18:49:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
18:49:58 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/08/30-vcwg-irc
18:50:09 <brent> zakim, start the meeting
18:50:09 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
18:50:10 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), brent
18:50:13 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
18:50:23 <brent> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
18:50:32 <brent> Chair: Brent
18:50:40 <brent> Date: 2023-08-30
18:51:21 <gkellogg_> gkellogg_ has joined #vcwg
18:52:36 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
18:53:20 <mprorock> mprorock has joined #vcwg
18:53:55 <gkellog__> gkellog__ has joined #vcwg
18:57:37 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
18:57:53 <brent> present+
18:59:09 <mprorock> present+
18:59:36 <brent> present+ TallTed
19:00:20 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
19:01:46 <Kristina> Kristina has joined #vcwg
19:01:58 <Kristina> present+
19:02:07 <gkellogg_> gkellogg_ has joined #vcwg
19:02:08 <decentralgabe> decentralgabe has joined #vcwg
19:02:10 <justin_r> justin_r has joined #vcwg
19:02:12 <decentralgabe> present+
19:02:34 <seabass> present+
19:02:43 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
19:02:55 <Rachel> Rachel has joined #vcwg
19:03:20 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
19:03:26 <manu> present+
19:03:26 <DavidC> present+
19:03:30 <JoeAndrieu> present+
19:03:35 <JoeAndrieu> scribe+
19:03:44 <bigbluehat> present+
19:04:08 <pl-asu> pl-asu has joined #vcwg
19:04:12 <pl-asu> present+
19:04:44 <JoeAndrieu> brent: processing issues and discussions as usual
19:05:41 <JoeAndrieu> Rachel: self-introduction (hard to hear)
19:06:04 <dlongley> present+
19:06:10 <JoeAndrieu> CalvinCheng: self-introduction. here to learn.
19:06:29 <brent> Topic: Work Item status updates/PRs
19:06:39 <mprorock> q+
19:06:40 <JoeAndrieu> brent: starting with updates and PRs
19:06:42 <decentralgabe> q+
19:06:42 <manu> q+
19:06:54 <brent> ack mprorock
19:06:58 <mprorock> https://github.com/w3c/vc-jose-cose/pull/143
19:06:58 <JoeAndrieu> brent: looking to transition to CR no later than end of September
19:07:12 <JoeAndrieu> mprorock: one PR ready to merge (vc-jose-cose)
19:07:24 <JoeAndrieu> ... clean things up. better to test.
19:07:31 <JoeAndrieu> ... should help with test suites.
19:07:32 <andres_> andres_ has joined #vcwg
19:07:32 <mprorock> https://github.com/w3c/vc-jose-cose/pull/144
19:07:35 <andres_> present+
19:07:37 <Calvin> Calvin has joined #vcwg
19:07:40 <JoeAndrieu> ... Also PR #144 could use eyes
19:08:21 <JoeAndrieu> ... pulling over items from data integrity
19:08:21 <JoeAndrieu> ... some won't apply to jose-cose, so help with that would be appreciated
19:08:30 <brent> ack decentralgabe
19:08:37 <decentralgabe> https://github.com/TBD54566975/vc-json-schema-test-suite
19:08:43 <JoeAndrieu> decentralgabe: the VC-json-schema test suite is up. testing our implementation at Block
19:08:52 <selfissued_> selfissued_ has joined #vcwg
19:08:53 <JoeAndrieu> ... reach out to me if you're interested in integrating it
19:08:59 <selfissued_> present+
19:09:05 <brent> ack manu
19:09:07 <JoeAndrieu> brent: Ivan is out, but I'll follow up with him about moving the repo
19:09:16 <JoeAndrieu> manu: update on data-integrity and crypto suite specs
19:09:42 <JoeAndrieu> ... we have PRs for all before-CR issues. In DI and the cryptosuites
19:10:04 <Orie> Orie has joined #vcwg
19:10:06 <JoeAndrieu> ... for VC Data Model, by the end of september, I don't see that happening. Its close but we need more issue processing and PRs
19:10:06 <Orie> present+
19:10:16 <JoeAndrieu> ... maybe October?
19:10:41 <JoeAndrieu> ... StatusList continues to drag. It shouldn't have much work, but should be doable.
19:10:55 <dmitriz> present+
19:11:00 <JoeAndrieu> brent: StatusList, just needs rebasing on the one open PR
19:11:07 <JoeAndrieu> manu: yes, some merge conflicts, Mike?
19:11:14 <JoeAndrieu> mprorock: I'll look after the call
19:11:30 <JoeAndrieu> manu: we should discuss if we are going to have multiple status list types or not
19:11:32 <mprorock> +1 manu
19:12:01 <JoeAndrieu> brent: for the group, the chairs perspective: meetings up to and including TPAC will be processing issues and PRs for all issues marked before CR
19:12:13 <JoeAndrieu> ... whatever we don't get to before TPAC, we'll deal with that at TPAC.
19:12:25 <manu> q+
19:12:32 <JoeAndrieu> ... Editors, can you reach out to us to tell us how much time you need during TPAC
19:12:45 <brent> ack manu
19:12:52 <dlehn> present+
19:12:54 <JoeAndrieu> manu: I'm wondering what you mean by time.
19:13:04 <JoeAndrieu> ... if we have no pre-cr issues what are you expecting?
19:13:26 <JoeAndrieu> brent: if no pre-cr issues open and all PRs are merged, then we can talk proposal to move to CR
19:13:33 <JoeAndrieu> ... which probably won't need much time
19:13:38 <JoeAndrieu> ... other work items might need more time
19:13:58 <brent> Topic: Issue Triage
19:14:13 <manu> q+
19:14:14 <JoeAndrieu> ... Next: Issue Triage
19:14:28 <manu> q-
19:14:36 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1260
19:14:48 <Orie> q+
19:14:59 <brent> ack Orie
19:15:21 <JoeAndrieu> Orie: this PR was raised after a thread in DI repo about how many contexts are needed
19:15:44 <JoeAndrieu> .,, vc-di has the vc-di context, but only with limited terms
19:16:06 <JoeAndrieu> ... [more details]
19:16:36 <JoeAndrieu> ... in DI, we have three contexts. one for proof and DI proof. one for multi-key and one for webkey
19:16:59 <JoeAndrieu> ... for StatusList2021 you can use without one of the contexts, but that context is bundled into v2 context
19:17:11 <JoeAndrieu> ... you can use multikey and json multikey but these are not bundled
19:17:32 <JoeAndrieu> ... so this adds those terms to that bundle, so you can get the same URI in all situations
19:17:49 <JoeAndrieu> ... the contentious part is the private key representations.
19:18:09 <JoeAndrieu> ... manu said he doesn't know a good use case for private keys
19:18:25 <JoeAndrieu> ... my preference is that the term definitions be consistent, as its harder to prevent them from ...
19:18:43 <JoeAndrieu> ... people can do whatever they want. my preference would be to make sure the graph looks right
19:18:54 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
19:18:55 <JoeAndrieu> ... also, the keys part of a JSON web key set
19:19:02 <manu> q+
19:19:04 <JoeAndrieu> ... similiar to JWK in v2
19:19:08 <brent> ack manu
19:19:18 <JoeAndrieu> manu: I think that's a fair introduction to the issue
19:19:26 <JoeAndrieu> ... to hone in on the parts that are contentious
19:19:45 <JoeAndrieu> ... One is, do we have a use case where people are going to express private key material in a VC and signing it?
19:19:56 <JoeAndrieu> ... If so, they can always do that
19:20:07 <JoeAndrieu> ... but its a corner case, so it's not clear we want to promote that by default
19:20:20 <JoeAndrieu> ... I don't think that as a working group we should be promoting that
19:20:33 <JoeAndrieu> ... Signing over private key material doesn't seem like something we should support
19:20:49 <JoeAndrieu> ... We don't currently have an example of representing this
19:21:04 <gkellogg_> gkellogg_ has joined #vcwg
19:21:06 <JoeAndrieu> ... if we had confidenceMethod is included, that might make sense
19:21:10 <seabass> q+
19:21:17 <JoeAndrieu> ... but that doesn't look to be on a trajectory to make it into the spec, so I think we should hold off
19:21:31 <JoeAndrieu> ... If we get a super valid use case, we can always put that into the context later
19:21:47 <Orie> q+ to say you can use confidenceMethod with JsonWebKey today... and adding these terms to v2 context just makes the RDF graph correct.
19:21:47 <JoeAndrieu> ... We have text in the spec that the context file might change during CR and we can deal with it then
19:21:55 <pl-asu> +1 to NOT supporting signing over private credentials - not something we should encourage.  As we're in an open world model we can't prevent this.
19:22:06 <JoeAndrieu> ... I don't think its a good idea to merge this PR at this time. We need a good use case.
19:22:14 <brent> ack seabass
19:22:30 <pl-asu> private credentials should have read private keys.
19:22:30 <JoeAndrieu> seabass: Orie, I know where you're coming from. I asked Manu something similar last week.
19:22:43 <JoeAndrieu> ... given the VC flexibility, you can use them to cross-sign keys
19:23:02 <Orie> You can sign whatever you want... this working group does not control what issuers sign... and using RDF to try and enforce that is... not a good idea.
19:23:03 <JoeAndrieu> ... any one of those use cases could be addressed with cross-signing
19:23:15 <manu> To be clear - we're not blocking any of the use cases Orie is talking about... we're just saying: "That's not a mainstream use case, but if you want to do it, there is a mechanism there to do it (include the other context)."
19:23:17 <JoeAndrieu> ... at no point do you actually need a private key to move
19:23:21 <brent> ack Orie
19:23:21 <Zakim> Orie, you wanted to say you can use confidenceMethod with JsonWebKey today... and adding these terms to v2 context just makes the RDF graph correct.
19:23:38 <JoeAndrieu> Orie: The confidenceMethod is reserved. Not clear if we settled domain & range
19:23:54 <gkellog__> gkellog__ has joined #vcwg
19:24:04 <manu> q+ to note that there is no concrete implementation for `confidenceMethod`
19:24:05 <JoeAndrieu> ... There is a question if we should define those for reserved properties
19:24:07 <JoeAndrieu> ... You could say the range is "verification methods"
19:24:17 <JoeAndrieu> ... then you could expect to see those defined
19:24:21 <gkellog__> gkellog__ has joined #vcwg
19:24:29 <JoeAndrieu> ... For those who want confidence method, one of the use cases is to bind to a DID
19:24:37 <JoeAndrieu> ... the other is to bind to some key material
19:25:18 <JoeAndrieu> ... the only contentious issue I see here is the secret key material in them
19:25:39 <JoeAndrieu> ... if its better to do that not in the V2 context, but can be in a different one
19:25:53 <JoeAndrieu> ... I was surprised to see secret keys in the context definition
19:26:00 <dwaite> dwaite has joined #vcwg
19:26:05 <dwaite> present+
19:26:32 <JoeAndrieu> ... I want to move away from the multi-base approach but support issuer-provided means
19:26:36 <brent> ack manu
19:26:36 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that there is no concrete implementation for `confidenceMethod`
19:26:43 <JoeAndrieu> brent: this is good, about ready to move on
19:27:03 <JoeAndrieu> manu: two contentious part here. one confidenceMethod doesn't exist (because of no implementations)
19:27:03 <Orie> confidenceMethod the "predicate" is reserved, and exists.
19:27:16 <JoeAndrieu> ... we've agreed that if you don't have an implementation, don't add it to the context
19:27:30 <Orie> ConfidenceMethod the RDF class does not exist, but "VerificationMethod" does... afaik.
19:27:47 <JoeAndrieu> ... I agree. In theory you could use confidence method, but that will need another context (because it isn't in V2)
19:27:50 <Orie> disagree with basically everything Manu is saying... but happy to keep talking about it on issues.
19:28:00 <JoeAndrieu> ... So we shouldn't put that into the spec
19:28:24 <JoeAndrieu> ... Two, yes. We've been arguing for a long time. Orie, you said you would object if it isn't in there. So that was a compromise made.
19:28:37 <JoeAndrieu> ... That is shifting into core context where it doesn't look like it belongs
19:28:42 <Orie> I will object in core context defines confidenceMethod, but not JsonWebKey and Multikey.
19:28:51 <JoeAndrieu> ... There is no use case that's broad enough for secret keys to be in the base context.
19:28:52 <Orie> s/in/if/
19:29:08 <steele> steele has joined #vcwg
19:29:11 <JoeAndrieu> ... if its not there, it can be an issuer-specific context
19:29:24 <brent> Topic: Issue Triage
19:29:25 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1263
19:29:26 <JoeAndrieu> brent: sounds like Orie is happy to drop it from the main context if we can get it in other contexts
19:29:30 <JoeAndrieu> ... now moving to issue triage
19:29:31 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1263
19:29:36 <JoeAndrieu> ... only on issue so far
19:29:49 <JoeAndrieu> s/on/one/
19:30:29 <manu> q+
19:30:31 <JoeAndrieu> ... looking for before-cr or post-cr comments
19:30:37 <brent> ack manu
19:30:52 <JoeAndrieu> manu: discussed this yesterday. Ted mentioned he would think about it.
19:31:12 <JoeAndrieu> brent: ok, that's ok with me. Ted did you want to share anything now?
19:31:23 <Orie> q+
19:31:29 <JoeAndrieu> TallTed: not yet. This is probably post-cr
19:31:42 <brent> ack Orie
19:32:11 <JoeAndrieu> orie: there are reserved terms that also point to reserved RDF classes
19:32:20 <JoeAndrieu> ... we currently have confidenceMethod as a reserved RDF class
19:32:44 <JoeAndrieu> ... which maybe implies some future inheritance. but what is the reslationship between the reserved predicate and the reserved RDF class.
19:33:15 <JoeAndrieu> ... what's the thought process around confidenceMethod being reserved in this way, instead of having confidencemethod refer to verification method.
19:33:20 <manu> q+
19:33:24 <JoeAndrieu> ... are these normative
19:33:32 <brent> ack manu
19:33:37 <JoeAndrieu> manu: ivan did a lot of this work. we'd need to ask him.
19:33:45 <Orie> Does this work reflect working group consensus?
19:34:01 <Orie> Is the vocabulary normative?
19:34:10 <brent> Topic: Issue Discussion
19:34:12 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Abefore-CR+sort%3Aupdated-asc
19:34:15 <JoeAndrieu> brent: moving to final topic
19:34:45 <JoeAndrieu> ... These are all labeled before CR, some are ready for PR we'll ask when we might see that. Some are not. We'll ask what the plan is.
19:34:50 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1152
19:35:09 <JoeAndrieu> ... Raised by Mike Prorock. Ready for PR.
19:35:41 <seabass> q+
19:35:55 <JoeAndrieu> mprorock: I thought we were going to get some guidance from Ivan, but maybe I'm misremembering
19:36:04 <JoeAndrieu> ... it's ready for PR. I'll try to get to it.
19:36:12 <brent> ack seabass
19:36:23 <JoeAndrieu> seabass: is this the same a #1261
19:36:28 <pauld_gs1> pauld_gs1 has joined #vcwg
19:36:31 <JoeAndrieu> manu: no
19:36:33 <JoeAndrieu> brent: no
19:36:37 <JoeAndrieu> mprorock: no. different
19:36:54 <manu> This should be an easy one -- fairly straight-forward PR.
19:37:00 <JoeAndrieu> brent: the resource integrity is literally adding that term to the vocabulary (rather than integrity of the vocabulary)
19:37:06 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1155
19:37:23 <manu> q+
19:37:30 <brent> ack manu
19:37:32 <JoeAndrieu> ... any actions to take here?
19:37:39 <dmitriz> q+
19:37:59 <JoeAndrieu> manu: it's not clear. Addison continues to review. So I think we are getting active i18n reviews.
19:38:15 <JoeAndrieu> ... we should probably ask outright if we've addressed his concerns in his review.
19:38:34 <JoeAndrieu> brent: we do have on i18n pre-cr issue
19:38:38 <brent> ack dmitriz
19:39:01 <Orie> +1 to an example
19:39:03 <manu> q+
19:39:05 <JoeAndrieu> dmitriz: I wanted to ask if there would be any objections or push back to adding a PR with an example of i18n
19:39:09 <brent> ack manu
19:39:15 <JoeAndrieu> manu: we have stuff in the internationalization section
19:39:25 <JoeAndrieu> dmitriz: it doesn't have value-level language selection
19:39:34 <JoeAndrieu> manu: yes, we had that and people complained, so we removed it
19:39:50 <JoeAndrieu> ... so maybe we could add one that has the bare @language or @value in there
19:39:59 <Orie> maybe file an issue capturing the example you want to see, and cross link for discussion.
19:40:16 <JoeAndrieu> dmitriz: I just mean, for example, if the value is a string, then an object with the properties for lang.
19:40:19 <manu> q+
19:40:25 <JoeAndrieu> brent: hold on. remember the queue
19:40:48 <JoeAndrieu> brent: an issue to track this concern with an example example, would be an appropriate way to advance this
19:40:55 <brent> ack manu
19:41:09 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/959
19:41:26 <JoeAndrieu> brent: issue 959. says PR exists
19:41:41 <Orie> q+
19:41:47 <brent> ack Orie
19:41:55 <JoeAndrieu> ...If we merge that PR we can close this?
19:42:15 <JoeAndrieu> Orie: that was the intent
19:42:32 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1047
19:42:47 <Orie> q+
19:42:49 <JoeAndrieu> brent: NIST defines credential differently
19:43:00 <JoeAndrieu> Orie: I definitely need to get to it.
19:43:11 <JoeAndrieu> ... it might be that credential has more alignment
19:43:26 <JoeAndrieu> ... it's related to previous topic about the abstract class confidentMethod
19:43:41 <JoeAndrieu> ... I do plan to do this at some point
19:43:51 <JoeAndrieu> brent: is the some point anticipated before TPAC
19:44:05 <JoeAndrieu> Orie: possibly, but this should probably be post-CR
19:44:33 <justin_r> q+
19:44:33 <JoeAndrieu> ... assuming the other PR is merged this gets to post-cr
19:44:40 <brent> ack Orie
19:44:45 <brent> ack justin_r
19:44:45 <JoeAndrieu> brent: comments to that effect with link to PR would be helpful
19:44:57 <Orie> Thank yoou!
19:45:13 <JoeAndrieu> justin_r: the TLDR version is that 863 definition of credential is authenticator plus attributes
19:45:21 <JoeAndrieu> ... fundamentally this is how credentials are used in VCs
19:45:41 <JoeAndrieu> ... but that's largely based on the definition of authenticator, which is fundamental to the NIST definition of credential
19:45:58 <seabass> s/863/800-63/
19:45:58 <JoeAndrieu> ... so the W3C can align or redefine or reference
19:46:04 <Orie> q+ to note that we seem to be calling "confidenceMethod" an "authenticator".
19:46:20 <brent> ack Orie
19:46:20 <Zakim> Orie, you wanted to note that we seem to be calling "confidenceMethod" an "authenticator".
19:46:30 <JoeAndrieu> ... this term has changed about 6 times since I started working with NIST
19:47:02 <JoeAndrieu> Orie: the group has been discussing how to express "confidenceMethod" in VCs, which would express the public key that would be used for an authenticator
19:47:13 <JoeAndrieu> ... we are using similar but not the same
19:47:24 <manu> Nope -- that's not the only use case for `confidenceMethod` -- it's not only bound to authenticators.
19:47:36 <JoeAndrieu> brent: moving to next issue
19:47:38 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1153
19:47:49 <Orie> ConfidenceMethod is a "super set" that includes authenticators?
19:48:05 <JoeAndrieu> ... we added context resource integrity. how do we test it?
19:48:05 <Orie> or we just need it to not be the same thing in order to justify defining it?
19:48:23 <dlongley> Orie: ^not that later question, which is presuming bad faith, please don't do that.
19:48:26 <manu> q+
19:48:32 <JoeAndrieu> mprorock: I will be adding code for testing the jose-cose side of this
19:48:49 <JoeAndrieu> manu: +1 should be straightforward to add
19:48:50 <justin_r> "authenticator" per 800-63 is fundamentally about proving access to a secret, it's an intentionally wide definition that spans many technologies. It might or might not make sense for it to be used exactly the same way here. NIST is not likely to change how it's used.
19:48:57 <JoeAndrieu> brent: should we move this to the test suite repo?
19:49:10 <JoeAndrieu> manu: or we just test in the core data model
19:49:14 <Orie> so its a superset, where we are not defining the behavior beyond authenticators?... I am not going to assume thats being done maliciously, but I will assert its a bad idea to do this way.
19:49:22 <JoeAndrieu> brent: If I here no issues, I'll move to vc test suite repo
19:49:44 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1227
19:49:52 <dlongley> justin_r: yeah, that makes sense -- and people here have said they want some concept that also includes other "authentication mechanisms" that are not strictly related to secrets or proof of possession / use of keys.
19:49:56 <JoeAndrieu> ... value of processing JSON-LD
19:49:58 <justin_r> @orie I think it's more a matter of the ven diagram having some overlap that's fuzzy around the edges - not a super or subset from what I can tell
19:50:01 <brent> ack manu
19:50:11 <JoeAndrieu> manu: you can mark it ready for PR. we are working on text for it activly.
19:50:42 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1232
19:50:59 <JoeAndrieu> brent: revisit verification and validation
19:51:21 <manu> scribe+
19:51:32 <manu> JoeAndrieu: I don't think there's been any forward movement.
19:51:35 <justin_r> dlongley: right, which in the NIST framework would include things that aren't authenticators, which is fine.
19:51:49 <dlongley> +1
19:51:55 <manu> JoeAndrieu: I do think it's on me to do a review on validation/verification... could come back and add them as comments. I think that's where we're at.
19:52:19 <manu> s/justin_r: yeah/justin_r, yeah/
19:52:29 <manu> s/dlongley: right/dlongley, right/
19:52:30 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1010
19:52:42 <JoeAndrieu> brent: termsOfUse insufficiently specified
19:53:01 <DavidC> q+
19:53:05 <JoeAndrieu> ... can anyone give us an update
19:53:12 <brent> ack DavidC
19:53:36 <JoeAndrieu> DavidC: I think we got to the text in the space should be generic enough to allow anyone to specify their own terms of use with their own URI
19:53:44 <JoeAndrieu> ... and for testing we want something more than generic URI
19:54:01 <JoeAndrieu> ... we want specific URI for the type, which we can actually test for
19:54:15 <JoeAndrieu> ... I think we're at this state now.
19:54:44 <JoeAndrieu> ... I think we can now write specific tests with specific URIs and we could have different implementations that understand that type and can process it.
19:54:56 <pl-asu> Q+
19:55:03 <brent> ack pl-asu
19:55:09 <JoeAndrieu> pl-asu: I think David said it well.
19:55:25 <JoeAndrieu> ... the issue was that we needed something machine processable and not just a reference to a description.
19:55:32 <manu> q+
19:55:36 <JoeAndrieu> ... now we have a way to test out David's idea.
19:55:42 <brent> ack manu
19:55:51 <JoeAndrieu> manu: I'm confused about where we are on this topic.
19:55:56 <brent> +1 to being confused
19:56:03 <seabass> q+
19:56:12 <JoeAndrieu> ... we made ... we had a consensus that the reserve term is going to be removed if we don't have a spec with two implementations by end of CR
19:56:30 <DavidC> q+
19:56:39 <JoeAndrieu> ... the other way to do it is that we have multiple implementations and there is functional interoperability
19:56:53 <JoeAndrieu> ... where are we as a group. have we decided on one way or another
19:56:54 <JoeAndrieu> q+
19:57:01 <brent> ack seabass
19:57:09 <JoeAndrieu> q-
19:57:18 <Orie> +1 manu
19:57:28 <JoeAndrieu> seabass: I was going to propose something complicated, but in the interest of time, I'll yield to David
19:57:30 <brent> ack DavidC
19:57:37 <manu> manu: to be clear, I'm fine w/ either way forward... we just need to pick a direction. :) -- the first one is more stringent than the second.
19:57:55 <JoeAndrieu> DavidC: manu didn't quite catch what I said. There *will* be two implementations that are interoperable.
19:57:56 <manu> great, thanks DavidC -- that makes things easy.
19:59:08 <brent> zakim, who is here?
19:59:08 <Zakim> Present: brent, mprorock, TallTed, Kristina, decentralgabe, seabass, manu, DavidC, JoeAndrieu, bigbluehat, pl-asu, dlongley, andres_, selfissued_, Orie, dmitriz, dlehn, dwaite
19:59:11 <Zakim> On IRC I see pauld_gs1, steele, dwaite, gkellog__, Orie, selfissued_, Calvin, andres_, pl-asu, JoeAndrieu, Rachel, DavidC, justin_r, dmitriz, mprorock, RRSAgent, Zakim, brent,
19:59:11 <Zakim> ... TallTed, shigeya, Jem, cel, dlehn, manu, hyojin, csarven, bumblefudge1, cel[m], w3c_modbot, ounfacdo, seabass, saysaywhat, npd, MojGraph, cel[h], bumblefudge, Github,
19:59:11 <Zakim> ... bigbluehat, Dongwoo, hadleybeeman, stonematt, stenr, dlongley, rhiaro
19:59:29 <brent> present+ justin_r
19:59:42 <brent> zakim, end the meeting
19:59:42 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been brent, mprorock, TallTed, Kristina, decentralgabe, seabass, manu, DavidC, JoeAndrieu, bigbluehat, pl-asu, dlongley, andres_, selfissued_,
19:59:46 <Zakim> ... Orie, dmitriz, dlehn, dwaite, justin_r
19:59:46 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:59:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/08/30-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim
19:59:54 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, brent; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
19:59:54 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg
20:00:07 <brent> rrsagent, bye
20:00:07 <RRSAgent> I see no action items