21:58:35 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg-special
21:58:39 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/10/24-vcwg-special-irc
21:58:50 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #vcwg-special
21:59:27 <brent> brent has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2023-10-24: https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/eaf86734-c2f9-410e-86b9-1cca18d0d6c9/20231024T180000/&sa=D&source=calendar&usd=2&usg=AOvVaw3V3diRDrhV6qnxjI-hNhdQ
21:59:38 <brent> zakim, start the meeting
21:59:38 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
21:59:39 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), brent
21:59:53 <brent> meeting: VCWG Special Topic call
22:00:07 <brent> chair: Brent Zundel
22:00:28 <Orie> Orie has joined #vcwg-special
22:00:35 <Orie> present+
22:00:46 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg-special
22:00:47 <decentralgabe> decentralgabe has joined #vcwg-special
22:00:52 <decentralgabe> present+
22:01:44 <andres> andres has joined #vcwg-special
22:01:55 <andres> present+
22:01:58 <brent> present+
22:02:03 <dlongley> present+
22:02:06 <hsano> present+
22:02:14 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg-special
22:02:18 <selfissued> present+
22:03:26 <pauld_gs1> pauld_gs1 has joined #vcwg-special
22:03:28 <TallTed> present+
22:03:31 <pauld_gs1> present+
22:03:36 <manu> present+
22:03:44 <andres> scribe+
22:04:59 <selfissued> +1 Manu!
22:05:24 <selfissued> q+
22:05:33 <brent> Topic: Controller Documents
22:05:36 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg-special
22:05:42 <dlehn> present+
22:05:42 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1307
22:05:45 <JoeAndrieu> present+
22:06:13 <andres> brent: Just for tracking purposes. Where we're at: DI and vc-jose-cose specify some sort of controller document.
22:06:45 <andres> ... The differences have led to the current proposal to have a separate document that is a controller document spec, which we're expecting to be minimal.
22:07:20 <andres> ... selfissued reached out to the chairs with a set of proposals. Suggestion is to go over them in this call.
22:08:31 <Orie> You can put the resolution on the issue as well
22:08:41 <Orie> or rather the proposals
22:08:47 <selfissued> Proposed Resolution 1: The working group will create a Controller Document specification containing functionality and definitions that are common to both securing specifications (VC JOSE COSE and Data Integrity).
22:08:49 <andres> selfissued: The goal here is to have a path forward for securing specs and controller docs.
22:08:52 <selfissued> Proposed Resolution 2: The corresponding Controller Document functionality will be removed from both securing specifications and replaced by use of the new shared document.
22:08:59 <Shogeya> Shogeya has joined #vcwg-special
22:09:00 <selfissued> Proposed Resolution 3: The securing specifications will profile the shared document as needed.
22:09:25 <selfissued> Proposed Resolution 4: The shared document shall not include the use of multibase or multihash.  This functionality will instead be included in the Data Integrity-specific profile.
22:09:35 <selfissued> Proposed Resolution 5: The shared document does not have to include key discovery using .well-known URLs.  If it is not included, it will instead be included in the VC JOSE COSE-specific profile. (The working group can choose to include it as a separate decision, if desired).
22:09:44 <selfissued> Proposed Resolution 6: We will create the new shared document and use it from the securing specifications before either goes to CR.
22:09:50 <selfissued> And if we have time, we should pass one of:
22:09:58 <selfissued> Proposed Resolution 7: The shared document will include key discovery using .well-known URLs.
22:10:05 <selfissued> Proposed Resolution 8: The shared document will not include key discovery using .well-known URLs.
22:10:14 <selfissued> Done with resolutions
22:10:25 <manu> q+
22:10:34 <selfissued> q-
22:10:37 <andres> brent: Proposals build on one another. Let's get started.
22:10:38 <brent> ack manu
22:11:20 <andres> manu: Looking at the proposals I can see controversy in 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Concerned with this being reopened before DI going into CR.
22:11:41 <selfissued> q+
22:11:42 <andres> ... There's a clear preference in 4-8 for vc-jose-cose.
22:11:55 <Orie> q+ to ask about what actually happens to get to CR
22:11:59 <brent> ack selfissued
22:12:01 <andres> ... Feels like it's going to put the work on hold for securing.
22:12:22 <andres> selfissued: No intent to have preferences for a single securing spec.
22:12:58 <andres> ... Intended to be even handed, and give us a clear path forward as a WG.
22:13:30 <brent> ack Orie
22:13:30 <Zakim> Orie, you wanted to ask about what actually happens to get to CR
22:13:33 <andres> ... I'd like WG to be on record on whether we'll do the split, regardless of whether we'll go to CR or not.
22:13:52 <andres> orie: Process question, is CR a thing the WG decides?
22:14:24 <andres> brent: The WG resolves to go to CR (which we've done for vc-json-schema, and others).
22:14:54 <andres> ... Then the editors move those specs by clicking the correct buttons and drafting docs.
22:15:11 <selfissued> +1
22:15:14 <andres> +1
22:15:17 <decentralgabe> +1
22:15:28 <manu> q+
22:15:31 <Core5069> Core5069 has joined #vcwg-special
22:15:34 <brent> ack manu
22:15:52 <selfissued> q+
22:16:06 <andres> manu: I'd change to "will attempt to". It might not be successful.
22:16:40 <Core5069_> Core5069_ has joined #vcwg-special
22:16:43 <andres> brent: I'll wordsmith this.
22:16:55 <brent> q?
22:16:58 <brent> ack selfissued
22:17:27 <andres> selfissued: Feels like it's watered down. I would rather be on record on what we plan to do. Ok if we fail.
22:17:32 <brent> PROPOSAL: The working group will create a Controller Document specification, with the intent that it become a recommendation, containing functionality and definitions that are common to both securing specifications (VC JOSE COSE and Data Integrity).
22:17:38 <brent> +1
22:17:39 <selfissued> +1
22:17:39 <Orie> +1
22:17:40 <manu> +1
22:17:42 <decentralgabe> +1
22:17:42 <Shogeya> +1
22:17:45 <andres> +1
22:17:49 <dlongley> +1
22:17:51 <Core5069_> +1
22:17:52 <TallTed> +1
22:18:25 <brent> RESOLVED: The working group will create a Controller Document specification, with the intent that it become a recommendation, containing functionality and definitions that are common to both securing specifications (VC JOSE COSE and Data Integrity).
22:18:53 <manu> q+
22:19:01 <brent> ack manu
22:19:21 <selfissued> q+
22:19:24 <andres> manu: Needs to say something about timing on when the functionatility will be removed.
22:19:36 <TallTed> +1 manu
22:20:00 <brent> ack selfissued
22:20:18 <manu> q+ to insist that we talk about timeline, because if we don't, the proposal is unclear.
22:20:19 <TallTed> q+
22:20:22 <andres> selfissued: I've intentionally worded this so they're independent.
22:20:23 <manu> q- later
22:20:38 <dlongley> q+ to talk about intent
22:20:40 <brent> ack TallTed
22:20:43 <andres> ... Prop 6 talks about timing. I don't want to talk about it now.
22:21:13 <manu> q- later
22:21:15 <andres> TallTed: Batch resolutions need to be handled as batch proposals. Doing it in the proposed order leaves significant holes.
22:21:53 <andres> ... In the proposed order it's possible to create a doc that doesn't go into CR, after moving functionality. If that comes to pass, we'll need to reinsert it.
22:22:11 <andres> ... Don't think this piecemeal proposal is viable.
22:22:36 <andres> brent: Wordsmithing all at once seems difficult, but we can attempt.
22:22:54 <andres> ... Open to concrete suggestions on how we can move forward.
22:23:09 <brent> ack dlongley
22:23:09 <Zakim> dlongley, you wanted to talk about intent
22:23:33 <andres> dlongley: Thinking we need to include intent. Re: path forward - a sticking point is whether this delays CR.
22:23:52 <brent> ack manu
22:23:52 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to insist that we talk about timeline, because if we don't, the proposal is unclear.
22:23:55 <andres> ... Will this enable us to move forward without delaying CR?
22:24:31 <andres> manu: I made the concrete suggestion that we specify when the functionality will be removed (after controller document enters CR).
22:24:41 <selfissued> q+
22:25:11 <andres> ... That should be a fine time to remove.
22:25:30 <andres> ... Trying to get the proposal to pass.
22:25:41 <Orie> q+
22:25:58 <brent> ack selfissued
22:26:24 <Core5069_> +1 to TallTed's proposal
22:26:30 <andres> selfissued: Couldn't make last week call. Issue says it's a pre-CR issue. We should deal with it. Timing should be a separate proposal.
22:26:30 <brent> ack Orie
22:26:48 <Core5069_> present+ JoeAndrieu
22:26:58 <andres> orie: Seems like what we're saying is don't have anything delay DI getting into CR.
22:27:15 <andres> ... Maybe we do the other proposals before we address this one?
22:27:37 <andres> brent: Are you proposing we tackel #6?
22:27:41 <Shogeya> s/Shogeya/shigeya
22:28:24 <manu> q+
22:28:28 <brent> ack manu
22:29:06 <andres> manu: I think this is a bad idea. We've already went through the logic of not delaying CR in multiple calls.
22:29:17 <dlongley> agree with Manu that this is a bad idea, i will not vote to delay CR
22:29:20 <andres> ... All publications are aiming to be published on nov 7.
22:29:26 <pl_asu> pl_asu has joined #vcwg-special
22:29:33 <pl_asu> present+
22:29:44 <andres> ... Was initially a +1 to moving the controller document outside, because it looked like we would get to some common ground.
22:30:08 <selfissued> q+
22:30:14 <andres> ... That doesn't look to be the case. We originally proposed moving it outside of DI as-is, into the outside doe.
22:30:24 <Orie> We have time for 2 CRs afaik.
22:30:42 <andres> ... What we're seeing is that multiple changes are being asked (removing some pieces).
22:30:48 <brent> chair hat off, I would -1 this. I believe we should go into CR with Data Integrity and change it should we succeed with a common controller document.
22:31:39 <andres> ... I think we shouldn't have that affect the DI timeline. If we succeed getting the controller document into CR, then we have created something common.
22:32:30 <andres> ... If we are successful moving out, and we come to consensus that normative changes need to happen in the controller document, then DI has to go into CR review again. That is a 28 day turn around.
22:32:31 <TallTed> Is "either" in prop6 meant to refer to the two securing specs (VC JOSE COSE and Data Integrity) plus the new Controller Document? I think that "either" should be "any", if so. If not, please explain what this "either" is meant to refer to.
22:33:11 <Shogeya> I read through data integrity last weeks and feels that placement of the controller document in DI looks odd and difficult to understand
22:33:22 <andres> ... I'm not convinced we'll get the consensus. Blocking DI would delay publication even more.
22:33:51 <brent> ack selfissued
22:34:26 <andres> selfissued: I think we should run the proposals. The editors of vc-jose-cose will appreciate understanding the intent.
22:34:27 <dlongley> we already passed proposal 1, that indicates an intent to have one
22:34:37 <andres> brent: The intent is to have 1.
22:35:09 <andres> ... We can run the proposals and then see where people are at.
22:36:04 <andres> ... Let's all take some deep breadths
22:36:30 <andres> ... Any proposal that calls for a delay of DI going into CR is clearly not going to pass.
22:36:31 <manu> q+
22:36:40 <Orie> q+
22:37:09 <Orie> q-
22:37:37 <manu> q-
22:38:28 <Core5069_> that shared document goes to cr?
22:38:33 <pl_asu> +1 for that proposal
22:38:34 <Selfissued_> Selfissued_ has joined #vcwg-special
22:38:38 <TallTed> q+
22:38:43 <brent> ack TallTed
22:38:49 <andres> brent: Would anyone -1 this? If so, what changes would you like to see?
22:39:00 <Selfissued_> preaent+
22:39:04 <andres> TallTed: Not a -1. Concerned this doesn't say anything about when it's going to happen.
22:39:17 <Selfissued_> present+
22:39:18 <manu> q+
22:39:26 <brent> ack manu
22:39:31 <andres> ... I think this would still possibly force a second CR.
22:39:57 <andres> manu: The belief is that this modification would not cause a second CR for DI, because implementations would not have to change the way they're implemented.
22:39:59 <pauld_gs1> q+
22:40:41 <brent> ack pauld_gs
22:40:46 <andres> ... If it doesn't, it's because the group has come to consensus that we're ok going through a second CR. It's quick as it's only 30 days turnaround.
22:40:48 <TallTed> q+
22:40:58 <pauld_gs1> q-
22:41:02 <andres> pauld_gs1: Is this a merge, or just copying text?
22:41:03 <brent> ack TallTed
22:41:19 <andres> TallTed: Have of my concern is that there might already be differences between docs. I don't know.
22:41:51 <andres> ... The second piece is that as a stand alone document, it will get issues. There is no guarantee that implementations will not need to change.
22:43:22 <andres> brent: The paths before us: 1) We copy paste (with slight modifications) from DI/vc-jose-cose to this doc. No changes to implementation in DI, not blocking.
22:43:56 <andres> ... 2) We cannot get this document into CR. So DI will still profile, and vc-jose-cose will profile. No common ground, we failed.
22:44:09 <andres> ... There are paths in the middle, which include going into a second CR phase.
22:44:28 <andres> ... Believe it's possible to get to 1), which is the happy path.
22:44:32 <Shigeya_> Shigeya_ has joined #vcwg-special
22:44:50 <TallTed> +1 manu's new draft
22:44:56 <brent> PROPOSAL: Once the Controller Document specification is in the Candidate Recommendation phase, the corresponding Controller Document functionality will be removed from both securing specifications and replaced by normative references to the Controller Document specifications.
22:44:59 <manu> +1
22:44:59 <dlongley> +1
22:45:02 <andres> +1
22:45:02 <TallTed> +1
22:45:04 <decentralgabe> +1
22:45:04 <pl_asu> +1
22:45:05 <Orie> +1
22:45:06 <brent> +1
22:45:09 <Core5069_> +!
22:45:14 <Shigeya_> +1
22:45:14 <pauld_gs1> +1
22:45:16 <Core5069_> +1
22:45:28 <Selfissued_> Or we rip controller document support out of vc-jose-cose if we fail to reach consensus on a controller document spec
22:45:37 <Selfissued_> +1
22:45:41 <brent> RESOLVED: Once the Controller Document specification is in the Candidate Recommendation phase, the corresponding Controller Document functionality will be removed from both securing specifications and replaced by normative references to the Controller Document specifications.
22:46:23 <manu> q+
22:46:26 <andres> brent: Proposed resolution #3 is straigthforward. Let's do it.
22:46:27 <brent> ack manu
22:46:52 <Selfissued_> q+
22:47:03 <andres> manu: Question for selfissued, can we downscope them? I saw a proposal to remove content from them. That says we would be removing existing content.
22:47:22 <brent> ack Selfissued_
22:47:25 <andres> ... That raises the question, does `publicKeyJwk` stay there?
22:47:47 <manu> q+
22:47:49 <andres> selfissued: The intent isn't to profile to remove stuff. The controller document is meant to have stuff in common.
22:47:57 <TallTed> q+
22:48:05 <brent> ack manu
22:48:19 <andres> ... You would profile it to add things that aren't in common.
22:48:44 <andres> manu: Controller documents are meant to have verification material. That's my concern, we're talking about gutting what controller documents are about.
22:49:28 <dlongley> i did not vote for an "end around" way to make VC-JOSE-COSE preferences the default.
22:49:44 <andres> ... It's going to take effort from the group to get there. We can try it, but it's not what I was expecting when people said profile. Profile usually involves a subset.
22:50:09 <andres> ... The other thing they have in common is that DI doesn't shove `publicKeyJwk` out.
22:50:22 <Selfissued_> q+
22:50:29 <dlongley> there is no common "preference" for JWKs.
22:50:31 <brent> ack TallTed
22:50:52 <Orie> I am concerned about giving bad security advice... regardless of which document the advice is in.
22:51:11 <andres> TallTed: Struggling not to feel ambushed by the proposals. Clearly there was thought put into it, but not all ramifications were thought through.
22:51:13 <dlongley> Orie: We're all concerned about giving bad advice -- for anything :).
22:52:10 <andres> brent: I believe in the positive intentions of both sides of this conversation. I don't think either side is trying to manipulate into some place of superiority. The intention is always to write the best spec.
22:52:10 <brent> ack Selfissued_
22:52:31 <manu> q+ to note I'm not worried about doing work... I'm concerned about the timeline we have.
22:52:33 <andres> selfissued_: If manu's primary concern is about the amount of work, i'll do it.
22:52:49 <brent> ack manu
22:52:49 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note I'm not worried about doing work... I'm concerned about the timeline we have.
22:52:54 <andres> ... We think always using `publicKeyJwk` in vc-jose-cose is the best decision for interop.
22:53:02 <dlongley> i am totally fine with VC-JOSE-COSE having a preference for key formats in that specification.
22:53:04 <Orie> +1 to selfissued comment
22:53:16 <andres> manu: Not worried about doing the work, more about taking time off of other things.
22:53:35 <Core5069_> I think the controller document must avoid key representations, but that is a significant portion of DI
22:53:41 <andres> ... I believe the WG can do it.
22:53:43 <dlongley> if there is no common preference for key formats -- then that has no place in a common controller document
22:53:59 <shigeya_> shigeya_ has joined #vcwg-special
22:54:36 <Core5069_> q+
22:54:46 <andres> brent: Seems straighforward that we can make this work happen.
22:54:50 <brent> ack Core5069_
22:55:18 <brent> q+
22:55:22 <dlongley> +1 to Joe, totally agree -- we must not endorse something that isn't commonly endorsed.
22:55:32 <dlongley> (in the shared document)
22:55:47 <Orie> I don't think these proposed resolutions imply any specific changes to the specs, they offer the ability to reflect WG consensus
22:55:50 <andres> Joe: Wanted to underscore what manu just said. Not about games. The way the proposal is structured would prefer `publicKeyJwk`.
22:56:09 <andres> brent: We're nitpicking about the potential detail of a spec that hasn't been written.
22:56:22 <dlongley> +1 to brent's articulation of "common".
22:56:26 <Core5069_> of you respect my opinion, I ask you not to call it nitpicking
22:56:36 <dlongley> i think the trouble was in what "common" meant, so +1 to brent.
22:56:40 <Orie> +1 Brent, we might end up saying less, if we have to agree... but isn't it worth trying to agree?
22:56:41 <andres> ... It's a fact that common things will be only the consensus agreed upon things.
22:56:56 <shigeya_> +1 to Brent.
22:56:58 <Core5069_> it's the algorithm of common
22:57:08 <Orie> +1 Brent : )
22:57:39 <TallTed> ftr, I am not assuming ill intent. I am asserting inability to sufficiently consider these proposals within this meeting.
22:57:43 <andres> ... We aren't talking about specifics yet. No one is suggesting that. We are assuming ill-intent. Please assume good intent. The work in this group will fail if you don't have an open mind.
22:57:49 <brent> PROPOSAL: The securing specifications will profile the shared document as needed.
22:57:54 <Orie> +1
22:57:59 <shigeya_> +1
22:58:02 <Selfissued_> +1
22:58:03 <decentralgabe> +1
22:58:04 <brent> +1
22:58:05 <andres> +1
22:58:13 <Core5069_> -1
22:58:30 <pauld_gs1> 0 I think the group has different opinions on "as needed" and that makes it impossible for me to decide
22:58:38 <dlongley> +1 for securing specs to indicate their specific preferences from the shared doc
22:58:38 <TallTed> +0
22:58:43 <pauld_gs1> can we replace as needed with more specific language
22:58:49 <pl_asu> +0
22:59:44 <andres> Joe: My concern is more about all the proposals together. I reserve the right to object depending on what happens with the specs.
22:59:48 <manu> -0 we need to understand "profile" and "as needed" -- I could support a proposal that was more clear about those things.
22:59:54 <brent> RESOLVED: The securing specifications will profile the shared document as needed.
23:00:30 <Orie> +1 to assuming good intent, and finding common ground
23:00:48 <brent> zakim, who is here?
23:00:48 <Zakim> Present: Orie, decentralgabe, andres, brent, dlongley, hsano, selfissued, TallTed, pauld_gs, manu, dlehn, JoeAndrieu, pl_asu, Selfissued_, !
23:00:51 <Zakim> On IRC I see shigeya_, Selfissued_, Core5069_, JoeAndrieu, pauld_gs1, selfissued, andres, hsano, Orie, Zakim, RRSAgent, brent, dlehn, TallTed, seabass, shigeya, dlongley, manu,
23:00:51 <Zakim> ... bigbluehat, stenr, csarven
23:01:03 <brent> present+ shigeya_
23:01:19 <pauld_gs1> present-
23:01:43 <brent> present+ pauld_gs1
23:01:52 <brent> zakim, end the meeting
23:01:52 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Orie, decentralgabe, andres, brent, dlongley, hsano, selfissued, TallTed, pauld_gs, manu, dlehn, JoeAndrieu, pl_asu, Selfissued_, !,
23:01:55 <Zakim> ... shigeya_, pauld_gs1
23:01:55 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
23:01:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/10/24-vcwg-special-minutes.html Zakim
23:02:03 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, brent; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
23:02:03 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg-special
23:02:11 <brent> rrsagent, bye
23:02:11 <RRSAgent> I see no action items