14:49:05 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
14:49:09 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/03/22-vcwg-irc
14:49:09 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:49:10 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:49:18 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
14:49:19 <ivan> Date: 2023-03-22
14:49:19 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3094a419-a55e-4608-aac1-6144804c5201/20230322T110000
14:49:19 <ivan> chair: brent
14:49:19 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2023-03-22: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3094a419-a55e-4608-aac1-6144804c5201/20230322T110000
14:56:44 <samsmith> samsmith has joined #vcwg
14:57:17 <mprorock> mprorock has joined #vcwg
14:57:49 <brent_> brent_ has joined #vcwg
14:59:17 <aisp> aisp has joined #vcwg
14:59:27 <aisp> present+
14:59:34 <mprorock> present+
15:00:10 <cabernet> cabernet has joined #vcwg
15:00:26 <kevingriffin> kevingriffin has joined #vcwg
15:00:37 <ivan> present+
15:00:43 <PL-ASU> PL-ASU has joined #vcwg
15:00:45 <ivan> present+ kristina
15:00:59 <PL-ASU> present+
15:01:07 <TallTed> present+
15:01:34 <ivan> present+ mprorock
15:01:48 <aisp> present+
15:01:55 <manu> present+
15:02:02 <kevingriffin> present+
15:02:36 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
15:02:40 <DavidC> present+
15:02:52 <Kerri_Lemoie> Kerri_Lemoie has joined #vcwg
15:02:55 <Kerri_Lemoie> present+
15:03:10 <ivan> present+ PaulDietrich
15:03:11 <ivan> present+ elfors
15:03:37 <samsmith> present+
15:03:37 <ivan> present+ griffin
15:03:52 <ivan> present+ jeremie
15:03:52 <andres> andres has joined #vcwg
15:03:56 <andres> present+
15:04:00 <dlongley> present+
15:04:01 <ivan> present+ dlongley, orie, brent
15:04:20 <ivan> present+ andres
15:04:30 <ivan> present+ selfissued
15:04:46 <ivan> present+ kdean
15:05:01 <decentralgabe> decentralgabe has joined #vcwg
15:05:02 <decentralgabe> present+
15:05:13 <ivan> present+ gabe
15:05:36 <PL-ASU> scribe+
15:05:37 <cabernet> present+
15:06:00 <Paul_DIetrich_GS1> Paul_DIetrich_GS1 has joined #vcwg
15:06:21 <PL-ASU> Brent: three work item proposals  today
15:06:46 <kristina> kristina has joined #vcwg
15:06:50 <kristina> present+
15:07:20 <ivan> present+ shawn
15:07:27 <PL-ASU> Sam: Addition to the agend  formal vote count at Miami re: ac/dc and clarification for what is meant by external proof meaning for compliance with VC data model
15:07:48 <kristina> s/agend/agenda
15:08:54 <PL-ASU> Brent: where second vote was taken on AC/DC proposal 14 +1 13 who did NOT indicate support  and therefore it was not passed.  O's taken as not supporting.
15:09:04 <kdeangs1> kdeangs1 has joined #vcwg
15:09:10 <ivan> present+ JoeAndrieu
15:09:24 <kdeangs1> present+
15:09:26 <Orie> Orie has joined #vcwg
15:09:40 <TallTed> q+
15:10:06 <brentz> ack TallTed
15:10:16 <PL-ASU> Brent: expresses strong displeasure with the question about how the voting was interpreted.
15:10:27 <Orie> present+
15:10:40 <samsmith> q+
15:11:24 <PL-ASU> TallTed: clarifies how voting is counted +1 = support, 0 or -1 is not supported. Obstaining is not responding to the vote.
15:11:32 <kristina> ack samsmith
15:11:35 <TallTed> s/Obstaining/Abstaining/
15:11:36 <brentz> ack samsmith
15:11:40 <PL-ASU> Kristina: we are not discussing this topic further.
15:12:13 <PL-ASU> Brent: we are not reopening the conversation on the voting in Miami today as there is no new information to justifiy it.
15:12:19 <kristina> Topic: adoption of the work item of JSON Schema
15:12:21 <decentralgabe> DRAFT PROPOSAL: Adopt the Verifiable Credential JSON Schemas (https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-json-schemas/) as a work item in the VCWG with a preliminary short name of ‘vc-json-schemas’.
15:12:49 <PL-ASU> Gabe: has written up proposal texts to discuss re: adopting verifying JSON sechams  as vc-json-schemas
15:13:10 <ivan> q+
15:13:22 <brentz> ack ivan
15:13:27 <PL-ASU> Brent: this would be a normative way to have interop to that extension. Add yourself to the queue if you have a negative respond to this proposal
15:14:09 <samsmith> So just to be clear. A vote of zero on any work item proposal contributes to not aupporting the proposal for a work item. rough consensus means that there must be a significant majority of +1 ones.
15:14:12 <PL-ASU> Ivan: what is it json-schemas  and not json-schema (pluralization question).
15:14:21 <PL-ASU> Gabe: happy to singularize it
15:14:31 <PL-ASU> Brent: run the proposal with the singularization
15:14:37 <decentralgabe> PROPOSAL: Adopt the Verifiable Credential JSON Schema (https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-json-schemas/) as a work item in the VCWG with a preliminary short name of ‘vc-json-schema’.
15:14:44 <decentralgabe> +1
15:14:46 <mprorock> +1
15:14:48 <samsmith> 0
15:14:48 <ivan> +1
15:14:50 <PL-ASU> Gabe:s retypes proposal with singularization
15:14:53 <manu> +1
15:14:54 <PL-ASU> +1
15:14:54 <cabernet> +1
15:14:55 <Jer> Jer has joined #vcwg
15:15:03 <kevingriffin> 0
15:15:05 <andres> +1
15:15:06 <dlongley> +1
15:15:06 <aisp> +1
15:15:13 <SebastianElfors> SebastianElfors has joined #vcwg
15:15:14 <kdeangs1> +1
15:15:20 <Jer> 0
15:15:21 <kristina> 0
15:15:25 <TallTed> 0 failed to review properly
15:15:39 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
15:15:47 <JoeAndrieu> present+
15:15:49 <brentz> RESOLVED: Adopt the Verifiable Credential JSON Schema (https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-json-schemas/) as a work item in the VCWG with a preliminary short name of ‘vc-json-schema’.
15:15:50 <Orie> 0
15:15:52 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
15:16:12 <PL-ASU> Brent: sees no direct objects and it is passsed
15:16:23 <selfissued> present+
15:16:28 <samsmith> My count is that there are 9 +1 and 6 Os
15:16:36 <Orie> I can do it, we do FCGS, and notify the ccg
15:16:40 <mprorock> +1 CCG on the call - let me know when ready
15:16:41 <Orie> gabe I can help
15:16:45 <PL-ASU> Ivan: Gabe and manu prepare the repo for transfer to the working group pending wrapping it up
15:16:52 <decentralgabe> appreciate
15:16:58 <Orie> q+
15:16:58 <PL-ASU> Manu: will send email to Gabe on the process
15:17:11 <Orie> q-
15:17:15 <kristina> Topic: BBS data integrity crypto suite work item
15:17:31 <PL-ASU> Brent: Tobias is not on the call as he's traveling.
15:17:53 <PL-ASU> Ori: will wait for text to comment on the BBS proposal
15:18:05 <PL-ASU> Manu: has proposal to offer
15:18:07 <mprorock> q+
15:18:12 <selfissued> FYI, I replied to Sam's questions on the list at "RE: Chairs' decision on VC-ACDC Proposal"
15:18:42 <brentz> ack mprorock
15:18:46 <PL-ASU> Brent: add yourself to queue if you would like to speak for or against the workitme. It would use the data integrity
15:18:56 <selfissued> I think it's important for people to understand what we did and didn't decide in Miami
15:19:21 <PL-ASU> MikeP: strong +1 here but it would expect IETF proceeds with this in their working groups. Implicit in this proposal.
15:20:30 <ivan> q+
15:20:55 <mprorock> +1 - fine with last call
15:20:59 <PL-ASU> Manu: rewording VCBBS with proviso that IETF reach equivalent status as the W3C work progress through the req process (working group last call)
15:21:34 <brentz> ack ivan
15:22:10 <kevingriffin> I feel this is the exact conversation we had about vc-acdc
15:22:23 <kevingriffin> regarding standards progression
15:22:26 <manu> q+
15:22:36 <PL-ASU> TallTed: what are our plans if this does not happen?  Publish working draft and it stays in unspecified state?
15:22:39 <manu> q+ to propose what could happen.
15:22:40 <brentz> ack manu
15:22:40 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to propose what could happen.
15:22:56 <TallTed> s/TallTed: /ivan:/
15:22:58 <Orie> ^ yes, regarding similarity to vc-acdc, I hope our treatment is the same, let us know if it is not.
15:23:19 <brentz> q+ to be specific
15:23:24 <ivan> present+ bumblefudge
15:24:30 <kristina> ack brentz
15:24:30 <Zakim> brentz, you wanted to be specific
15:24:35 <selfissued_> selfissued_ has joined #vcwg
15:24:50 <selfissued_> present+
15:24:53 <PL-ASU> Manu: if doesn't complete at IETF it is published as a working draft. If this gorup is shut down we'd need to decide to publish this as a note, or give it more time to work on it, or more info to W3C that normative references in the proposed draft and those references need updating. Have to decide options at that point in time
15:25:06 <Jer> present+
15:25:11 <PL-ASU> TalltTed: need to have consistent process here for all such circumstances
15:25:11 <kristina> q+
15:25:34 <Orie> See for example: https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#discontinuedREC
15:26:08 <kristina> q-
15:26:23 <brentz> ack brentz
15:26:28 <PL-ASU> Brent: have to see how timing goes. If it's not the case it's not possible to extend it then next charter will have to take care of it or the work will have to be discontinued on it.
15:27:28 <PL-ASU> Kristina: there are multiple steps the working groups have to determine what goes to CR or next steps for them. We will have discussions and process that the steps are clear.
15:27:43 <kristina> q?
15:27:50 <brentz> PROPOSAL: Adopt the BBS Signature Data Integrity Cryptosuite (https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-di-bbs/) as a work item in the VCWG with a preliminary short name of ‘vc-di-bbs’, with the expectation that the BBS work at IETF will reach equivalent status as the W3C work progresses through the REC process.
15:27:53 <Orie> +1
15:27:55 <decentralgabe> +1
15:27:55 <PL-ASU> Brent: running proposal
15:27:56 <brentz> +1
15:27:56 <dlongley> +1
15:27:57 <mprorock> +1
15:27:57 <DavidC> 0
15:27:58 <manu> +1
15:27:58 <JoeAndrieu> +1
15:27:59 <andres> +1
15:28:00 <kdeangs1> +1
15:28:00 <cabernet> +1
15:28:02 <PL-ASU> +1
15:28:03 <samsmith> 0
15:28:06 <aisp> 0
15:28:06 <TallTed> 0
15:28:08 <selfissued_> +1
15:28:09 <kristina> 0
15:28:10 <Kerri_Lemoie> +1
15:28:10 <kevingriffin> 0
15:28:16 <TallTed> q+
15:28:25 <brentz> ack TallTed
15:28:54 <PL-ASU> TallTed: for future it would be useful to have things reviewed in the agenda in advance
15:28:58 <samsmith> I count 13 +1 and 6 0s
15:29:11 <TallTed> s/reviewed/to review included/
15:29:23 <PL-ASU> Brent: usually done that way. Will do that in the agenda in the future not just the mailing list.
15:29:32 <PL-ASU> Brent: no -1s, proposal passes
15:29:40 <brentz> RESOLVED: Adopt the BBS Signature Data Integrity Cryptosuite (https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-di-bbs/) as a work item in the VCWG with a preliminary short name of ‘vc-di-bbs’, with the expectation that the BBS work at IETF will reach equivalent status as the W3C work progresses through the REC process.
15:30:43 <PL-ASU> Brent: final work item today - work item related to possible confirmation method, PR to add to data model and its name is underway, but request is to run a couple of different proposals
15:31:03 <PL-ASU> Kristina: should we run proposal about it in general or those he recommends?
15:31:48 <manu> q+
15:32:12 <PL-ASU> Brent: agrees with that recommendation.
15:32:19 <kristina> Topic: DIDAuth confirmation method work item
15:32:53 <kristina> q+
15:33:03 <PL-ASU> Manu: BBS vote more straightfoward and this less so.  DIDAuth proposal isn't clear.
15:33:06 <selfissued_> Per Manu's point, what are we talking about?
15:33:09 <brentz> ack manu
15:33:11 <brentz> ack kristina
15:34:38 <PL-ASU> Kristina: confirmation method property has a PR in the core data model but for it to survive the PR process it needs concrete ways to implement it. Oliver believes that one of those should be a work item in the WG. He wants WG working on it before the feature freeze. One of those is DIDAutho on confirmation method
15:35:25 <PL-ASU> Kristina: this is just a string in the method property. DID method type doesn't introduce a new key. Just use DID in subject in the credential to do DIDAuth
15:36:12 <ivan> q+
15:36:16 <selfissued_> DID Auth is a wildly unspecified term
15:36:34 <JoeAndrieu> Can someone share the PR URL?
15:36:56 <kevingriffin> +1 Ivan
15:36:56 <PL-ASU> Brent: using DIDAuth as a confirmation and Oliver? wants to hear that WG will address "a work item" not necessarily a specific work item.
15:37:06 <mprorock> +1 Ivan
15:37:10 <kristina> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1054
15:37:13 <selfissued_> It's just as unspecified as the "Universal Resolver"
15:37:19 <PL-ASU> Ivan: this is extremely vague and uncomfortable either way on the approach we're taking.
15:37:36 <PL-ASU> Kristina: run one proposal
15:37:49 <selfissued_> -1
15:37:52 <ivan> q+
15:37:57 <PL-ASU> Brent: Proposal "unds important... [11:37] * brentz PROPOSAL: The VCWG intends to work on a new work item that defines a specific confirmation method (a term which is still being bikesheded) type based on DID Auth in VCDM 2.0."
15:38:02 <kristina> @mike, we are not running it yet
15:38:31 <selfissued_> DID auth is undefined, therefore people should vote against this proposal
15:38:32 <kristina> oliver also proposed: draft PROPOSAL 1: The VCWG defines 1-2 specific confirmation method types such as DIDAuthWithSubjectIdConfirmation in the VCDM 2.0.
15:38:33 <PL-ASU> Brent: jump on queue to wordsmith this to reach agreement
15:38:34 <brentz> ack ivan
15:38:41 <kristina> and draft PROPOSAL 2: The VCWG works on a new work item that defines a specific confirmation method (a term which is still being bikesheded) type in VCDM 2.0.
15:39:28 <PL-ASU> Ivan: We can discuss it here, and send something to Oliver saying we're interested but the formal proposal is unclear. This Ivan's personal view not a formal statement.
15:39:44 <PL-ASU> Brent: as Manu suggests let's run it as a poll
15:40:00 <kristina> @manu, I think it has been indicated here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fdof-S7fhMzhzw8saldfIWLn8ybpVLbK4dvFOJYUNIA
15:40:02 <bumblefudge> i think the intention was for the WG to support the specification of the simplest possible entry in the extension registry, and DIDAuth (of the VPRequest empty-VP variety) was just chosen as an example of a relatively straightforward one, fwiw
15:40:09 <PL-ASU> Ivan: let's not get into a discussion about how that poll is formally interpreted
15:40:20 <selfissued_> -1
15:40:27 <PL-ASU> Kristina: Oliver sent an email asking if there was interest in working on it.
15:40:44 <PL-ASU> Brent: there has been interest indicate in this, though the syntax of a poll is unclear
15:41:09 <brentz> POLL: The VCWG would like to eventually define a specific confirmation method
15:41:21 <manu> +0.5
15:41:32 <ivan> +1
15:41:45 <DavidC> 0.5
15:41:49 <PL-ASU> Brent: The VCWG would like to eventually define a specific confirmation method
15:41:52 <brentz> +1
15:41:55 <andres> +1
15:41:58 <decentralgabe> +0
15:42:00 <JoeAndrieu> +1
15:42:01 <Orie> -1 (prefer to have this addressed in existing work items, not a separate item)
15:42:02 <samsmith> 0
15:42:04 <PL-ASU> Kristina: this is a non-binding poll
15:42:06 <TallTed> +0.5
15:42:11 <selfissued_> -1 because DID Auth is wildly undefined
15:42:42 <PL-ASU> +.05
15:42:42 <dlongley> +0.5 (not against it, but worried about the generalizability of 'confirmationMethod' -- and less so about the name)
15:42:42 <Jer> +0.5
15:42:42 <mprorock> +0 - want some more clarity, like orie, think that this can be covered in existing work items
15:42:42 <cabernet> +0
15:43:13 <PL-ASU> Brent: this poll is not DIDAuth specific, as DIDAuth isn't well defined enough to bring it in at this point.
15:43:13 <kevingriffin> 0 - agree with mprorock
15:43:20 <PL-ASU> Brent: some opposition but may consider it in the future,
15:43:21 <selfissued_> In what sense is this not DID Auth specific?  The poll is about DID Auth.
15:43:25 <PL-ASU> Kristina: doesn't see it say "in VCDM core"
15:43:45 <bumblefudge> i like orie's idea, but would a vc-jwt-specific definition of DIDAuth be able to be referenced as a confirmationMethod?
15:43:48 <PL-ASU> Brent: should a proposal be presented in the future the WG would be willing to consider adopting it.
15:44:00 <PL-ASU> Brent: all the work item proposals for today
15:44:02 <ivan> q+
15:44:04 <bumblefudge> +1 with Brent's explanation of the semantics of voting, with the caveat that i'm just an observer/contributor, not representing a member org!
15:44:04 <brentz> Topic: vc-jwt as FPWD
15:44:10 <brentz> ack ivan
15:44:16 <PL-ASU> Brent: VC-JWT as the first working draft
15:45:51 <Orie> q+
15:46:05 <brentz> ack Orie
15:46:08 <PL-ASU> Ivan: Suggests we go through the topic and have a separate resolution passed to take the minor admin away for the future.
15:46:54 <selfissued_> Please let's add Mike Prorock as an editor
15:47:27 <PL-ASU> Orie: On the mailing list and confirmed by the chairs that Mike Prorock should merge the PRs
15:47:45 <selfissued_> What's the link to the PR adding Mike as an editor?
15:48:17 <selfissued_> +1
15:48:50 <PL-ASU> Brent: the VCWG will pubish VC-JWT as a FPWD using short name VC-JWT
15:49:02 <manu> q+
15:49:03 <PL-ASU> Brent: any changes to this proposal before it is run
15:49:07 <bumblefudge> the asterix notation is a result of starting a comment with /me
15:49:10 <bumblefudge> i.e.
15:49:12 <brentz> ack manu
15:49:30 <samsmith> q+
15:50:14 <Orie> q+ to say we are blocked on the retraction based on the resolution to retract at the face to face
15:50:21 <PL-ASU> Manu:  I'm a 0 on this around big tent language that we thought was setlled re: AC/DC and Gordian stuff .  Preference to hold off on the FPWD as people may vote against this.
15:50:21 <mprorock> 1+
15:50:32 <mprorock> q+
15:50:51 <PL-ASU> Kristina: poll hasn't been held so care in language is important.
15:51:24 <kristina> s/poll/proposal
15:51:37 <PL-ASU> Brent: this document is mature enough to go through patent review of the IPR process.  Folks with patents would have to reveal those patents. This about revealing those patents. No about the big-tent discussion.
15:52:03 <selfissued_> q+
15:52:13 <mprorock> I would add to the record, that we as a WG extended this same courtesy to data integrity to go to FPWD for exactly the same reasons
15:52:13 <PL-ASU> Brent: This is a straightforward step. Somewhat appalling to be go against first working draft.
15:52:41 <brentz> ack samsmith
15:52:44 <PL-ASU> Kristina: this is an admin step for something we've worked on for a bit less than a year. It's needed for rewiew, not a vote of confidence.
15:53:48 <brentz> ack Orie
15:53:48 <Zakim> Orie, you wanted to say we are blocked on the retraction based on the resolution to retract at the face to face
15:53:56 <selfissued_> See my reply to the working group mailing list "RE: Chairs' decision on VC-ACDC Proposal"
15:54:05 <PL-ASU> Sam: given Sam's understanding of what this represents pushing this forward needs first to have clarification of the mapping that makes something VC this needs attention.
15:54:15 <mprorock> +1 orie
15:54:32 <brentz> ack mprorock
15:54:55 <Orie> Here is the open PR to withdraw vc-jws-2020: https://github.com/w3c/vc-jws-2020/pull/33
15:54:57 <PL-ASU> Orie: can't go forward with the JWS2020 withdrawal if we need this to be addressed.
15:55:11 <brentz> ack selfissued_
15:55:27 <PL-ASU> MProrock: we need to take this step as per our process.
15:56:20 <samsmith> +1 to mike jones
15:56:38 <Orie> +1 selfissued vc-acdc's are not blocked by this working group, and the work should progress.
15:56:39 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to clarify making a mapping does not make anything a VC. Conformance to the VCDM defines VCs
15:56:50 <samsmith> q+ to get clarity
15:57:03 <PL-ASU> Mike: The AC/DC resolution in Miami says nothing about what work items we're going to adopt or not adopt.  I support Sam.  If the AC/DC create a mapping to the data model it should be considered a verifiable credential. That the working group didn't take it up as a work item is a good thing. The resolution alongs mDocs and other things to become a VC through this mapping proviso.
15:57:37 <brentz> PROPOSAL: the VCWG will publish VC-JWT as a FPWD using the short name vc-jwt
15:57:41 <JoeAndrieu> q-
15:57:41 <brentz> +1
15:57:43 <Orie> +1
15:57:45 <ivan> +1
15:57:46 <andres> +1
15:57:48 <Jer> +1
15:57:48 <mprorock> +1
15:57:50 <TallTed> +1
15:57:54 <cabernet> +1
15:57:54 <PL-ASU> Mike: whether we choose to make this a formal work item  by this working group is independent.
15:57:56 <JoeAndrieu> +0
15:57:59 <Kerri_Lemoie> +1
15:58:00 <decentralgabe> +1
15:58:03 <selfissued_> +1
15:58:08 <samsmith> -1 to get clarity first on interpretation of
15:58:12 <kristina> +1
15:58:17 <PL-ASU> Brent: apologizes for running low on time. Runs proposal
15:58:19 <DavidC> +1
15:58:22 <PL-ASU> +1
15:58:30 <manu> +0.25 (would prefer the group discuss what "big tent" means, how it relates to vc-acdc, vc-gordian, vc-jwt, and external proof formats)
15:58:31 <aisp> +1
15:59:19 <kristina> q+
15:59:21 <dlongley> +0.5 to allow IP considerations to proceed, but hoping for more resolution and consensus in the group
15:59:29 <ivan> ack samsmith
15:59:29 <Zakim> samsmith, you wanted to get clarity
15:59:42 <selfissued_> I support Sam and the proposal to create an ACDC mapping to the VC Data model
15:59:59 <PL-ASU> Brent: If this proposal goes forward will  Sam formally object. Has asked for clarity on how we proceed in this community with external proof  methods. How can there be clarity without asking for it?  If it can't be put on the agenda for discussion what options are there?
16:00:33 <kevingriffin> +1 to manu
16:00:38 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to clarify making a mapping does not make anything a VC. Conformance to the VCDM defines VCs
16:00:41 <JoeAndrieu> no it does
16:00:43 <JoeAndrieu> doesn't
16:00:43 <selfissued_> Per the Miami resolution, once there's a defined mapping from a format to the VC Data model, it's a VC
16:01:00 <PL-ASU> Kristina: Resolution in Miami said as long as there is a transformation back to a VC it complies with being a verified credential.
16:01:15 <JoeAndrieu> making a mapping does not make anything a VC. Conformance to the VCDM defines VCs
16:01:22 <manu> ^^ yes, that.
16:01:31 <brentz> RESOLVED: the VCWG will publish VC-JWT as a FPWD using the short name vc-jwt
16:02:11 <manu> Concerned that some people are not aligned on what the resolution at Miami F2F meant... the details around it... we need to get clarity on that 'cause it'll come up again when people do mappings.
16:02:21 <PL-ASU> Sam: if Kristina's interpretation of the miami proposal is accurate Sam has no objection.
16:02:30 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:02:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/22-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
16:02:45 <PL-ASU> Brent: the proposal passes and people will have a week to object formally.
16:03:16 <PL-ASU> I hope this isn't too terrible a job.  It was a difficult scribe session today.
16:09:15 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:09:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/22-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
16:09:25 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
16:09:25 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been aisp, mprorock, ivan, kristina, PL-ASU, TallTed, manu, kevingriffin, DavidC, Kerri_Lemoie, PaulDietrich, elfors, samsmith, griffin,
16:09:28 <Zakim> ... jeremie, andres, dlongley, orie, brent, selfissued, kdean, decentralgabe, gabe, cabernet, shawn, JoeAndrieu, kdeangs, bumblefudge, selfissued_, Jer, .05
16:09:28 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:09:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/22-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim
16:09:35 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:09:35 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg
16:09:36 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
16:09:36 <RRSAgent> I see no action items