14:46:17 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
14:46:21 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/05/17-vcwg-irc
14:46:21 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:46:22 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:46:44 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
14:46:44 <ivan> Date: 2023-05-17
14:46:44 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/ae05a21b-c065-4e69-8d5e-352a0d391513/20230517T110000
14:46:44 <ivan> chair: brent
14:46:44 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2023-05-17: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/ae05a21b-c065-4e69-8d5e-352a0d391513/20230517T110000
14:53:21 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
14:57:04 <brent> brent has joined #vcwg
14:57:07 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
14:57:21 <brent> present+
14:57:30 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
14:58:32 <ivan> present+
14:59:48 <ivan> present+ manu
15:00:50 <SamSmith> SamSmith has joined #vcwg
15:00:50 <mprorock> mprorock has joined #vcwg
15:00:50 <pdl_ASU> pdl_ASU has joined #vcwg
15:00:50 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #vcwg
15:00:54 <mprorock> present+
15:00:57 <pdl_ASU> present+
15:01:16 <ivan> present+ andrew, PaulDietrich, sam, JoeAndrieu, mprorock, andres
15:01:40 <andres> andres has joined #vcwg
15:01:56 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
15:02:06 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> Paul_Dietrich_GS1 has joined #vcwg
15:02:07 <cabernet> cabernet has joined #vcwg
15:02:10 <kgriffin> kgriffin has joined #vcwg
15:02:11 <SamSmith> present+
15:02:13 <ivan> present+ wind4greg, davidc, griffin
15:02:17 <ivan> present+ dlongley, oliver
15:02:23 <ivan> present+ cabernet
15:02:23 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg
15:02:28 <GregB> GregB has joined #vcwg
15:02:32 <kgriffin> present+
15:02:35 <ivan> present+ nistor, dmitriz
15:02:40 <ivan> present+ orie
15:02:40 <hsano> present+
15:02:42 <oliver> oliver has joined #vcwg
15:02:43 <oliver> present+
15:02:51 <cabernet> present+
15:02:54 <andres> present+
15:03:01 <GregB> present+
15:03:06 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
15:03:13 <JoeAndrieu> present+
15:03:14 <JoeAndrieu> scribe+
15:03:27 <JoeAndrieu> brent: Welcome folks
15:03:32 <TallTed> present+
15:03:32 <ivan> present+ kristina
15:03:42 <JoeAndrieu> ... Today's agenda: proposal for VCJSON Schema
15:03:44 <mprorock_> mprorock_ has joined #vcwg
15:03:56 <JoeAndrieu> ... Then issue review for assignees
15:04:02 <JoeAndrieu> ... Then work status updates and PRs
15:04:13 <ivan> present+ selfissued
15:04:14 <JoeAndrieu> ... We are seeing good progress in Github, but we have a lot of items
15:04:28 <JoeAndrieu> ... We need to be more aggressive about closing items without consensus
15:04:35 <JoeAndrieu> ... Any additional items?
15:04:40 <mprorock> mprorock has left #vcwg
15:04:41 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
15:04:43 <ivan> present+ gnatran
15:04:46 <selfissued> present+
15:04:51 <przemek> przemek has joined #vcwg
15:05:17 <JoeAndrieu> ... Any introductions today? First time or changes or just to say Hello
15:05:31 <brent> s/without/that don't have/
15:05:43 <brent> topic: Proposal - VC JSON Schema
15:05:51 <JoeAndrieu> ... First topic: proposal for VC JSON Schema
15:06:20 <andres> I think I'm having mic issues
15:06:24 <JoeAndrieu> ... Not sure who was going to speak to that. Andres?
15:06:27 <ivan> present+ will
15:06:29 <dlehn> present+
15:06:43 <will> will has joined #vcwg
15:06:44 <JoeAndrieu> ... maybe Gabe gave us a draft proposal
15:06:59 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: careful, what was in the email had a link error
15:07:12 <JoeAndrieu> brent: I'll begin with Gabe's words and construct a proposal that I think is correct
15:07:46 <Orie> Orie has joined #vcwg
15:07:48 <oliver> +1
15:07:50 <Orie> present+
15:07:50 <dmitriz> +1
15:08:03 <gnatran> gnatran has joined #vcwg
15:08:03 <JoeAndrieu> ... This is the proposed proposals. Not ready to vote just yet
15:08:09 <gnatran> present+
15:08:11 <JoeAndrieu> andres: I was having mic issues.
15:08:25 <ivan> q+
15:08:27 <JoeAndrieu> ... It's been simplified to just use JSON Schemas
15:08:30 <PhilF> PhilF has joined #vcwg
15:08:32 <JoeAndrieu> ... It's in a really nice spot.
15:08:39 <brent> PROPOSAL: Publish the VC JSON Schema 2023 specification ( https://w3c.github.io/vc-json-schema/FPWD/2023-05-23/) as a First Public Working Draft with a short name of `vc-json-schema` with a target publication date of May 23th 2023.
15:08:44 <Orie> +1
15:08:44 <ivan> +1
15:08:45 <andres> +1
15:08:46 <brent> +1
15:08:49 <TallTed> +1
15:08:49 <oliver> +1
15:08:50 <cabernet> +1
15:08:53 <GregB> +1
15:08:55 <mprorock_> +1
15:08:58 <dmitriz> +1
15:08:58 <pdl_ASU> +1
15:09:01 <kristina> kristina has joined #vcwg
15:09:04 <kristina> present+
15:09:09 <SamSmith> +1
15:09:19 <kgriffin> +1
15:09:22 <manu_> +1
15:09:26 <dlongley> +0 (supportive of FPWD, just haven't had any time to review)
15:09:32 <brent> RESOLVED: Publish the VC JSON Schema 2023 specification ( https://w3c.github.io/vc-json-schema/FPWD/2023-05-23/) as a First Public Working Draft with a short name of `vc-json-schema` with a target publication date of May 23th 2023.
15:09:50 <JoeAndrieu> brent: Resolved. We are now officially in FPWD for all normative rec track specifications
15:10:01 <JoeAndrieu> ... That's great!
15:10:05 <brent> topic: Issue Discussion
15:10:10 <przemek_> przemek_ has joined #vcwg
15:10:13 <ivan> present+ przemek
15:10:13 <ivan> q-
15:10:15 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc+no%3Aassignee
15:10:27 <PhilF> present+
15:10:33 <JoeAndrieu> ... This link is all those issues not yet assigned
15:10:41 <JoeAndrieu> ... Goal today is to get people willing to be assigned
15:10:55 <JoeAndrieu> ... If nobody is willing to be assigned, we'll consider marking pending closed
15:11:03 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/881
15:11:05 <JoeAndrieu> ... First one, issue 881
15:11:10 <mircea_nistor_> mircea_nistor_ has joined #vcwg
15:11:13 <Orie> q+
15:11:13 <JoeAndrieu> ... Proof in @context and use of @container
15:11:18 <JoeAndrieu> ... Raised by Orie
15:11:22 <brent> ack Orie
15:11:30 <JoeAndrieu> orie: This came up recently in open PR about updating diagrams
15:11:44 <JoeAndrieu> ... We have this RDF graphical representations of what a credential and proof graphs are
15:11:44 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
15:11:49 <ivan> q+
15:11:52 <JoeAndrieu> ... Those diagrams reflect the same topics as this issue
15:12:10 <JoeAndrieu> ... The fact that the proof is a separate box has to do with the structure of proof in the JSON-LD context
15:12:19 <JoeAndrieu> ... I'd like diagrams to represent normative requirements
15:12:31 <JoeAndrieu> ... Previously, we talked about defining credential, but opted not to.
15:12:51 <JoeAndrieu> ... Then the representations here ... and other stuff... is creating problems
15:13:09 <JoeAndrieu> ... We're showing how they look after non-normative processing is happening
15:13:22 <JoeAndrieu> ... The graph property is what sort of gives you that separation in those two logical boxes
15:13:41 <JoeAndrieu> ... I think the best way to address this is either describing the shape of things or making @context normative
15:13:45 <brent> ack ivan
15:13:51 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #vcwg
15:14:08 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: First of all, the fact that it is not obvious on the diagram is a problem with diagram tool. We should be careful.
15:14:25 <JoeAndrieu> ... I am stronger and stronger convinced that vocabulary document should be part of the standard
15:14:45 <JoeAndrieu> ... In that document, it's clearly said what proof is. There are good reasons for that, which probably shouldn't be changed
15:14:47 <Orie> What are the reasons that proof is a seperate graph?
15:14:57 <manu> q+
15:14:58 <JoeAndrieu> ... The fact that it is expressed as a container isn't relevant
15:15:02 <manu> q-
15:15:12 <JoeAndrieu> brent: remember, our goal today is to find someone to be assigned
15:15:13 <Orie> You can assign me.
15:15:13 <mprorock_> +1 ivan - big benefit to standardizing the vocab (and will force us to carefully make sure the json-ld vocab is correct)
15:15:29 <JoeAndrieu> brent: Thanks, Orie.
15:15:41 <JoeAndrieu> ... next: 915
15:15:44 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/915
15:15:49 <JoeAndrieu> ... Controller ambiguity
15:15:52 <Orie> q+
15:15:55 <JoeAndrieu> ... Also raised by Orie
15:16:01 <brent> ack Orie
15:16:02 <JoeAndrieu> ... Anyone willing to move it forward?
15:16:15 <JoeAndrieu> orie: the controller property, as far as I'm aware, completely not relevant to VCs.
15:16:31 <JoeAndrieu> ... There's no reason we need it. But it is mandatory in a few places.
15:16:47 <JoeAndrieu> ... To work on this, someone would have to think about VCDM and if they need to say anything. Data Integrity proofs? Do they?
15:16:49 <JoeAndrieu> ... probably.
15:17:04 <JoeAndrieu> brent: Is anyone willing to be assigned?
15:17:06 <mprorock_> i think it should get moved to DI
15:17:11 <dmitriz> +1 to move to DI
15:17:12 <JoeAndrieu> ... Or is there agreement to move it to DI
15:17:20 <oliver> q+
15:17:22 <JoeAndrieu> ... anyone opposed to moving it?
15:17:24 <manu> q+
15:17:27 <brent> ack oliver
15:17:38 <JoeAndrieu> oliver: I think there might be interplay between this and VC-JWTs as well
15:17:46 <brent> ack manu
15:17:46 <ivan> present+ smccown
15:17:53 <JoeAndrieu> ... This applies to other integrity mechanisms right?
15:17:55 <mprorock_> q+
15:18:11 <smccown> smccown has joined #vcwg
15:18:13 <JoeAndrieu> manu: DI already talks about this and how you do processing. So I'm not sure what's being asked for DI.
15:18:22 <Orie> q+
15:18:23 <JoeAndrieu> ... Clarity there would be helpful before reassigning.
15:18:24 <ivan> q+
15:18:28 <brent> ack mprorock_
15:18:36 <pdl_ASU> Does this mean that the problem posed is already addressed in the data integrity spec?
15:18:40 <JoeAndrieu> mprorock_: I am inline with Manu. the right place for this is not core data model
15:18:49 <JoeAndrieu> ... just in scanning, it looks like DI covers it.
15:18:56 <JoeAndrieu> ... I suggest we just close it
15:19:17 <JoeAndrieu> ... To oliver, about possible overlap with JWTs, there is to some degree, but the JWT spec is covering that as appropriate.
15:19:21 <Orie> vc-jwt does not cover this topic.
15:19:40 <brent> ack Orie
15:19:42 <JoeAndrieu> brent: current informal proposal: just mark it closed?
15:20:02 <mprorock_> no concern from me
15:20:05 <JoeAndrieu> orie: that might be valid. The concern is that if VC-JWT describes different behavior, would that be ok?
15:20:09 <JoeAndrieu> ... If so, great.
15:20:13 <manu> q+
15:20:15 <brent> ack ivan
15:20:16 <mprorock_> they are different securing mechanisms
15:20:40 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: there is a more general issue raised in another issue. When I read the VCDM document and I go through the examples. The fact is many examples use terms that are defined all over the places.
15:20:54 <manu> q-
15:20:56 <JoeAndrieu> ... There may be examples that use controller, and it's not clearly stated that this term is defined over there.
15:21:12 <dmitriz> I suspect we need to add those sections to the Example descriptions ("Terms controller, proof, etc, defined in DI")
15:21:12 <JoeAndrieu> ... There is editorial work to be done to make it clear to outside readers.
15:21:44 <JoeAndrieu> brent: is anyone willing to be assigned? Or is anyone opposed to closing?
15:21:55 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: this is a separate issue.
15:22:04 <JoeAndrieu> brent: my suggestion is to mark as pending closed
15:22:12 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: don't close until I finish my magic.
15:22:18 <JoeAndrieu> brent: we'll just mark it pending close
15:22:28 <Orie> vc-jwt still has no documented way to obtain public keys.
15:22:37 <JoeAndrieu> ... no opposition. Marking pending close.
15:22:44 <JoeAndrieu> ... Moving on to issue 1089
15:22:47 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1089
15:22:55 <Orie> q+
15:23:11 <brent> ack Orie
15:23:16 <JoeAndrieu> ... I raised this. I'm satisfied, but others are not
15:23:24 <JoeAndrieu> orie: same conversation about separate graphs
15:23:36 <JoeAndrieu> ... if the graph is separate, why do we bundle data integrity proofs
15:23:47 <JoeAndrieu> ... I think it biases how to secure to DI
15:24:02 <manu> q+
15:24:09 <JoeAndrieu> ... I still don't see why the context file include DI terms if you don't need that to understand core data model
15:24:20 <JoeAndrieu> ... either the document should be normative and we should include these definitions
15:24:29 <JoeAndrieu> ... or they should just appear in the DI context
15:24:35 <brent> ack manu
15:24:40 <JoeAndrieu> manu: nothing weird going on here
15:24:52 <JoeAndrieu> ... we are trying to make it easier on developers that make it easier for them
15:24:58 <dlongley> +1 these are not political concerns, they are technical and we've explained them many times ... making something easier isn't weird
15:25:08 <JoeAndrieu> ... For example, how languages include things by default that lots of developers use
15:25:15 <dlongley> +1 to mark this pending close
15:25:23 <JoeAndrieu> ... We can discuss this more, but the reason is not going to change
15:25:25 <mprorock_> q+
15:25:28 <manu> +1 to mark pending close
15:25:33 <brent> ack mprorock_
15:25:38 <JoeAndrieu> brent: my inclination is to mark pending close unless someone is willing to be assigned
15:25:49 <JoeAndrieu> mprorock_: I think the problem is there isn't consensus
15:25:50 <manu> q+
15:25:53 <Orie> +1 mprorock
15:26:05 <JoeAndrieu> ... I'd prefer that there is a context that just has VCDM terms
15:26:09 <dlongley> -1 ... let's remove `@vocab` because it helps JWTs
15:26:12 <Orie> I prefer to see the data integrity terms come from a data integrity context.
15:26:23 <dlongley> q+
15:26:26 <JoeAndrieu> ... I'm willing to be assigned if we can yank this out
15:26:34 <manu> q-
15:26:35 <selfissued_> selfissued_ has joined #vcwg
15:26:37 <selfissued_> present+
15:26:41 <JoeAndrieu> brent: reminder we are looking to assign
15:26:44 <brent> ack dlongley
15:26:58 <ivan> q+
15:27:00 <Orie> I don't think this makes things easier for developers... I am a developer.
15:27:00 <manu> q+
15:27:04 <DavidC> present+
15:27:08 <JoeAndrieu> dlongley: Just to mention some things that make things easier for developers. Not doing those things in hope of avoiding bias just makes it harder for developers.
15:27:15 <brent> ack ivan
15:27:23 <dmitriz> I think it's worth remembering that JWT community doesn't really care what's in the @context or not. So, anything we do with the context to make developers lives easier, doesn't affect JWT community in any way
15:27:24 <manu> q-
15:27:34 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: mike, you made a mistake. I commented in IRC. this may be a source of misunderstandings.
15:27:35 <manu> yes that ^
15:27:44 <JoeAndrieu> ... the context doesn't not define the vocabulary
15:27:51 <manu> q+ to help mikep write some language.
15:27:51 <mprorock_> q+
15:27:53 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
15:27:54 <JoeAndrieu> ... Data Integrity proof is not defined in the vocabulary for VCDM
15:27:55 <Orie> I am a vc-jwt implementer, and I care about what is in the context.
15:28:05 <dmitriz> @Orie - you are literally the only one
15:28:10 <manu> haha, true :)
15:28:15 <Orie> ^ why do we have a charter if that is the case?
15:28:16 <JoeAndrieu> ... Context is there to include for example, terms from schema.org
15:28:23 <brent> ack manu
15:28:23 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to help mikep write some language.
15:28:47 <JoeAndrieu> manu: in an attempt to help mike write something that survives consensus. Remember that we had consensus to add name and description.
15:28:59 <JoeAndrieu> ... those are defined not in VCDM, but rather schema.org
15:29:00 <Orie> name and description need to be covered in the TR though right?
15:29:03 <dlongley> nothing that uses `@vocab` is defined in the VCDM either... so we can put that in another context too.
15:29:08 <mprorock_> +1 orie
15:29:10 <Orie> otherwise how do you know how to use them?
15:29:14 <dlongley> ^just leads to all kinds of problems here.
15:29:26 <JoeAndrieu> ... So if only things in VCDM can show up in context, then that's a specific notion that probably won't achieve consensus
15:29:38 <Orie> also the IRIs are normative, but they only get defined in the context.... it feels like people are not really aware of how this works.
15:29:43 <brent> ack mprorock_
15:29:44 <JoeAndrieu> brent: Manu and Mike are wiling to be assigned
15:29:47 <JoeAndrieu> manu: not me
15:29:56 <JoeAndrieu> mprorock_: I'm willing to take the assignment, with help from Manu
15:30:12 <JoeAndrieu> ... Orie noticed this in the chat. It would seem reasonable to get the vocab as normative as possible.
15:30:22 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
15:30:24 <dlongley> "the context does not match 'a vocab'" <-- no, a big misunderstanding.
15:30:25 <dlongley> q+
15:30:34 <JoeAndrieu> ... That probably means instead of chucking name & description, we put it in the vocab
15:30:45 <brent> ack dlongley
15:30:55 <JoeAndrieu> dlongley: json-ld contexts bring vocabularies together
15:31:03 <Orie> Its really odd, that JSON-LD authors say use 2 contexts for examples, but they want to bundle data integrity definitions into the core context at the same time... it feels like its not, consistent... and does not help developers, because it does not establish convention.
15:31:07 <JoeAndrieu> ... Hearing this, it sounds like a massive misunderstanding of what context is for
15:31:09 <ivan> q+
15:31:18 <JoeAndrieu> ... I don't see us getting consensus
15:31:28 <JoeAndrieu> brent: closing the conversation on this issue.
15:31:28 <brent> ack ivan
15:31:50 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: I'm ashamed I can't find the # of my own issue that I raised. Mike, you might want to combine the two.
15:31:53 <JoeAndrieu> brent: 1103
15:32:10 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: I think that the sense of the discussion should be there. There's some editorial work to be done.
15:32:25 <JoeAndrieu> ... to try to get this general issue out of the way, cleaning up context and vocab definitions
15:32:31 <mprorock_> +1 ivan
15:32:35 <JoeAndrieu> ... The same issues with come with the DI spec
15:32:36 <gkellogg_> gkellogg_ has joined #vcwg
15:32:39 <dlongley> Orie: you're looking for consistency in the wrong place, it's not about the number of contexts alone.
15:32:42 <JoeAndrieu> ... We are mixing up concepts
15:32:48 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1105
15:32:50 <JoeAndrieu> brent: I'll leave it up to mprorock_
15:32:56 <JoeAndrieu> ... one more 1105
15:33:05 <JoeAndrieu> ... How should we refer to the securing specifications
15:33:13 <JoeAndrieu> ... Who is willing to be assigned to move it forward?
15:33:28 <manu> q+
15:33:31 <JoeAndrieu> ... Or should it be marked pending closed?
15:33:34 <brent> ack manu
15:33:47 <JoeAndrieu> manu: I think we already point to the specs normatively
15:33:53 <JoeAndrieu> ... Doesn't that address the issue?
15:34:08 <Orie> q+
15:34:08 <JoeAndrieu> brent: sounds like a request to mark pending close. Any objections?
15:34:08 <brent> ack Orie
15:34:26 <JoeAndrieu> orie: The original issue was regarding attempting to frame the core data model to be more inclusive of more securing mechanisms
15:34:44 <JoeAndrieu> ... pointing to DI seems to favor DI over others
15:35:02 <brent> q+
15:35:04 <JoeAndrieu> ... If we do both, we're creating a two-tier system. Those that are in the VCDM and those that aren't.
15:35:20 <JoeAndrieu> ... The original issue is how we frame securing formats. Not just those we work on here.
15:35:36 <JoeAndrieu> brent: It doesn't bother me to point to our own groups specifications
15:35:59 <brent> ack brent
15:36:03 <JoeAndrieu> ... but I would not be opposed to adding a link to the VC Specs Directory so that as new mechanisms are added there, they can be found.
15:36:05 <kgriffin> q+
15:36:11 <brent> ack kgriffin
15:36:11 <JoeAndrieu> ... Anyone willing to be assigned?
15:36:13 <ivan> +1 to Brent's
15:36:22 <JoeAndrieu> kgriffin: I'll take a stab at it
15:36:30 <Orie> thanks kevin, this seem like a good one for you
15:36:39 <JoeAndrieu> brent: Thank you.
15:36:50 <JoeAndrieu> ... with that, we didn't quite get through all of them.
15:36:56 <brent> topic: Work Item status updates/PRs
15:37:05 <JoeAndrieu> ... Moving on to our final topic. Work status updates
15:37:11 <manu> q+
15:37:29 <brent> ack manu
15:37:43 <JoeAndrieu> manu: vc data integrity has no open PRs. that's on a good glide path
15:37:47 <mprorock_> q+ to note status on vc-jwt
15:37:51 <JoeAndrieu> ... ecdsa has examples we want to get in
15:38:03 <JoeAndrieu> ... Orie has been asked to re-review
15:38:10 <Orie> https://github.com/w3c/vc-di-bbs (no open PRs)... https://github.com/w3c/vc-jwt (2 open PRs,  please review) ... https://github.com/w3c/vc-status-list-2021 (2 open PRs)
15:38:19 <JoeAndrieu> ... For status list, there is a PR for http status codes.
15:38:42 <JoeAndrieu> ... There is an issue raised to do that. This is a request to get Kristina and Mike to re-review
15:38:44 <selfissued_> q+
15:38:47 <brent> ack mprorock_
15:38:47 <Zakim> mprorock_, you wanted to note status on vc-jwt
15:38:58 <JoeAndrieu> mprorock_: VC-JWT. there are two open PRs.
15:39:08 <JoeAndrieu> ... they've had a few eyeballs on them
15:39:11 <mprorock_> https://github.com/w3c/vc-jwt/pull/85
15:39:19 <JoeAndrieu> ... On is to remove 1.1 items from VC-JWT spec
15:39:32 <mprorock_> https://github.com/w3c/vc-jwt/pull/86
15:39:33 <JoeAndrieu> ... simplifies things from a testing standpoint
15:39:46 <JoeAndrieu> ... Second is to update titling in JSON-LD section
15:39:59 <JoeAndrieu> ... so its clear we are using VC-JWT to secure JSON-LD
15:40:12 <brent> ack selfissued_
15:40:21 <JoeAndrieu> selfissued_: in the VCDM, there is PR 1101 ...
15:40:34 <JoeAndrieu> brent: we are going to get to VCDM PRs after status updates from each work item
15:40:52 <Orie> q+
15:40:52 <JoeAndrieu> brent: we know JSON Schema is going to FPWD
15:41:02 <JoeAndrieu> ... any others to report out?
15:41:04 <brent> ack Orie
15:41:17 <JoeAndrieu> orie: The status update for data integrity bbs. We completed FPWD
15:41:28 <ivan> q+
15:41:30 <JoeAndrieu> ... there was movement on the cryptographic binding components
15:41:45 <JoeAndrieu> ... there was movement on IETF side. People should take a look.
15:41:52 <JoeAndrieu> ... And consider how long it will take to point to that.
15:42:05 <JoeAndrieu> ... Good exchange with dlongley about linking information
15:42:11 <JoeAndrieu> ... A proposal to use HMAC
15:42:31 <JoeAndrieu> ... Waiting for people to chime in if people are comfortable and if there are any implementations
15:42:32 <brent> ack ivan
15:42:57 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
15:42:58 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: just to be precise, the BBS FPWD will be published tomorrow. It's scheduled. I don't see any reason it won't happen.
15:43:04 <JoeAndrieu> brent: moving to VCDM PRs.
15:43:17 <JoeAndrieu> ... two I'd like to look at before 1101
15:43:20 <JoeAndrieu> ... PR 987
15:43:22 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/987
15:43:44 <JoeAndrieu> ... open for a while. Three people requesting changes and no one who has approved it.
15:44:00 <JoeAndrieu> ... The question for this PR is what do we do to move this forward?
15:44:07 <manu> q+
15:44:07 <JoeAndrieu> ... just a brief conversation
15:44:14 <brent> ack manu
15:44:26 <JoeAndrieu> manu: There are a couple things we can try, but I'm doubtful we're going to come to consensus.
15:44:41 <mprorock_> +1 manu
15:44:41 <JoeAndrieu> ... I tried puting this in a PR in the reserved tables and that was objected to.
15:44:44 <Orie> +1 Manu
15:44:58 <JoeAndrieu> ... So if we couldn't get consensus there, we probably won't here.
15:45:06 <JoeAndrieu> ... proposal is to just mark pending close
15:45:20 <JoeAndrieu> ... we could try a reserve property thing and CCG spec, but someone would have to lead that work
15:45:28 <JoeAndrieu> ... something like what has been done with renderMethod
15:46:01 <JoeAndrieu> brent: anyone opposed to pending close
15:46:20 <JoeAndrieu> DavidC: I thought we didn't want to lose the conversation to date
15:46:35 <JoeAndrieu> manu: to be clear, I suggested moving to CCG as an option.
15:47:01 <JoeAndrieu> brent: I'll market this as pending close. Which will retain the conversation. Next step would be to transfer to CCG and continue incubating there.
15:47:05 <JoeAndrieu> ... any opposition to that course?
15:47:15 <JoeAndrieu> ... great. Marking it pending close.
15:47:22 <manu> q+ to speak to renderMethod
15:47:42 <JoeAndrieu> ... Another one to look at 1035
15:47:47 <JoeAndrieu> ... Add rendering property to VCDM
15:47:49 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1035
15:47:53 <brent> ack manu
15:47:53 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to speak to renderMethod
15:47:53 <JoeAndrieu> ... similar questions here
15:48:05 <JoeAndrieu> manu: This item did get into the reserve property table.
15:48:13 <JoeAndrieu> ... There is a proposal to make it a CCG item.
15:48:17 <Orie> +1 to closing the PR
15:48:26 <JoeAndrieu> ... I think we can close this immediately (or after the call)
15:48:30 <mprorock_> #1108 was merged so no reason to keep this open
15:48:56 <JoeAndrieu> ... The plan here is that it is in the reserved properties table, there's a work item in CCG. maybe a future version of the group can add it, or after CR.
15:49:03 <JoeAndrieu> ... +1 to marking pending close
15:49:10 <JoeAndrieu> brent: alright. unless there's objection...
15:49:15 <JoeAndrieu> ... I'll mark pending close
15:49:24 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
15:49:36 <JoeAndrieu> ... Now, beginning conversation on two related PRs. Last five minutes of this call.
15:49:43 <JoeAndrieu> ... To queue up what we need to talk about.
15:49:52 <JoeAndrieu> ... Starting with 1101
15:49:55 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1101
15:50:11 <gkellogg_> gkellogg_ has joined #vcwg
15:50:22 <JoeAndrieu> selfissued: Manu is the only on left
15:50:23 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:50:32 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:50:36 <manu> scribe+
15:51:21 <manu> JoeAndrieu: I'm opposed to this, I'm not one of the requested reviewers, didn't review negatively. This does not address resolution in Miami, this has to do with media types in WG... This PR fundamentally changes the meaning of that resolution. If this is a representation of that resolution, we need to have that language in there.
15:51:31 <dlongley> q+ to say i had some changes on there that also haven't been applied
15:51:34 <manu> JoeAndrieu: If we want to reopen the resolution, we an do that too.
15:51:57 <brent> ack dlongley
15:51:57 <Zakim> dlongley, you wanted to say i had some changes on there that also haven't been applied
15:52:08 <Orie> it seems like a fact that the group does not interpret the resolution consistently, at all.
15:52:09 <JoeAndrieu> dlongley: I had some change requests as well that I would like applied
15:52:30 <manu> q+
15:52:36 <JoeAndrieu> ... if you're not a requested reviewer, those people should still be considered even if they aren't code owners
15:52:39 <brent> ack manu
15:52:56 <JoeAndrieu> manu: I was holding off on re-review because of Joe's and Dave's outstanding comments
15:53:09 <JoeAndrieu> ... great to have a concrete PR, but there is still a bit of a disconnect
15:53:28 <Orie> kevin's PR has lots of teeth... maybe too many.
15:53:32 <JoeAndrieu> ... I felt the other PR has better language. This doesn't have any teeth.
15:53:33 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
15:53:37 <selfissued> q+
15:53:46 <JoeAndrieu> ... Verses Kevin's PR clarifies what you must do.
15:53:52 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1100
15:53:59 <JoeAndrieu> s/verses/versus/
15:54:15 <JoeAndrieu> ... this has to do with the Miami resolution
15:54:23 <JoeAndrieu> ... These PRs should be considered together
15:54:24 <brent> ack selfissued
15:54:28 <TallTed> s/https:/Kevin's PR = https:/
15:54:50 <JoeAndrieu> selfissued: Kevin's PR talks about unrelated issues that are controversial, including testing requirements which the Miami resolution did not
15:55:02 <Orie> +1 selfissued, but those teeth are desirable to some, and objectionable (formally) to others...
15:55:10 <JoeAndrieu> ... unless Kevin removes that PR it should not be merged.
15:55:15 <JoeAndrieu> brent: I expect this to be the special topic call next week.
15:55:36 <JoeAndrieu> ... In the meantime, there are still 10 PRs that deserve our attention
15:55:48 <JoeAndrieu> ... Thanks Joe for scribing
15:56:13 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:56:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/17-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
15:57:01 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
15:57:01 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been brent, ivan, manu, mprorock, pdl_ASU, andrew, PaulDietrich, sam, JoeAndrieu, andres, SamSmith, wind4greg, davidc, griffin, dlongley,
15:57:04 <Zakim> ... oliver, cabernet, kgriffin, nistor, dmitriz, orie, hsano, GregB, TallTed, kristina, selfissued, gnatran, will, dlehn, przemek, PhilF, smccown, selfissued_
15:57:04 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:57:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/17-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim
15:57:12 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:57:12 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg
15:57:13 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
15:57:13 <RRSAgent> I see no action items