15:18:05 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg-special
15:18:09 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/12/12-vcwg-special-irc
15:18:10 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:18:41 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
15:18:41 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Special Topic Call on Outstanding PRs
15:18:41 <ivan> Date: 2023-12-12
15:18:41 <ivan> chair: brent
15:18:41 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/f6342df0-f7b5-4fc9-babd-61e55dc5fc2f/20231212T110000/
15:48:02 <brent> brent has joined #vcwg-special
15:58:09 <ivan> present+
15:59:01 <ivan> present+ brent
16:01:30 <manu> present+
16:02:00 <ivan> present+ bigbluehat
16:02:24 <ivan> present+ JoeAndrieu
16:02:34 <ivan> present+ dlongley
16:02:55 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg-special
16:03:11 <ivan> present+ TallTed
16:03:22 <ivan> present+ dmitriz
16:04:08 <andres> andres has joined #vcwg-special
16:04:15 <andres> present+
16:04:31 <ivan> present+ pauld, identitywoman
16:04:42 <ivan> present+ andres
16:04:44 <pauld_gs1> pauld_gs1 has joined #vcwg-special
16:04:52 <pauld_gs1> present+
16:04:56 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg-special
16:04:59 <JoeAndrieu> present+
16:05:01 <JoeAndrieu> scribe+
16:05:13 <JoeAndrieu> brent: Welcome everyone.
16:05:29 <JoeAndrieu> ... Today: pull requests
16:06:06 <JoeAndrieu> manu: I need to migrate the respec-vc and maybe respec-mermaid repos to W3C.
16:06:11 <JoeAndrieu> ... just a heads up
16:06:24 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: You know what I have to do?
16:06:27 <JoeAndrieu> manu: yep.
16:06:44 <JoeAndrieu> ... also Orie requested we update the tooling to show the latest VC-COSE-JOSE as well as DI specs
16:06:58 <JoeAndrieu> ... We'll do that once we move it over to W3C
16:06:59 <ivan> q+
16:07:17 <brent> ack ivan
16:07:17 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: the echidna is set up?
16:07:26 <JoeAndrieu> manu: I believe so...
16:07:42 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: for DI spec, it has to say CRD as status, then you can update as we go
16:08:15 <JoeAndrieu> manu: just a heads up, we have two CR events triggering. If we can get that on the agenda to review on a future meeting.
16:08:22 <JoeAndrieu> brent: yep, a good future meeting (Jan)
16:08:30 <ivan> q+
16:08:33 <JoeAndrieu> manu: can I submit a PR that would trigger a second PR?
16:08:45 <JoeAndrieu> brent: perhaps Ican can help wrt process
16:08:48 <ivan> s/second PR/second CR/
16:08:57 <JoeAndrieu> ... as soon as any normative changes are made to the CR document, doesn't that ...
16:08:57 <manu> q+
16:09:03 <JoeAndrieu> ... can we merge those without new CR phase?
16:09:09 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: Not sure I understood.
16:09:21 <JoeAndrieu> ... The CR process is such that we can republish CR drafts at any moment.
16:09:26 <JoeAndrieu> ... That is a "CR Snapshot"
16:09:57 <JoeAndrieu> ... When changes are such that test implementations have to be redone because of normative change, then CR snapshots must use old publishing mechanism (not echidna)
16:10:22 <JoeAndrieu> ... So do not merge if you would trigger a snapshot, so we can turn off echidna and do the snapshot
16:10:34 <JoeAndrieu> brent: certainly possible to create another branch.
16:10:37 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: yeah.
16:10:39 <brent> ack ivan
16:10:42 <brent> ack manu
16:10:48 <JoeAndrieu> manu: Sorry, I'm doing a bad job explaining.
16:10:56 <JoeAndrieu> ... [sharing screen]
16:11:13 <JoeAndrieu> ... Currently Jeffrey Yaskin has requested that we define an interface in all of the securing specifications
16:11:21 <JoeAndrieu> ... His change requests (and another by Greg)
16:11:30 <JoeAndrieu> ... If we adopt those changes will trigger a second CR
16:11:40 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: to be precise, it triggers a CR snapsho
16:11:46 <JoeAndrieu> manu: not sure that's true
16:11:55 <JoeAndrieu> ... Can I merge this into the CR draft?
16:12:00 <JoeAndrieu> ... I thought I could.
16:12:10 <JoeAndrieu> ... Then we would have to remember to do a snapshot
16:12:27 <JoeAndrieu> ... So we can do the changes, we just have to remember that we will need a second CR snapshot (TBD later)
16:12:33 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: yes. that can be done.
16:12:45 <JoeAndrieu> ... If we have lots of drafts, there are supposed to be a new CR
16:13:00 <JoeAndrieu> ... I don't know the details of those PRs, so I'm not sure if they would invalidate
16:13:12 <JoeAndrieu> manu: there are so many changes, it would be hard to argue they don't
16:13:31 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: wait. maybe better: if there are any patent issues, would these PRs create new ones?
16:13:47 <JoeAndrieu> ... any time we have a CR snapshot, it triggers a new IP review
16:13:58 <JoeAndrieu> ... Are these changes such that we need a new review in this respect
16:14:08 <JoeAndrieu> manu: probably not, but it's hard to say because of so many changes
16:14:28 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: if you aren't sure, but its not visibly a new feature, that probably works
16:14:47 <JoeAndrieu> ... but if we critically change stuff or add new feature, I would be uneasy publishing that as draft
16:15:01 <JoeAndrieu> manu: to be clear, this PR fixes a bug. Jeffrey's PRs modified the interface
16:15:07 <JoeAndrieu> ... between the VCDM and DI spec
16:15:16 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: these do not require immediate snapsho
16:15:28 <JoeAndrieu> manu: next fixes a bug (#70)
16:15:37 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: that's editorial. I don't see any problems with those
16:15:59 <JoeAndrieu> ... One more thing: document every change. There should be a clear section that says "Since the last CR snapshot, these changes happenedn"
16:16:16 <JoeAndrieu> manu: so the only thing from the group, No one is objecting to these normative changes?
16:16:35 <JoeAndrieu> brent: I'm assuming on the PRs you have reviewed conversation and all of that?
16:16:49 <JoeAndrieu> ... Would anyone want to state an objection to processing as Manu proposed?
16:16:55 <JoeAndrieu> ... [crickets]
16:17:01 <JoeAndrieu> ... You care good to proceed, Manu.
16:17:06 <brent> Topic: PRs
16:17:08 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3Abefore-CR+sort%3Aupdated-asc
16:17:32 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1370
16:17:35 <manu> scribe+
16:17:38 <JoeAndrieu> ... First up, 1370
16:18:06 <JoeAndrieu> brent: Looks like Joe is opposed.
16:18:19 <JoeAndrieu> ... We don't have consensus on this. Looking to close.
16:18:30 <JoeAndrieu> ... happy to take comments. if folks are opposed, we can timebox a conversation
16:18:31 <manu> q+
16:18:36 <brent> ack manu
16:19:02 <JoeAndrieu> manu: As a heads up, I curated the PRs and put pending close on any thing that has an objection without a work-around
16:19:11 <JoeAndrieu> ... we need to get more aggressive about closing
16:19:31 <JoeAndrieu> ... Just an explanation about why things are marked pending closed
16:19:48 <JoeAndrieu> ... Another thing to ask is whether or not the objector would make an FO on this change
16:20:22 <JoeAndrieu> ... My concern about this PR is that if we don't put Related Resource will not have a way of adding a hash for a JSON LD context in addition to the base context
16:20:35 <JoeAndrieu> ... It has been asserted that you don't have to do that if you have static contexts
16:20:52 <JoeAndrieu> ... Orie's not here, who might be objecting
16:21:09 <ivan> q+
16:21:33 <ivan> scribe+ manu
16:21:56 <manu> JoeAndrieu: Yes, I am opposed to this, I would Formally Object, I think this is a huge layer violation. It creates an opportunity for surveillance through related resource, I think we can solve context securing in a different way.
16:22:19 <brent> ack ivan
16:22:19 <manu> JoeAndrieu: Manu, noted that VC-JOSE-COSE folks want to use JSON-LD Contexts... they should just use JSON-LD.
16:22:37 <manu> scribe-
16:22:39 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: I'm neutral on the original thing. but what was just proposed to Joe seems the wrong thing to do
16:22:55 <brent> q+ to say there is no consensus and ask about closing
16:22:56 <JoeAndrieu> ... saying that it can only be used for certain purposes sounds bad
16:23:09 <JoeAndrieu> ... that requires additional restrictions through new properties
16:23:12 <brent> ack brent
16:23:13 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to say there is no consensus and ask about closing
16:23:14 <manu> FWIW, I agree with Ivan, I was just trying to find a way through this where we don't end up w/ FOs.
16:23:16 <JoeAndrieu> ... I can't object, but I don't like it.
16:23:27 <JoeAndrieu> brent: I'm seeing no consensus here.
16:23:35 <JoeAndrieu> ... We don't have Orie, so we can't ask him.
16:23:45 <JoeAndrieu> ... based on the information we have, we should close this PR
16:24:02 <JoeAndrieu> ... I'd like to close it now, but we just put the pending close label on this three days ago
16:24:03 <manu> q+ to note our way through a FO if this becomes an issue
16:24:14 <brent> ack manu
16:24:14 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note our way through a FO if this becomes an issue
16:24:32 <JoeAndrieu> manu: note, if Orie is going to formally object (because you can't secure context)
16:24:34 <ivan> q+
16:24:43 <ivan> q-
16:24:47 <JoeAndrieu> ... our way through this would be to have a "relatedContext" property
16:24:49 <ivan> q+
16:25:00 <brent> ack ivan
16:25:04 <JoeAndrieu> ... I think Joe would not be opposed to that. And maybe Orie would find that ok
16:25:18 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: I want to remind people that there was a feature freeze a while ago.
16:25:29 <JoeAndrieu> ... what you just proposed feels like a new feature. It's just too late.
16:25:35 <JoeAndrieu> ... We can't work that way or we'll never finish.
16:25:49 <JoeAndrieu> brent: appreciate the reminders.
16:25:50 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1369
16:25:52 <JoeAndrieu> ... moving on to next PR
16:26:18 <JoeAndrieu> q+
16:26:22 <manu> scribe+
16:26:36 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
16:27:21 <manu> JoeAndrieu: I've had a shift in this whole verification thing... I haven't made it through Manu's edits w/ his new PRs and verification/validation... shift, which aligns w/ Andres, Verification defined "not cryptographically", but steps that can be done generically w/o business rules... so service provider can do that for you.
16:27:34 <dmitriz> expiry is business rules, tho
16:27:38 <dmitriz> but I like this phrasing
16:27:42 <manu> JoeAndrieu: It could check status, expiry, well-formed-ness, so I want to queue up Manu... how does that float into latest language? At least for me, I have a lot more movement on this topic.
16:27:46 <manu> q+
16:27:49 <ivan> s/tho/too/
16:27:49 <manu> scribe-
16:27:51 <brent> ack manu
16:28:01 <dlongley> +1 to the framing being closer to what i think works / people can agree with
16:28:11 <JoeAndrieu> manu: good news is that many people are granting leeway than before. that's good
16:28:33 <JoeAndrieu> ... I think there is strong push back on putting validation in scope
16:28:41 <ivan> present+ smccown
16:28:57 <JoeAndrieu> ... I think Orie has wanted us to say we are both verifying and validating. but once we put one validation thing in there, it's a slippery slope
16:29:22 <JoeAndrieu> ... I think Orie is aligned with an idea from Dave: these calls to validating any of the extension points, you just get a yes/no answer
16:29:35 <JoeAndrieu> ... that seems aligned with what Joe was saying
16:29:55 <andres> q+ to propose having different terms for the 3 concepts that are being discussed
16:29:59 <JoeAndrieu> ... I think there's some language we could get to
16:30:07 <JoeAndrieu> q+
16:30:26 <JoeAndrieu> manu: we could make another attempt at this, but I'd rather not do it.
16:30:39 <JoeAndrieu> ... we probably don't need this defined
16:30:50 <JoeAndrieu> ... I can try another variation
16:30:54 <JoeAndrieu> ... but this PR should die
16:31:07 <brent> ack andres
16:31:07 <Zakim> andres, you wanted to propose having different terms for the 3 concepts that are being discussed
16:31:10 <JoeAndrieu> brent: if anyone is opposed to this PR dying, speak up
16:31:32 <JoeAndrieu> andres: If its not in the spec, we should agree to use three different words for what we mean
16:31:45 <JoeAndrieu> ... "verification", "validation", but there's a third
16:31:52 <JoeAndrieu> ... One is cryptographic securing mechanism
16:32:08 <JoeAndrieu> ... Second is what Joe just alluded to, the status checking
16:32:14 <JoeAndrieu> ... Third is business validation
16:32:30 <JoeAndrieu> ... if we start using a different term that could help
16:32:31 <manu> q+
16:32:34 <manu> scribe+
16:32:39 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
16:32:49 <dmitriz> what is the current consensus re where well-formedness (required fields, etc) belongs? verification?
16:33:23 <manu> JoeAndrieu: One thing I wanted to note, in different PR, shift about "validation" that we don't validate what the roles do... even though it's expected that a verifier validates... there isn't software that we can test to be conformant. We say what conformant implementations do, not what conformant roles do (there still exists some sloppy language).
16:33:32 <dlongley> q+ to say i don't think we have three different terms, we just need to better split some things that are currently "both" ... verification gets you the information you need to make a decision, validation is making a decision about what verification returns
16:33:58 <manu> JoeAndrieu: Manu, you said verification should be 'yes/no' w/ subjects. I want to make sure metadata is returned so validation can be done by validation. Everything should bubble back up so business rules can be done/provided.
16:34:03 <brent> ack manu
16:34:13 <JoeAndrieu> manu: yes. that's the slippery slope I'm worried about
16:34:26 <smccown> smccown has joined #vcwg-special
16:34:37 <will> will has joined #vcwg-special
16:34:39 <JoeAndrieu> ... if we could define all that... it's not just expiry, it's also schema
16:34:53 <JoeAndrieu> ... So, depending on the detail that Jeffrey is asking for
16:35:34 <ivan> present+ will
16:35:38 <JoeAndrieu> ... For example, the interface for securing mechanisms took six weeks. At best, 3 weeks
16:35:54 <JoeAndrieu> ... that means we don't get to JOSE-COSE and unlinkability
16:36:11 <JoeAndrieu> ... Unless that interface can be handwavey...
16:36:20 <JoeAndrieu> ... What you want Joe, is great, but we are out of time
16:36:37 <JoeAndrieu> ... unless we can solve it in the next week or two
16:37:05 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say I'm not sure my approach is the problem. It's whether or not we can satisfy Jeffrey
16:37:13 <dmitriz> q+
16:37:25 <JoeAndrieu> ... Bikeshedding, etc. is a recipe for us just not completing
16:37:33 <JoeAndrieu> brent: thank you, Manu. I agree with your concerns
16:37:47 <JoeAndrieu> brent: what about this PR
16:37:50 <brent> ack dlongley
16:37:50 <Zakim> dlongley, you wanted to say i don't think we have three different terms, we just need to better split some things that are currently "both" ... verification gets you the
16:37:54 <Zakim> ... information you need to make a decision, validation is making a decision about what verification returns
16:37:58 <brent> zakim, close the queue
16:37:59 <Zakim> ok, brent, the speaker queue is closed
16:38:13 <JoeAndrieu> dlongley: I think we might not need 3 terms
16:38:21 <JoeAndrieu> ... we just need to split these up better
16:38:31 <JoeAndrieu> ... Verification is getting you the information you need to make a decision
16:38:37 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
16:38:37 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say I'm not sure my approach is the problem. It's whether or not we can satisfy Jeffrey
16:38:38 <JoeAndrieu> ... Validation is making that decision
16:38:42 <manu> scribe+
16:38:45 <manu> JoeAndrieu: I get the time thing
16:39:17 <manu> JoeAndrieu: My concern is not whether or not we do this, I appreciate the time concern and that we want to do this, I think Jeffrey is asking for an answer and we need to figure out the level of detail to assuage his concerns. If we don't define it in this way, what way could we meet it?
16:39:25 <brent> ack dmitriz
16:39:44 <JoeAndrieu> dmitriz: I want to get a sense where the current consensus is wrt conforming documents and well-formedness
16:39:53 <manu> q+
16:39:54 <dlongley> i think we're only defining the securing mechanism portion of verification and we can say that other interfaces can be used for other extension points to get secured information from them -- and then after all that, validation (business rules) can be applied
16:40:07 <JoeAndrieu> ... does checking that an object has required field, that timestamp is proper format, do those belong in verification or validation
16:40:51 <dmitriz> @manu - what were you going to say?
16:40:51 <JoeAndrieu> brent: next PR
16:40:51 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1382
16:40:56 <manu> q+
16:40:57 <brent> zakim, open the queue
16:40:58 <Zakim> ok, brent, the speaker queue is open
16:41:01 <manu> q+
16:41:22 <brent> ack manu
16:41:36 <JoeAndrieu> manu: I thought Ted was a minus .99 and I agree
16:41:46 <TallTed> q+
16:41:49 <JoeAndrieu> ... I don't like this PR. I raised it because Orie asked
16:41:59 <JoeAndrieu> ... I think the group just shouldn't say anything about it.
16:42:11 <JoeAndrieu> ... Why are we telling people not to do something that people might find useful.
16:42:12 <dlongley> +1 to Ted's rationale and Manu's support of it ... i think we're trying to say more than we need to here.
16:42:23 <JoeAndrieu> ... This feels like a time sync
16:42:43 <JoeAndrieu> ... Orie has said this would let us subprofile
16:42:52 <JoeAndrieu> ... But, please, let's not do that. Feels like a bad direction
16:43:11 <JoeAndrieu> ... Also, "+JSON+LD" would let you sub-profile, so we should
16:43:20 <brent> s/time sync/time sink/
16:43:24 <JoeAndrieu> ... But I don't think we have a good use for it in this group.
16:43:32 <dmitriz> q+
16:43:59 <JoeAndrieu> manu: suggestion is to close this PR
16:44:03 <dmitriz> +1 to closing the PR, do nothing.
16:44:13 <dlongley> +1 to Manu's suggestion to close the PR
16:44:13 <brent> ack TallTed
16:44:14 <dmitriz> it was done in response to a mis-interpretation of Orie's comment
16:44:16 <dmitriz> q-
16:44:18 <JoeAndrieu> ... if someone wants to profile the VCDM, they should do that and get implementation experience
16:44:26 <JoeAndrieu> TallTed: Yes, please lets close this
16:44:37 <JoeAndrieu> brent: dmitriz also noted he was +1 to close
16:44:47 <JoeAndrieu> ... I'm adding a pending close label to this PR
16:45:15 <JoeAndrieu> brent: next up 1383
16:45:17 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1383
16:45:33 <manu> q+
16:45:41 <brent> ack manu
16:45:41 <JoeAndrieu> ... a few comments. mostly editorial concerns raised.
16:45:49 <JoeAndrieu> manu: this PR looks like it will make it.
16:46:06 <JoeAndrieu> ... To clarify, we are now taking a normative dependence on INFRA, limited to the algorithm section
16:46:17 <TallTed> q+
16:46:20 <JoeAndrieu> ... We are NOT planning on rewriting the entire spec. We could later.
16:46:22 <ivan> +1 to Manu on infra
16:46:25 <brent> ack TallTed
16:46:28 <JoeAndrieu> ... But for now, just the algorithm section
16:46:48 <JoeAndrieu> TallTed: my comment lines 588-596 are changed twice.
16:46:49 <manu> q+
16:46:55 <JoeAndrieu> ... conversation at 1381 is the same
16:47:04 <JoeAndrieu> ... So this should be rebased
16:47:05 <brent> ack manu
16:47:19 <JoeAndrieu> manu: plus one. that's probably a mistake on my part. I'll remove it from the PR. Not meant to be in there.
16:47:41 <JoeAndrieu> brent: so this PR is looking like it will be approved. So, in five days from now, it will likely be merged.
16:47:59 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: to be precise, pending changes are still expected
16:48:02 <manu> Agree with Ivan, things need to change in this PR to go  in.
16:48:09 <JoeAndrieu> brent: now to 1381
16:48:10 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1381
16:48:21 <manu> q+
16:48:37 <brent> ack manu
16:48:38 <JoeAndrieu> ... remove document checking section
16:48:56 <JoeAndrieu> manu: Orie requested changes on the verification algorithm, specifically that part that checked document conformance
16:49:07 <JoeAndrieu> ... It did it in a way to call out every single property to check
16:49:13 <JoeAndrieu> ... That's what Jeffrey asked for.
16:49:54 <JoeAndrieu> ... Orie disagreed and wants it to be restored
16:49:54 <JoeAndrieu> ... So, basically "read the doc, do the MUSTs"
16:50:07 <JoeAndrieu> ... Jeffrey was ok with that. This PR does that by becoming much more concise, accurate, about what a conforming document is or is not.
16:50:35 <JoeAndrieu> manu: document: must be compact JSON-LD that follows all of the MUST statements in the specification, pointing to the sections with those MUST sections
16:50:43 <JoeAndrieu> ... and it does a few more things TallTed is worried about
16:51:04 <JoeAndrieu> ... it also aligns the discussion about "Big Tent" into the credential type specific processing section
16:51:45 <JoeAndrieu> ... Also, "you may, transmit and store a conforming document in a variety of serialization formats" as long you can bring that back
16:52:01 <ivan> Manu, look at https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1381#discussion_r1424109226 for possible bike shedding on terminology
16:52:03 <JoeAndrieu> ... that invites others to profile VCs
16:52:08 <TallTed> q+
16:52:16 <brent> ack TallTed
16:52:36 <JoeAndrieu> TallTed: I don't see the path to resolving my concerns. My comments said the definition change is substantial.
16:52:40 <manu> q+ to pose path forward.
16:52:49 <JoeAndrieu> ... The degree of substantialness...
16:53:04 <JoeAndrieu> ... yes you can wrap it, but since you have to bring it back, what's the point
16:53:07 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to agree
16:53:17 <JoeAndrieu> TallTed: I'm not understanding the motivations
16:53:37 <brent> ack manu
16:53:37 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to pose path forward.
16:53:42 <JoeAndrieu> brent: would it be fair to say since a conforming document is well described why talk about other serializations?
16:54:00 <JoeAndrieu> manu: one path is to remove the language about serializations. because it should be obvious
16:54:11 <dlongley> i think we need to assuage the concerns of people who want to transform/envelope/whatever as long as you can come back again (even if it's obvious you can do that)
16:54:29 <JoeAndrieu> ... but we spent a long time discussing that, so maybe we should put it in there, even though it's blindingly obvious
16:54:34 <dlongley> +1 to Manu, it's been a concern from others.
16:55:16 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
16:55:16 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to agree
16:55:20 <manu> scribe+
16:56:02 <TallTed> "Deterministic and 100% reversible transformation to or encapsulation in other media types is permissible."
16:56:05 <manu> JoeAndrieu: I share TallTed's concerns, I appreciate we want to have roadmarkers for conversations we've had before, we should have language that says "other serializations" are not VCs. I think we need to make it clear that those other things aren't VCs. I don't want people to think that they can call those other things VCs.
16:56:27 <JoeAndrieu> brent: note we do say that "serialization must be ..." we already say that.
16:56:38 <JoeAndrieu> ... what we can say, we have already agreed on and said
16:56:49 <JoeAndrieu> ... So I'm leaning towards just keeping what we have
16:56:56 <JoeAndrieu> manu: that language is being deleted in this PR
16:57:02 <JoeAndrieu> brent: can we not delete it?
16:57:13 <JoeAndrieu> manu: yes. that's an option.
16:57:19 <JoeAndrieu> ... people are saying reasonable things
16:57:33 <JoeAndrieu> brent: looks like we have a path forward for 1381
16:57:38 <dlongley> "another serialization that transforms a conforming document is not a conforming document itself... and it must be (bi-directional, yada-yada)" maybe
16:58:27 <JoeAndrieu> brent: please review 1380 and 1379. those are the hot tickets
16:58:57 <JoeAndrieu> ... PRs marked pending closed will be closed without some sort of hail mary. The associated issues will also be closed.
16:59:06 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:59:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/12-vcwg-special-minutes.html ivan
17:00:06 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
17:00:06 <RRSAgent> I see no action items