed the topic to: VCWG Meeting 2023-02-08: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3094a419-a55e-4608-aac1-6144804c5201/20230208T110000
15:53:32 <Phil-ASU> Phil-ASU has joined #vcwg
15:59:57 <cabernet> cabernet has joined #vcwg
16:00:03 <brentz> present+
16:00:19 <cabernet> present+
16:00:34 <shigeya> present+
16:01:44 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
16:01:49 <DavidC> present+
16:02:32 <dlongley> present+
16:02:32 <mprorock> mprorock has joined #vcwg
16:02:32 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
16:02:32 <TallTed> present+
16:02:32 <Will> Will has joined #vcwg
16:02:32 <JoeAndrieu> present+
16:02:32 <Will> present+
16:02:46 <Will> scribe+
16:02:54 <decentralgabe> decentralgabe has joined #vcwg
16:03:21 <mprorock> present+
16:03:29 <Orie> Orie has joined #vcwg
16:03:31 <Orie> present+
16:04:08 <manu> present+
16:04:40 <Will> brentz: agenda - f2f meeting, code of ethics, work item status & prs, open issues
16:04:59 <manu> q+
16:05:04 <brentz> ack manu
16:05:15 <Will> manu: is the slide deck available
16:05:30 <Will> brentz: yes, slide deck for f2f is available
16:05:46 <Will> ... links will be sent out to group
16:06:03 <Will> ... any introductions
16:06:27 <brentz> Topic: F2F Meeting
16:06:55 <Will> brentz: space for 16 ppl but 18 attendees. Room might be tight
16:07:12 <Will> ... catering for 15 currently
16:07:24 <Will> ... meeting 9-5 from 14th to 16th of Feb
16:07:42 <Will> ... afternoon on 15th we have a boat cruise planned. Cost is 30 dollars
16:07:53 <Will> ... lunches sponsored thanks to mesur.io
16:08:01 <Will> ... and Q's?
16:08:09 <brentz> Topic: CEPC Conversation
16:08:34 <Will> brenz: reminder of code of ethics. Chairs have recieved several compaints recently
16:08:52 <Will> ... need to make extra effort to be kind. Give folks the benifit of the doubt.
16:09:34 <Will> ... happy to take questions
16:09:40 <brentz> Topic: Work Item status updates/PRs
16:09:42 <manu> q+
16:09:51 <brentz> ack manu
16:09:51 <Orie> q+
16:09:56 <Kerri_Lemoie> Kerri_Lemoie has joined #vcwg
16:10:16 <Will> manu: issue #987 awaiting broader discussion
16:10:41 <Will> ... issue #1014 turned into lengthy discussion with some disgreement
16:10:43 <Orie> Indeed we will cover it during the F2F.
16:10:47 <Will> ... expected to deal with at f2f
16:11:14 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1026
16:11:28 <Will> manu: might remove zkp section
16:11:38 <decentralgabe> present+
16:11:40 <Will> ... also have new P.R that changes the zkp section
16:11:49 <Will> ... need to decide how we are going to proces these
16:11:59 <Will> ... thoughts?
16:12:34 <Will> brentz: #1030 incorporates and slightly changes the wording of #1026
16:12:39 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1030
16:12:56 <Will> ... should be straightforward to adjust further or get rid of the section
16:13:08 <Will> manu: orie suggests process in order. Doing that
16:13:40 <Kerri_Lemoie> present+
16:13:44 <Will> ... processing #1026, #1028 then need review on #1030
16:13:51 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-status-list-2021/pull/45
16:13:56 <Will> ... vc status list has 3 PRs
16:14:10 <Will> ... good discussion about bitstring encoding
16:14:22 <Will> ... no one way to encode bitstrings
16:14:32 <Will> ... need to specify how to do this in spce
16:14:52 <Will> ... going to ask if dwight is objecting
16:14:59 <Will> ... implementers need to know to check impls
16:15:11 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-status-list-2021/pull/46
16:15:25 <dlehn> present+
16:15:32 <Will> ... about if status list can be dereferenced
16:15:40 <Will> ... some objections
16:16:03 <Will> ... status list can live on any url, so not sure if we should get specific about http
16:16:11 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-status-list-2021/pull/53
16:16:27 <Will> ... ted asking for editorial changes
16:16:33 <Will> ... looks like it is going to go in soon
16:16:44 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-di-eddsa/pull/24
16:16:46 <Will> ... moving on to edwards curve suite
16:17:00 <Will> ... p.r. to update test vectors
16:17:22 <Will> ... good job, but not a working group member
16:17:45 <Will> ... doesn't look like any ipr issues. needs to be cleared for IP
16:17:56 <Will> ... thats it
16:17:58 <brentz> ack Orie
16:18:01 <Orie> https://github.com/w3c/vc-jwt/pull/44
16:18:08 <Will> orie: One open p.r. for vc jwt
16:18:19 <Will> ... build on previous discussions around media type
16:18:29 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-jwt/pull/44
16:18:31 <Will> ... some off topic conversations moved to other issues
16:18:48 <Will> ... expect to spend time at f2f discussing this
16:19:06 <Will> brentz: any other updates about work items
16:19:14 <brentz> Topic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Adiscuss+sort%3Aupdated-asc
16:19:21 <Will> ... move on to issue processing
16:19:41 <mkhraisha> mkhraisha has joined #vcwg
16:19:42 <Will> ... skipping #988 as holder discussion queued for f2f
16:19:47 <steve_mccown> steve_mccown has joined #vcwg
16:19:51 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/985
16:20:01 <Will> ... enable cbor representations of VCs
16:20:03 <Orie> q+
16:20:10 <mkhraisha> Present+
16:20:15 <Will> ... suggest we should aim for CBOR representation for data model
16:20:20 <manu> q+
16:20:26 <brentz> ack Orie
16:20:48 <Will> Orie: has been proposal for cbor in P.R #1000
16:21:13 <Will> ... conversations around content type property in cose and jose. I will add some links
16:21:22 <Will> ... looking forward to discuss at f2f
16:21:23 <brentz> ack manu
16:21:57 <Will> manu: already cbor representations for VCs. Not standardised. Have cbor-ld that will take jsonld VCs and compress
16:22:00 <Will> ... not standardised
16:22:08 <Will> ... has been used in various pilot programs
16:22:11 <Will> ... going into prod
16:22:33 <Will> ... strongly suggest we don't pick this up at the moment. Have enough on our plate
16:22:43 <Will> ... could provide impl guidlines for cbor
16:23:00 <Will> ... instead of creating a new work item
16:23:09 <Will> brentz: any other comments
16:23:32 <KDeanGS1> KDeanGS1 has joined #vcwg
16:23:37 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/902
16:24:06 <Will> ... define prover in addition to holder. What to folks think?
16:24:16 <Will> ... not sure if we are at a point of agreement on next steps
16:24:19 <Orie> q+
16:24:26 <brentz> ack Orie
16:24:48 <Will> Orie: issue describes itself. Main problem is association with holder binding
16:24:58 <Will> ... become inactionable due to this
16:25:05 <bumblefudge_> bumblefudge_ has joined #vcwg
16:25:24 <Will> ... original intention was to describe that holder undirected. Might want to make it clear the direction
16:25:38 <Will> ... suggest entire data model blocked by holder binding conversation
16:25:52 <Will> ... don't have def with requirements at presentation layer that is useful
16:26:06 <Will> ... hopfully untangle at f2f
16:26:10 <manu> q+
16:26:31 <brentz> ack manu
16:26:31 <andres> andres has joined #vcwg
16:26:53 <Will> manu: orie took shot at high level definitions, longley added some suggestions. Sparked massive discussions
16:26:57 <DavidC> q+
16:27:05 <Will> ... could be that we don't need yet another role or term in ecosystem
16:27:07 <brentz> ack DavidC
16:27:14 <brentz> zakim, who is here?
16:27:14 <Zakim> Present: brentz, cabernet, shigeya, DavidC, dlongley, TallTed, JoeAndrieu, Will, mprorock, Orie, manu, decentralgabe, Kerri_Lemoie, dlehn, mkhraisha
16:27:16 <Zakim> On IRC I see andres, bumblefudge_, KDeanGS1, steve_mccown, mkhraisha, Kerri_Lemoie, Orie, decentralgabe, Will, JoeAndrieu, mprorock, DavidC, cabernet, Phil-ASU, Zakim, RRSAgent,
16:27:16 <Zakim> ... brentz, TallTed, tzviya, dlehn, npd, w3c_modbot, stenr_, cel[h], ounfacdo, dlongley, csarven, manu, shigeya, cel, Dongwoo, stonematt, bigbluehat, hadleybeeman, bumblefudge,
16:27:16 <Zakim> ... cel[m], rhiaro
16:27:18 <Will> DavidC: I think we need two new terms. Get rid of holder all together
16:27:27 <Will> ... two new terms issuee and presenter/prover
16:27:32 <Will> ... those roles never change
16:27:46 <Will> ... holder always changes because vcs passed between holders
16:27:53 <bumblefudge_> +1
16:27:58 <Will> ... holder does not participate in anything particularly
16:28:11 <Will> brentz: thanks for convo. moving on
16:28:18 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/860
16:28:29 <Will> ... determine interoperable way to make claims directly in VPs
16:28:30 <cel> present+
16:28:36 <Will> ... joe raised issue
16:28:47 <Phil-ASU> +1 to David C's statement about holders as indeterminant, not having a defined actionable role.
16:29:04 <Will> JoeAndrieu: not much convo back and forth. Last time there was some pushback on call
16:29:27 <Will> ... tension is do we want to reuse the VC and require a second sig
16:29:31 <bumblefudge_> good point phil-- yes, +1 to that :D
16:29:41 <manu> q+
16:29:41 <Will> ... or is there a way to use a property in the VP and let signer put some assertions in there
16:29:49 <brentz> ack manu
16:29:52 <Will> ... manu and dave thought VC approach better
16:30:03 <Will> manu: concern is that we have primitive already. That is the VC
16:30:14 <dlongley> +1 to reusing the primitive we have already and using composition
16:30:17 <Will> ... can we compose it. VC allows us to say anything about anyone
16:30:45 <Will> ... Additional VC could contain any of the additional contents that an additional property might contain
16:30:52 <Will> ... is true that it would be an additional thing to be issued and signed
16:31:24 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say its about definitively declaring the semantics of that VP
16:31:32 <brentz> q+ to ask what about a new property who's value must eb a VC?
16:31:34 <Will> ... suggested property will eventually become a VC. Why not just use a vc
16:31:39 <brentz> ack JoeAndrieu
16:31:39 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say its about definitively declaring the semantics of that VP
16:31:58 <Will> JoeAndrieu: separate VC need a way to bind to a VP
16:32:16 <Will> ... a way to say that this VC is specifically about a VP when it is presented
16:32:30 <manu> q+ to ask isn't "binding it to the VP" done already by being in the VP?
16:32:35 <Will> ... semantics should be part of a VP added when VP is created
16:32:37 <brentz> ack brentz
16:32:37 <Zakim> brentz, you wanted to ask what about a new property who's value must eb a VC?
16:32:48 <mprorock> q+
16:33:00 <Will> brentz: how terrible would it be to have property in VP. But specify that the value of that property would be a VC
16:33:12 <brentz> ack manu
16:33:12 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask isn't "binding it to the VP" done already by being in the VP?
16:33:13 <dlongley> +1 to what brent said being an option, was having the same thought
16:33:13 <Will> ... so property in VP would be in form of a VC
16:33:30 <Will> manu: its a good though. I had similar. It is a way of doing this. Still thinking about it
16:33:48 <Will> ... raises Q of why we need an additional property in VP to do that
16:34:11 <Will> ... if the VC is in the VP then it is already bound to VP. Its all bound together
16:34:18 <JoeAndrieu> q+ how does the VC refer to the VP?
16:34:40 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to ask how does the VC refer to the VP?
16:34:51 <brentz> q+ to say there really isn't a normatively described way to sign a VP (along with challenge response) do we need one?
16:34:54 <Will> ... Key thing is lets reuse primitives we already have
16:35:10 <brentz> ack mprorock
16:35:13 <Will> ... Just need to address the binding concern
16:35:47 <Will> mprorock: Going the same direction as brent. Feels like a vocab problem
16:36:08 <Will> ... handling this in supply chain tracability. Extended the type on VC to TraceableVC.
16:36:15 <Will> ... this enables linking of VCs together
16:36:39 <manu> q+ to mention "protocol concerns" w/ signing a VP...
16:36:47 <Will> ... if the vocab and data models give us ability to define these things for use cases. Lets do that for those use cases
16:36:54 <Will> ... not reinvent the wheel
16:36:59 <Orie> DIF also extends the RDF type for "VerifiablePresentation"... https://identity.foundation/presentation-exchange/#presentation-submission---verifiable-presentation-2
16:37:08 <manu> +1 to mprorock, we need to have a specific use case someone is building out for to apply this to
16:37:10 <Will> ... The tools we need exist
16:37:14 <brentz> ack JoeAndrieu
16:37:14 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to ask how does the VC refer to the VP?
16:37:35 <Will> JoeAndrieu: I like idea of property whose values are credentials. Push back on making the VCs
16:37:44 <Will> ... want to avoid the need for multiple vcs
16:37:48 <mprorock> q+
16:38:01 <Will> ... if we have multiple VCs in a presentation. Which VC defines the semantics of the presentation
16:38:12 <Will> ... trying to figure out and standardise that
16:38:22 <brentz> ack brentz
16:38:22 <Zakim> brentz, you wanted to say there really isn't a normatively described way to sign a VP (along with challenge response) do we need one?
16:38:24 <mprorock> the presentation type does that, not the credentials in it
16:38:28 <Will> ... semantics of VP are about why is this thing being presented and by whom
16:38:37 <Orie> VP has only 2 requirements... context and type.
16:38:46 <Will> brentz: don't have normatively defined way to sign and secure a VP.
16:39:03 <Will> ... Might this be a way to bind a VP to the presenter
16:39:05 <brentz> ack manu
16:39:05 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to mention "protocol concerns" w/ signing a VP...
16:39:08 <Orie> https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/#presentations-0 see the requirements.
16:39:23 <manu> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vp-request-spec/#did-authentication
16:39:28 <Will> manu: data integrity work covers embedded proofs for presentations
16:39:40 <Will> ... also a VP request spec that talks to this
16:39:57 <Will> ... concern is that some people would think we are now defining protocols. Growth of scope
16:39:58 <mprorock> +1 manu
16:40:07 <Will> ... hard to talk about presentations without going into protocols
16:40:09 <Orie> OIDC has ways of doing this as well, perhaps someone can cite those items for the minutes as well?
16:40:41 <Will> ... agree with mprorock. For us to say this is applicable and useful need to see usecases in the field and then standardise from that
16:40:50 <JoeAndrieu> q?
16:40:51 <Will> ... find comonalities instead of generalise too early
16:40:59 <brentz> ack mprorock
16:41:11 <Will> mprorock: I agree with manu
16:41:11 <Orie> For the minutes: https://openid.net/specs/openid-4-verifiable-presentations-1_0.html
16:41:24 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say we have good use cases
16:41:39 <Will> ... when you start to get into practicalities, start going into protocols.
16:42:26 <Will> ... many of this issues we are correcting and improving in vc data model spec are down to how we thought something would/does work in the wild
16:42:47 <brentz> ack JoeAndrieu
16:42:47 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say we have good use cases
16:42:51 <Will> ... against adding additional complexity, rather that seeing what happens in implementations
16:43:02 <Will> JoeAndrieu: frustrated to deference to implementations
16:43:14 <Will> ... we have use cases in the use case document that have requirements from start
16:43:26 <mprorock> then define a vocab
16:43:28 <Will> ... The semantics of what the presentations means is the gap
16:43:38 <Orie> q+ to explain the semantic requirements of a VP.
16:43:40 <mprorock> q+
16:43:40 <Will> ... we have use cases that we haven't been able to adress currently because of this
16:43:50 <Will> ... Need to define semantics of a VP
16:43:55 <brentz> ack Orie
16:43:55 <Zakim> Orie, you wanted to explain the semantic requirements of a VP.
16:44:06 <Will> Orie: joe is getting at 2 possible world views
16:44:56 <Will> ... 1 - purely the responsiblity of the data model. Almost what we have today. Clear that protocols will extend using @context and type to support there use cases
16:45:09 <DavidC> q+
16:45:10 <Will> ... Because it landed like this in 1.1. people are defering to protocol
16:45:25 <Will> ... also concerned about getting into protocols in this WG
16:46:00 <Will> ... Feel protocols are adding many more requirements to VPs
16:46:03 <brentz> ack mprorock
16:46:09 <mkhraisha> mkhraisha has joined #vcwg
16:46:11 <Will> ... concerned about VPs in there current form in the spec
16:46:32 <Will> mprorock: agree, there are things we need to improve about VPs in spec. Not sure this is one of them
16:46:36 <mkhraisha> Q+ to talk about issuer field being in a similar place
16:46:58 <Will> ... Deal with gov and regulatory folks. They are relatively happy with it the way it is
16:47:09 <Will> ... worried about getting pulled off on tangents
16:47:11 <brentz> ack DavidC
16:47:23 <Will> DavidC: I support JoeAndrieu's view
16:47:39 <manu> q+ to get to a concrete proposal? can we extend VP first to see how this applies to the use cases?
16:47:42 <Will> ... This is about holder or presenter telling the verifier about the contents of the VP and how they should handle them
16:47:42 <mprorock> "type"
16:47:54 <Will> ... likely something about holder binding too. Proof of possession
16:48:12 <Will> ... Think we do need to broaden the data model for VPs in a standard way
16:48:26 <Will> ... if do it for your own applications then you are doing it in a non standard way
16:48:29 <brentz> ack mkhraisha
16:48:29 <Zakim> mkhraisha, you wanted to talk about issuer field being in a similar place
16:48:30 <Kerri_Lemoie> Part of the confusion with VPs in the ecosystems that VPs are used for things other than presenting VCs
16:48:42 <Will> mkhraisha: Have similar problem with the issuer field
16:49:01 <Will> ... Not very clear to me who gets to define the values in the issuer field and what it looks like
16:49:11 <Will> ... don't want to derail this convo, but tangentially related
16:49:26 <Will> ... suggest extend VP the same way as the traceability vocab
16:49:27 <brentz> ack manu
16:49:27 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to get to a concrete proposal? can we extend VP first to see how this applies to the use cases?
16:49:30 <Will> manu: agree with mkhraisha
16:49:43 <Will> ... would help me to understand concretely what the solns look like
16:50:08 <Will> ... we have extensibility model. Nothing to stop anyone creating an extension to solve use cases that JoeAndrieu is talking about
16:50:12 <Orie> RDF is the extensibility model for Verifiable Presentations... context and type... that is it.
16:50:28 <Will> ... suggest we should do this to create something concrete we can look art
16:50:35 <Orie> We've seen several use cases of vocabularies doing this today.
16:50:48 <Will> brentz: have a couple more minutes
16:50:58 <bumblefudge_> (not too much less ambitious)
16:50:58 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/895
16:50:59 <Will> ... going to spend this talking about ACDC
16:51:21 <Will> ... glief recently joined w3c and intends to join this WG
16:51:40 <Will> ... hopes to push for way to secure VCs using ACDC
16:51:47 <Will> ... should talk about that possibility
16:52:03 <Orie> q+ to comment on the relevant of media types
16:52:11 <mprorock> q+
16:52:22 <manu> +1 for a concrete proposal on how ACDC secures the VC Data Model
16:52:23 <Will> ... my perspective is we need a way for the current 1.1 VCDM to be secured using ACDC without requiring significant changes to the data model
16:52:27 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to advocate for concrete proposals
16:52:48 <Will> ... Have an idea how it could work, but not necessarily the best way
16:52:51 <brentz> ack Orie
16:52:51 <Zakim> Orie, you wanted to comment on the relevant of media types
16:53:04 <Will> Orie: Been making progress together on this
16:53:14 <Will> ... looking at media types and the requirements associated with a media type
16:53:22 <Will> ... have one currently registered
16:53:56 <brentz> +1 I think media type have a lot of promise for clarifying these issues
16:54:03 <Will> ... this might seem compicated but actually rel simple
16:54:19 <Will> ... I have prepared slides for f2f to go over media types
16:54:19 <brentz> zakim, close the queue
16:54:19 <Zakim> ok, brentz, the speaker queue is closed
16:54:29 <Will> ... a media type is what we say a credential is.
16:54:44 <Will> ... It describes the requirements of a credential - for this working group
16:54:50 <brentz> ack mprorock
16:55:04 <bumblefudge_> s/gordian knot/gordian envelope/* :D
16:55:05 <Will> mprorock: would love to see concrete proposal
16:55:23 <Will> ... WG still struggling how to properly support the existing standards for signing data
16:55:33 <Orie> I'm not in favor of the working group picking up more work, given the current progress and challenges.
16:55:39 <Will> ... stuff has been out and in broad usage for a long time. Well established standards
16:56:04 <Will> ... welcome a proposal, but also want to see it turn into a properly incubated spec elsewhere
16:56:07 <brentz> +1 Mike
16:56:24 <Will> ... loathe to add more to our plate in this WH
16:56:29 <Will> ... WG
16:56:46 <Will> ... have plenty to be working on already in this WG
16:57:04 <brentz> ack JoeAndrieu
16:57:04 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to advocate for concrete proposals
16:57:21 <Will> JoeAndrieu: agree with mprorock. Lot of approaches want to fit in with the VC work
16:57:26 <Will> ... concrete proposal welcome
16:57:37 <Will> ... not this working groups job to figure out how to support this work
16:57:46 <mprorock> +1 Joe
16:57:48 <Orie> +1 Joe
16:57:51 <dlongley> +1 Joe
16:57:57 <manu> +1 Joe and mprorock
16:58:03 <shigeya> +1 Joe Mike
16:58:03 <Will> ... open to tweaking the data model, but need concrete proposal
16:58:26 <Will> brentz: agree currently don't have capacity
16:58:35 <Will> ... thanks all. See you in miami for those who can join
16:58:47 <Will> ... will be able to participate remotely too for those who can't
16:59:08 <JoeAndrieu> goal is to wrap 5 before (w3c wide)
16:59:22 <brentz> zakim, who is here?
16:59:22 <Zakim> Present: brentz, cabernet, shigeya, DavidC, dlongley, TallTed, JoeAndrieu, Will, mprorock, Orie, manu, decentralgabe, Kerri_Lemoie, dlehn, mkhraisha, cel
16:59:25 <Zakim> On IRC I see andres, bumblefudge_, KDeanGS1, steve_mccown, Kerri_Lemoie, Orie, JoeAndrieu, mprorock, DavidC, Phil-ASU, Zakim, RRSAgent, brentz, TallTed, tzviya, dlehn, npd,
16:59:26 <Zakim> ... w3c_modbot, stenr_, cel[h], ounfacdo, dlongley, csarven, manu, shigeya, cel, Dongwoo, stonematt, bigbluehat, hadleybeeman, bumblefudge, cel[m], rhiaro
16:59:37 <brentz> present+ shawnb
17:00:16 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
17:00:16 <brentz> present+ dmitriz
17:00:26 <brentz> present+ steve_mccown
17:00:34 <brentz> present+ Phil-ASU
17:00:57 <brentz> zakim, end the meeting
17:00:57 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been brentz, cabernet, shigeya, DavidC, dlongley, TallTed, JoeAndrieu, Will, mprorock, Orie, manu, decentralgabe, Kerri_Lemoie, dlehn,
17:01:01 <Zakim> ... mkhraisha, cel, shawnb, dmitriz, steve_mccown, Phil-ASU
17:01:01 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:01:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/08-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim
17:01:10 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, brentz; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:01:10 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg
17:02:18 <brentz> rrsagent, bye
17:02:18 <RRSAgent> I see no action items