22:53:40 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg-special
22:53:45 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/01/16-vcwg-special-irc
22:54:18 <brent> brent has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2024-01-16: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/eaf86734-c2f9-410e-86b9-1cca18d0d6c9/20240116T180000/
22:59:22 <brent> zakim, start the meeting
22:59:22 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
22:59:23 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), brent
22:59:33 <brent> meeting: VCWG Special Topic Call
22:59:40 <brent> chair: Brent Zundel
22:59:47 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg-special
22:59:48 <brent> present+
23:00:16 <hsano> present+
23:00:42 <andres> andres has joined #vcwg-special
23:00:48 <TallTed> present+
23:00:53 <andres> present+
23:02:27 <dlongley> present+
23:02:56 <Wes-smith> Wes-smith has joined #vcwg-special
23:03:03 <Wes-smith> present+
23:04:42 <andres> scribe+
23:05:11 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg-special
23:05:18 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg-special
23:05:37 <brent> Topic: Bitstring Status List Issues
23:05:38 <manu> q+ to note Privacy WG announcement
23:05:41 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-bitstring-status-list/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Abefore-CR+sort%3Aupdated-asc
23:05:45 <andres> brent: Wes, welcome to the group.
23:06:03 <andres> ... manu, can you talk through this?
23:06:20 <brent> ack manu
23:06:20 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note Privacy WG announcement
23:06:27 <brent> q+
23:06:37 <manu> W3C Privacy WG Charter: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2024Jan/0027.html
23:06:58 <andres> manu: Privacy WG announcement heads up. The W3C privacy charter is under vote. It closes in the next 24 hours.
23:07:12 <andres> ... Their work is relevant across multiple groups.
23:07:23 <andres> ... An official privacy group would carry more weight.
23:07:31 <decentralgabe> decentralgabe has joined #vcwg-special
23:07:34 <andres> ... Heads up that the vote is open and will close soon.
23:07:38 <decentralgabe> present+
23:07:39 <brent> ack brent
23:07:47 <manu> q+
23:07:57 <brent> ack manu
23:08:01 <andres> brent: Do you know if the group is alongside the privacy interest group, or a replacement?
23:08:26 <TallTed> "This proposed Working Group would replace the Interest Group." is the last sentence of section 1 of the proposed charter
23:08:39 <andres> manu: I don't know. I thought the PING was going away and the new group would be the official group. The first document they'd delivere is "don't resell my data" as an HTTP header.
23:08:59 <andres> ... It's similar to do-not-track, but designed with the new privacy regulations in mind.
23:09:01 <will> will has joined #vcwg-special
23:09:04 <will> present+
23:09:12 <andres> ... If PING stays around, it will act as a CG.
23:09:34 <andres> ... The new group is expected to publish TR.
23:10:18 <andres> TallTed: it's in the charter that it's replacing the interest group. There is also a community group.
23:10:34 <andres> brent: Sounds like producing docs is the direction they're heading.
23:10:49 <TallTed> also -- "Teleconferences: every 2 weeks, as needed, alternating with PrivacyCG meetings." so CG and WG will coexist
23:10:53 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-bitstring-status-list/issues/72
23:10:59 <andres> ... Moving to our first issue. Goal is to share status, and to help forward as needed.
23:11:01 <manu> q+
23:11:06 <brent> ack manu
23:11:17 <andres> ... have we heard back from tap?
23:11:29 <andres> manu: I don't know. I was going to say 72 and 77 are tracking issues.
23:11:53 <andres> ... We requested back in July. So we can proceed as they've timed out.
23:12:15 <andres> brent: the request in the TAG github that was raised, it would be good to link to this issue.
23:12:29 <manu> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/874
23:13:01 <andres> manu: It's been reviewed already.
23:13:51 <andres> ... They asked for pointers, we responded. They're asking to schedule time in the f2f in london.
23:13:57 <andres> brent: Good. Moving on.
23:13:58 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-bitstring-status-list/issues/77
23:14:17 <andres> ... What's the status?
23:14:28 <andres> ... From PING or security?
23:15:11 <andres> manu: I thought Kyle did a review on this; haven't found the issue.
23:15:12 <TallTed> s/heard back from tap/heard back from tag/
23:17:10 <andres> brent: Not seeing issues.
23:17:21 <andres> manu: Neither am I, perhaps they weren't filed.
23:17:32 <andres> brent: We need PING and Security requests raised.
23:17:43 <andres> manu: I'll take an action to do that.
23:18:03 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-bitstring-status-list/issues/124
23:18:19 <manu> q+
23:18:23 <brent> ack manu
23:19:34 <andres> manu: This was a request from dmitriz. They requested clarification from the spec, which is what PR 129 does. As a result, merging will address 124. TallTed has some minor fixups in the PR.
23:19:43 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-bitstring-status-list/issues/120
23:20:00 <manu> q+
23:20:01 <andres> brent: PR 128 is associated with this.
23:20:06 <brent> ack manu
23:20:54 <andres> manu: The PR marks the TTL property as at-risk. Allows us to go to CR. The assertion is that the "ttl" property and the "validUntil" property clash when they are both set.
23:21:07 <andres> ... Seems like the "ttl" property should not exists.
23:21:10 <dlongley> q+
23:21:15 <brent> ack dlongley
23:21:21 <andres> ... There is disagreement on that.
23:21:55 <andres> dlongley: There are conflicting semantics and likely layering violations. When would software look at ttl vs validUntil?
23:22:36 <andres> ... Might be that the way TTL is done via HTTP headers instead of mixing it up with the credential data.
23:22:51 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-bitstring-status-list/issues/125
23:23:15 <manu> q+
23:23:23 <brent> ack manu
23:23:27 <andres> brent: Has PRs, expected to be merged soon.
23:23:43 <andres> manu: Want to highlight that we want to make possible for systems to compress this data.
23:24:12 <andres> ... Status list might be hundreds of KB, plus bloat of encoding.
23:25:08 <andres> ... This allows reduction by defining a type. This group defined multibase with a u prefix on it.
23:25:36 <andres> ... We changed this from base64 with padding to base64 nopad.
23:25:44 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-bitstring-status-list/issues/127
23:26:02 <manu> q+
23:26:04 <andres> brent: We have time to talk about this.
23:26:09 <brent> ack manu
23:26:50 <andres> manu: As pointed by TallTed, there are two ways to refer to what we're explaining: Bit string vs Bitstring.
23:27:04 <andres> ... Both forms are fine. One is more popular.
23:27:07 <TallTed> q+
23:27:47 <andres> ... SEO, typing, and other arguments are weak.
23:28:08 <andres> ... The changes require a lot of work from the editorial standpoint, for not much to gain.
23:28:11 <brent> ack TallTed
23:28:52 <andres> TallTed: Having done some painful research on the PR on this, we started from Bit String, and it was arbitrarily changed to Bitstring.
23:29:15 <andres> ... From web searching, both exists. The one word, redirects to the two word.
23:29:32 <dmitriz> if we're the only ones that use 'bitstring'... that's perfect SEO! that's what we want!
23:29:52 <dmitriz> q+
23:29:59 <JoeAndrieu> q+
23:30:01 <andres> ... They are usually consistent within a doc. It will be painful, and I grant that it will be painful at some point.
23:30:05 <brent> ack dmitriz
23:30:25 <andres> ... The two word is more correct.
23:30:44 <andres> dmitriz: I posit that the one word is a feature, not a bug.
23:30:47 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
23:31:09 <manu> q+
23:31:13 <andres> JoeAndrieu: I'm on the fence because I like plain english. But branding wise, bitstring seems better.
23:31:17 <brent> ack manu
23:31:41 <andres> manu: I don't disagree.
23:32:07 <andres> ... Given I just found out we haven't submitted PING nor privacy, it could be we're sitting in limbo for 3 months. That's enough time to make the change.
23:32:38 <dlongley> q+ to say implementations usually want to move faster, i wouldn't presume we have lots of time to wait on it
23:32:39 <TallTed> as far seo goes, `vc bit string` (note, no quoting, as most web searches go) is going to find them `vc bitstring` and `vc bitstring` is going to find them `vc bit string` .... the thing they really want SEO to work for is Verifiable Credentials, not bit string
23:32:54 <TallTed> q+
23:32:57 <andres> ... We just need closure. Either keep, or change it and do it.
23:33:14 <brent> ack dlongley
23:33:14 <Zakim> dlongley, you wanted to say implementations usually want to move faster, i wouldn't presume we have lots of time to wait on it
23:33:18 <andres> brent: The question on the table is: do we keep or change? If we change, who does the work?
23:33:34 <andres> dlongley: While we have the time, implementations are looking for stability.
23:33:58 <brent> ack TallTed
23:34:41 <andres> TallTed: As far as SEO goes, both the one work and two word will show up in the search results; because most people don't put searches in quotes.
23:35:02 <andres> ... They're likely going to put VC right next to the query, and are likely to quickly find what they're looking for.
23:35:12 <TallTed> s/both the one work/both the one word/
23:35:44 <andres> brent: We've spent enough time on this today.
23:35:52 <andres> ... Anything else?
23:36:18 <andres> JoeAndrieu: Would it need to be hyphenated when using the two words?
23:36:44 <andres> TallTed: Both are nouns, so that could be confusing. Evertying I've found treats it as an adjective.
23:36:58 <andres> ... It could be hyphenated, but nothing I've found uses it that way.
23:37:27 <andres> brent: That's it, thanks all. Looks like we're on track except for the PING & security reviews for bitstring.
23:37:41 <brent> zakim, who is here?
23:37:41 <Zakim> Present: brent, hsano, TallTed, andres, dlongley, Wes-smith, decentralgabe, will
23:37:43 <Zakim> On IRC I see will, JoeAndrieu, dmitriz, andres, hsano, RRSAgent, Zakim, brent, TallTed, csarven, shigeya, dlehn, manu, seabass, joraboi445, SintayewGashaw, ivan, dlongley, stenr,
23:37:43 <Zakim> ... bigbluehat
23:38:12 <brent> present+ JoeAndrieu dmitriz
23:38:19 <brent> zakim, end the meeting
23:38:20 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been brent, hsano, TallTed, andres, dlongley, Wes-smith, decentralgabe, will, JoeAndrieu, dmitriz
23:38:22 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
23:38:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/16-vcwg-special-minutes.html Zakim
23:38:31 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, brent; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
23:38:31 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg-special
23:38:31 <brent> rrsagent, bye
23:38:31 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
23:38:48 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg-special
23:38:48 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/01/16-vcwg-special-irc
23:38:55 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
23:39:36 <TallTed> ^^^^^ has to be done *after* drafting minutes, or the pretty minutes are unseeable until some human fixes permissions