18:44:50 RRSAgent has joined #vcwg 18:44:54 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/03/15-vcwg-irc 18:56:45 brent has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda: 2023-03-15 https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/c5abcc63-337b-4ebb-97af-7cc2fb63de11/20230315T150000 18:57:01 zakim, start the meeting 18:57:01 RRSAgent, make logs Public 18:57:02 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), brent 18:57:11 meeting: VCWG Teleconference 18:57:18 chair: Kristina Yasuda 18:58:32 present+ 18:59:06 present+ 19:00:24 present+ 19:00:49 decentralgabe has joined #vcwg 19:00:53 present+ 19:00:56 present+ 19:00:58 kristina has joined #vcwg 19:00:59 JoeAndrieu_ has joined #vcwg 19:01:00 kdeangs1 has joined #vcwg 19:01:00 present+ 19:01:01 present+ 19:01:04 SamSmith has joined #vcwg 19:01:13 present+ 19:01:14 Kerri_Lemoie has joined #vcwg 19:01:26 scribe+ 19:01:33 kgriffin has joined #vcwg 19:02:58 q+ to propose ECDSA Data Integrity Cryptosuite as a work item. 19:03:01 andres has joined #vcwg 19:03:03 dwaite has joined #vcwg 19:03:06 present+ 19:03:09 daniel_hardman has joined #vcwg 19:03:10 present+ 19:03:16 phil-ASU has joined #vcwg 19:03:18 selfissued has joined #vcwg 19:03:20 PhilF has joined #vcwg 19:03:24 Kristina: agenda is work items proposals and some existing work items, and PRs from special topics call, maybe issue sif have time 19:03:24 present+ 19:03:25 present+ 19:03:26 present+ 19:03:26 present+ 19:03:32 present+ 19:03:42 present+ 19:04:04 present+ 19:04:30 present+ 19:04:33 gkellogg has joined #vcwg 19:04:38 q+ to propose vc-acdc as a work item with rewording from the mailing list 19:04:46 Kristina: Welcome Mike Prorock as editor of vcwjwt as announced on the mailing list. 19:04:47 ack manu 19:04:47 manu, you wanted to propose ECDSA Data Integrity Cryptosuite as a work item. 19:04:57 ack kgriffin 19:04:57 kgriffin, you wanted to propose vc-acdc as a work item with rewording from the mailing list 19:05:00 Introductions? 19:05:03 q+ to propose ECDSA Data Integrity Cryptosuite as a work item. 19:05:12 ack manu 19:05:12 manu, you wanted to propose ECDSA Data Integrity Cryptosuite as a work item. 19:05:13 Orie has joined #vcwg 19:05:16 present+ 19:05:30 q+ kgriffin 19:05:44 zakim, who is here? 19:05:44 Present: brent, stenr, shigeya_, decentralgabe, manu, dlongley, kristina, JoeAndrieu_, andres, dwaite, kgriffin, daniel_hardman, selfissued, phil-ASU, PhilF, SamSmith, TallTed, 19:05:48 ... kdeangs, Orie 19:05:48 On IRC I see Orie, gkellogg, PhilF, selfissued, phil-ASU, daniel_hardman, dwaite, andres, kgriffin, Kerri_Lemoie, SamSmith, kdeangs1, JoeAndrieu_, kristina, decentralgabe, 19:05:48 ... RRSAgent, Zakim, brent, dmitriz, TallTed, tzviya, dlehn, w3c_modbot, ounfacdo, saysaywhat, npd, cel[h], bumblefudge1, cel[m], Github, bumblefudge, shigeya_, cel, manu, csarven, 19:05:48 ... stonematt, Dongwoo, bigbluehat, hadleybeeman, dlongley, stenr, rhiaro 19:05:52 Demonstration of Support for ECDSA Cryptosuite Adoption into VCWG: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2023Mar/0095.html 19:06:04 shawnb has joined #vcwg 19:06:11 present+ 19:06:14 manu: About ECDSA - transitioned from CCG to final report last June. Signatures of support went out to the mailing list. 21 signatures from implementers and W3C members. 19:06:29 mkhraisha has joined #vcwg 19:06:31 present+ drummond 19:06:39 q? 19:06:39 gkellogg has joined #vcwg 19:06:39 man: purpose to have a crypto security suite for hardware 19:06:42 markus_sabadello has joined #vcwg 19:06:46 present+ 19:06:50 Present+ 19:06:54 present+ dmitriz 19:06:58 q+ to propose credential schema 2022 19:07:08 smccown has joined #vcwg 19:07:16 q- 19:07:22 ack kgriffin 19:07:26 kgriffin: acdc work item updated with new language and resubmitted for agenda 19:07:40 kristina: we'll stick to ecdsa item for the moment.... 19:07:58 present+ PaulDietrich 19:08:11 oliver has joined #vcwg 19:08:16 present+ 19:08:24 kristina: seeking consensus on this call to pursue this work item 19:08:54 drummond has joined #vcwg 19:09:01 kristina: any suggestions to change this proposal? 19:09:01 present+ 19:09:20 PROPOSAL: Adopt the ECDSA Cryptosuite (https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-di-ecdsa/) as a work item in the VCWG with a preliminary short name of 'vc-di-ecdsa'. 19:09:26 +1 19:09:26 +1 19:09:26 +1 19:09:26 +1 19:09:27 +1 19:09:27 0 19:09:28 +1 19:09:28 +1 19:09:28 +1 19:09:30 +1 19:09:30 0 19:09:30 +1 19:09:30 +1 19:09:31 +1 19:09:32 +1 19:09:32 +1 19:09:33 +1 19:09:33 +1 19:09:34 0 19:09:38 0 19:09:40 0 19:09:42 +1 19:10:00 +1 19:10:03 +1 19:10:31 kristina: Officially adopting ECDSA Cryptosuite as a work item 19:10:35 q? 19:10:48 RESOLVED: Adopt the ECDSA Cryptosuite (https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-di-ecdsa/) as a work item in the VCWG with a preliminary short name of 'vc-di-ecdsa'. 19:11:29 Paul_Dietrich_GS1 has joined #vcwg 19:11:33 q? 19:11:33 q+ 19:11:37 ack manu 19:11:39 kristina: Any additions or discussion for ACDC work item? 19:11:42 present+ Kerri_Lemoie 19:12:35 can we explain the details of the IETF changes? 19:13:26 q+ to explain IETF timeline 19:13:28 q+ 19:14:26 ack kgriffin 19:14:26 kgriffin, you wanted to explain IETF timeline 19:14:29 manu: Positive: likes IETF changes, positive signal that members of the community are in favor, not a heavy lift, mirrors vcjwt-- positive but won't be able to work on it. 19:14:38 ack SamSmith 19:14:43 oliver_ has joined #vcwg 19:14:43 present+ mkhraisha 19:14:45 present+ 19:15:25 present+ smccown 19:15:48 present+ cabernet 19:16:06 q? 19:16:06 sam: has been communicating acdc is various groups and quite a bit of understanding. Focused on acdc in production and now will be able to focus on the spec work at various groups. 19:16:28 Would have been nice to have a bit more of that scribbed. 19:16:29 SamSMit: ACDC is complete spec that just needs to be socialized 19:16:48 s/SamSMit/SamSmith 19:17:00 q+ 19:17:35 SamSmith: Work item allows us to pursue this even though it isn't an existing standard. 19:18:18 IETF BOFs: https://www.ietf.org/how/bofs/ 19:18:19 kristin & SamSmith: the plan is to do BoF at IETF which is one step before this becomes a working group. 19:18:28 it took SATP 3 IETF meetings to get a WG.... and several years. 19:18:41 SamSmith: this will be done in July in SF 19:18:44 ack Orie 19:19:39 q? 19:19:58 Christopher_Allen has joined #vcwg 19:20:05 present+ 19:20:12 q? 19:20:20 Orie: Feels that resolution from face to face allows for mappings from the vc model to be constructed outside of the wg. This WG isn't required to do these mappings. One of the opportunities if it isn't in the wg is that others outside this group could work at it. 19:20:26 q+ to say VCs are what is described in VCDM, mappings to that are different media types. we have no say over other groups registering media types 19:20:30 q+ to respond 19:20:33 q+ 19:20:37 q+ to note that it would behoove the VCWG to have mappings done in the WG given that this the new direction is... new... and we're still figuring all of this out. 19:20:43 ack JoeAndrieu_ 19:20:43 JoeAndrieu_, you wanted to say VCs are what is described in VCDM, mappings to that are different media types. we have no say over other groups registering media types 19:20:53 Orie: what's the document level requirements? 19:21:45 +1 to Joe on the resolution 19:21:51 q+ to object. 19:21:55 +1 to Joe's very important distinction 19:22:11 -1 to that interpretation of the resolution, that was not my understanding. 19:22:37 q+ to further elaborate on the distinction 19:22:41 We specifically discussed mDoc, in this context. 19:22:43 JoeAndrieu_: This group will register a media type - vc+ld+json what we did not say is that other groups with media types (some other mapping) are not necessarily VCs. 19:23:04 I am fine to clear the q, and just process vc-acdc. 19:23:06 ack kgriffin 19:23:06 kgriffin, you wanted to respond 19:23:13 zakim, close the queue 19:23:13 ok, kristina, the speaker queue is closed 19:23:34 Can we include the latest draft here for the minutes? 19:23:48 PROPOSAL: Adopt the W3C vc-acdc transformation specification with the acknowledgement that the underlying normative references will need to progress to Last Call in IETF Working Groups (or other equivalent) before the vc-acdc specification can progress to W3C Candidate Recommendation which would include normative references to the KERI, ACDC and CESR specifications. Short name ‘vc-acdc’ 19:23:54 Yes, that answers the question, the references must be to a document in WGLC at IETF. 19:24:10 s/PROPOSAL/DRAFT PROPOSAL/ 19:24:17 kgriffin: clarify where would teh document barriers be: before any normative references about acdc would be included in vc spec, they'd be accepted at IETF 19:24:24 q- 19:24:27 ack Christopher_Allen 19:25:40 to reponds to kristina's request for the url: https://weboftrust.github.io/vc-acdc/ 19:26:01 gkellogg has joined #vcwg 19:26:05 Apologies for the irc mistake 19:26:10 +1 to CAllen note but not exclusively 19:26:16 q? 19:26:18 ack manu 19:26:18 manu, you wanted to note that it would behoove the VCWG to have mappings done in the WG given that this the new direction is... new... and we're still figuring all of this out. 19:26:57 q- 19:27:06 Yes, mappings from media types to the VC media type. That doesn't make the new media types VCs. It makes them transformable to VCs 19:27:42 +1 Manu to more transformations to help refine the approach 19:27:47 The resolution says those are "native vc's"... they are VCs, they a mapping exists, and the mapping can be defined anywhere. 19:28:08 To save time and not take us further off topic: My understanding is that the resolution was that any other representations of VCs that this working group, the *VCWG*, defines will need to express a transformation mapping -- which must be either done in a spec in this group or in a spec this group can reference. 19:28:15 +1 Manu, that is the language we added. 19:28:32 zakim, open the queue 19:28:32 ok, kristina, the speaker queue is open 19:28:39 q+ 19:29:00 sry, I am still looking for a citation on the WGLC bit, in the document. 19:29:15 @orie, I don't recall the word "native" in the resolution. 19:29:17 is that here: https://weboftrust.github.io/vc-acdc/ ? 19:29:25 ack orie 19:29:44 q+ 19:29:52 q- 19:30:31 ahh, i understant 19:30:42 s/understant/understand/ 19:30:46 Orie: Where is the language for the references to IETF in the proposal? 19:31:04 q? 19:31:12 I procedure question: Do we need a resolution now (given deadlines) to have as a goal for a note about transformation? 19:31:17 DRAFT PROPOSAL: Adopt the W3C vc-acdc transformation specification with the acknowledgement that the underlying normative references will need to progress to Last Call in IETF Working Groups (or other equivalent) before the vc-acdc specification can progress to W3C Candidate Recommendation which would include normative references to the KERI, ACDC and CESR specifications. Short name ‘vc-acdc’ 19:31:24 I also don't want it limited to ACDC. 19:31:31 +0 19:31:41 PROPOSAL: Adopt the W3C vc-acdc transformation specification with the acknowledgement that the underlying normative references will need to progress to Last Call in IETF Working Groups (or other equivalent) before the vc-acdc specification can progress to W3C Candidate Recommendation which would include normative references to the KERI, ACDC and CESR specifications. Short name ‘vc-acdc’ 19:31:48 +1 19:31:50 +0.5 19:31:50 +1 19:31:51 0 19:31:52 +1 19:31:52 +0.5 19:31:52 -1 19:31:52 0 19:31:54 +1 19:31:54 +1 19:31:57 -1 if it is limited to acdc 19:32:03 0 19:32:05 0 19:32:10 +0 19:32:10 +.5 19:32:12 +0 19:32:14 +1 19:32:14 0 19:32:17 +1 19:32:19 +0 19:32:19 +0.5 19:32:21 0 19:32:30 +.5 19:32:36 -1 from Mesur.io 19:32:42 +1 19:32:52 @Christopher, this is specific to a particular work item, not a general strategy for adopting any mappable representation 19:32:58 q+ 19:33:10 +0.5 19:33:29 ack TallTed 19:33:34 -1 19:34:03 reason for the -1, is that, while I agree waiting for WGLC at IETF is good, I would prefer to not spend time reviewing or contributing to a document based on references that have not made it to RFC... and as I said before, this work can progress outside this WG. 19:34:22 TallTed: what is the mechanism for other representations to come in if we're letting ACDC in now when in feature freeze? Is there no path for others? 19:34:38 @tallted +1 - it feels like a premature lock-in. 19:34:42 q+ to warn about the broader interpretation of day 3 resolution 19:35:02 TallTed: how can other representations achieve the same status. A registry or directory? Then should ACDC belong there too? 19:35:10 ack Orie 19:35:10 Orie, you wanted to warn about the broader interpretation of day 3 resolution 19:35:58 q+ to ask how that would affect the existing vc-jwt work we felt they were parrallel, despite underlying technology differences 19:36:14 Orie: ACDC should go to the VC Specs directory where it can be incubated outside of this working group. 19:36:35 q+ to say vc specs directory is not just for VC specifications 19:36:48 Orie: It would still be a valid format if not worked on in this group. 19:37:00 csarven has joined #vcwg 19:37:19 If that is true interpretation then vc-jwt does not need to be part of the spec either. Either all transformation go through the steps to be a valid external proof or not. 19:37:37 +1 to SamSmith 19:37:46 Orie: VC-ACDC work item not necessary because mapping can be done outside of the WG. 19:37:48 +1 to Sam 19:38:11 +1 to Sam, that is what I qued to say 19:38:13 Still -1 on the proposal, for reasons stated after. 19:38:19 +1 to Sam 19:38:21 q- 19:38:36 Is it not true that refusal to accept a work item can't be based on not wanting to contribute work? 19:39:01 that does not feel like we've reached consensus yet. 19:39:09 q+ 19:39:15 q- 19:39:15 kristina: not comfortable consensus has been reached. 19:39:26 The authors thank the chairs 19:39:28 brent: chairs will continue the discussion and let the group know. 19:39:28 q+ to provide some input on "rough consensus" 19:39:36 Is there then not more discussion on how to resolve the -1s? 19:39:43 q? 19:39:44 lolz @ Orie 19:39:45 q- 19:39:57 ack manu 19:39:57 manu, you wanted to provide some input on "rough consensus" 19:40:05 lol orie 19:40:24 discussing/addressing the -1's could be well taken to the mailing list... 19:40:54 I do see a lot of support for the proposal -- and it makes for a bigger tent. I also believe Christopher's work should be able to be in the big tent. 19:41:06 I would like to see acdc to move forward, but just avoid a lock-in. 19:41:06 manu: we do have rough consensus because there is a lot of support and -1 aren't technical concerns. 19:41:11 +1 to manu 19:41:11 q+ 19:41:13 manu: defer to chairs 19:41:15 This proposal has nothing to do with Christopher's work 19:41:32 Not just for me, there may be others emerging. 19:41:42 Agree 19:41:43 ^ +1 to answering the question. 19:41:52 q+ on how vc-gordian moves forward. 19:42:00 ack SamSmith 19:42:03 SamSmith: Will answering Christopher_Allen's question change the rough consensus? 19:42:12 q+ to talk about media types 19:42:17 +1 Christopher_Allen 19:42:28 This has been my point. 19:42:39 -1 Christopher Allen 19:43:12 Christopher_Allen: if other groups can demonstrate that they can be a vc are they a vc or do they need to be in the directory? 19:43:20 qq+ to respond 19:43:26 ack brent 19:43:26 brent, you wanted to react to SamSmith to respond 19:43:28 I think the day 3 resolution is dead at this point... clearly it is not interpreted consistently. 19:44:09 I'll move to +0 — I'll not block. 19:44:14 brent: Christopher_Allen the +1 is only for acdc to be a work item 19:44:50 Christopher_Allen: is being a work item now becoming a new way to limit innovation? 19:45:08 Christopher_Allen: not blocking 19:45:29 ack manu 19:45:29 manu, you wanted to comment on how vc-gordian moves forward. 19:45:50 I actually resonate with Christopher Allens concern 19:45:59 Can we get a formal proposal that? 19:46:01 manu: That's not the intent and day 3 resolution not being interpreted the same by everyone. Do not need approval form the working group to get in the directory. 19:46:17 For the record, vc-jwt is based on documents that made it to RFC, prior to being even developed in relation to W3C documents. This is my technical objection to the vc-acdc work. 19:46:53 And again, vc-adc can be called a VC without being worked on at this group, according to my interpretation of day 3 resolution. 19:47:04 and the same would apply to vc-gordion. 19:47:26 We can recharter and extend for vc2.1 should as vc-gordian which we want to support. 19:47:28 Gordian will take longer, which is why I've not proposed it ;-) 19:47:43 I remain concerned that this is effectively vc-acdc "blessing", and disturbed that the same voices which are against DID method "blessing" are not voicing the same against vc-acdc "blessing". Other specs (like vc-gordian) need a path to reach the same "blessed" state, whatever that state really is (listed in a directory? a registry? something else that is NOT work within VCWG which has feature frozen). 19:47:59 Can chair address how we recharter for 2.1 19:48:03 q? 19:48:19 q+ 19:48:30 ack JoeAdnrieu_ 19:48:51 Orie - I don't know what could be seen as a blank check... 19:49:00 JoeAndrieu_: +1 to Manu - being in the directory doesn't mean it's a VC. 19:49:22 +1 as long it points to the media type mapping spec 19:49:44 q+ 19:49:57 ack JoeAndrieu_ 19:49:57 JoeAndrieu_, you wanted to talk about media types 19:50:20 ack Orie 19:50:21 ahh, that is it... this working group is the only WG that can register VC media types... is that the interpretation of day 3? 19:50:23 q= 19:50:24 JoeAndrieu_: other media types can be mappable to the primary media type. VCACDC is its own media type. Other orgs can register their own media type but this WG approves media types related to VCs and meet requirements. 19:50:30 W3C VC is different than VC. 19:51:00 Q+ 19:51:05 orie: interpretation that other wg can register media types for VCs as long as they define a mapping not just this group 19:51:07 q+ 19:51:26 the only authority this WG has is to say whether something is a W3C VC or not 19:51:29 JoeAndrieu_: this wg doesn't have the authority to prevent other groups form submitting media types 19:51:35 s/form/from 19:51:57 q+ to note there will be objections when the registrations happen at IANA. 19:52:02 orie: anyone that defines a mapping to a vc makes it a vc 19:52:09 +1 to Joe, conforming to the VCDM is what is required and what is key. 19:52:12 ack oliver_ 19:52:14 JoeAndrieu_: it needs to be conformant to VC spec though 19:52:47 Ok, sounds to me like VCWG does not control if application/vc+.... and in fact anyone can register media types, that a bi-directional or unidirectional mapping exists is the only requirement per day 3. 19:53:21 q? 19:53:24 oliver_: need a way to register media type with mapping. Whoever suggests a mapping provides a test suite to demonstrate the mapping to prove they are compliant with VCs 19:54:12 gkellogg has joined #vcwg 19:54:24 SamSmith: In Miami talked about the freeze and process and that other proposals still have opportunities to be part of the 2.1 process 19:54:36 @orie, we control the registration of vc+ld+json, and any other media types we create. other media types are other peoples business. 19:54:48 kristina: get through 2.0 before 2.1 and rechartering 19:54:56 draft proposal: vc extensions directory will have an entry for the documents that define the mappings to vcdm and these document can be defined outside W3C VC WG. 19:55:15 +1 19:55:16 +1 19:55:31 +1 19:55:34 +1 19:55:54 proposal: vc extensions directory will have an entry for the documents that define the mappings to vcdm and these document can be defined outside W3C VC WG. 19:55:59 +1 19:56:00 +1 19:56:00 +1 19:56:00 +1 19:56:01 +1 19:56:01 +1 19:56:02 +1 19:56:02 +1 19:56:04 +1 19:56:05 +1 19:56:05 +1 19:56:07 +1 19:56:08 +1 19:56:09 +1 19:56:10 +1 19:56:11 +1 19:56:12 +1 19:56:13 +1 if some sort of test suite is also provided 19:56:14 -1 19:56:14 +1 19:56:25 +1 (agree with oliver that test suite might be a good requirement) 19:56:34 q+ 19:57:12 kristina: resolution passed in Miami didn't require test suite. It's important but it should be kept out right now. 19:57:45 q- 19:57:56 q- 19:58:09 sure. multiple transformations are possible, but I'd recommend you standardize on one 19:58:17 +1 to Joe 19:58:32 it says "the mappings" plural... 19:59:07 draft proposal: vc extensions directory will have an entry for the documents that define possible mappings to vcdm and these document can be defined outside W3C VC WG 19:59:10 Michale Jones: there could be multiple mappings 19:59:26 manu: change to "vc specifications directory" 20:00:15 q+ to talk about gatekeeping 20:00:18 TallTed: "possible" implies that the mapping may not be compliant 20:00:30 kristina: should be mapped fully 20:00:36 draft PROPOSAL: VC spec directory will have an entry for documents that define a mapping to VCDM and these documents can be defined outside W3C VCWG. 20:00:45 mapping of MUSTs is not the same as mapping of MAy or SHOULD 20:00:46 +1 20:00:48 PROPOSAL: VC spec directory will have an entry for documents that define a mapping to VCDM and these documents can be defined outside W3C VCWG. 20:00:53 0 20:00:54 +1 20:00:55 +1 20:00:56 +1 20:00:57 +1 20:00:57 +1 20:00:59 +🦙 (llama -- which is a positive vote) 20:01:00 +1 20:01:02 +1 20:01:02 +1 20:01:02 +1 20:01:03 +1 20:01:03