15:43:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
15:43:35 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/02/07-vcwg-irc
15:43:35 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:43:36 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
15:43:46 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
15:43:46 <ivan> Date: 2024-02-07
15:43:46 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/ae05a21b-c065-4e69-8d5e-352a0d391513/20240207T110000/
15:43:46 <ivan> chair: brent
15:43:47 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2024-02-07: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/ae05a21b-c065-4e69-8d5e-352a0d391513/20240207T110000/
15:58:35 <brent> brent has joined #vcwg
15:58:39 <brent> present+
15:59:08 <pauld_gs1> pauld_gs1 has joined #vcwg
16:00:59 <GregB> GregB has joined #vcwg
16:00:59 <GregB> present+
16:01:42 <ivan> present+
16:01:49 <ivan> present+ tallted, manu
16:02:49 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
16:02:56 <DavidC> present+
16:03:49 <decentralgabe> decentralgabe has joined #vcwg
16:03:52 <decentralgabe> present+
16:04:10 <pauld_gs1> scribe+
16:04:39 <pauld_gs1> brent: Welcome and introductions
16:04:58 <ivan> present+ wesley
16:04:59 <pauld_gs1> prsent+
16:05:06 <ivan> present+ pauld_gs1
16:05:15 <ivan> present+ dlongley
16:05:22 <ivan> present+ DavidC
16:05:40 <manu> q+
16:05:47 <pauld_gs1> brent: agenda is to have a conversation about schedule moving foward.  Another conversation about the meeting times.  Finally work item updates, PRs and issue processing.  Anyone proposing changes?
16:05:49 <brent> ack manu
16:06:11 <pauld_gs1> manu: Please put aside 5 minutes for the VC API maintainers.
16:06:17 <pauld_gs1> brent: will do.
16:06:50 <pauld_gs1> brent: VC data mode is officially a candidate recommendation.
16:06:51 <brent> Topic: schedule moving forward
16:07:31 <pauld_gs1> brent: schedule moving forward ... with the core data model in CR a period of review begins.  Once that completes, we will have feedback from implemetations. Already have a set of issues that are being triaged.
16:07:57 <pauld_gs1> ... These will go into a second CR snapshot.  With the charter ending in June, its highly likely we will need to seek an extension.
16:08:38 <pauld_gs1> ... there are two ways to do this. One is asking for an extension to complete ongoing work.  The other is a re-chartering which is harder.  We will likely seek an administrative extension.
16:09:07 <ivan> present+ will
16:09:13 <pauld_gs1> ... We expect around May to go into a second CR and ask for an extension to address any additional changes and the administrative work to get this to proposed recommendation.
16:09:32 <pauld_gs1> ... In order to qualify for this extension, we need to be in CR with everything else and a 2nd CR on the core data mode.
16:10:21 <pauld_gs1> ... What that mean specifically, is Bitstring Status List, which is ready after horizontal lreview,  VC Jose Cose, which needs more love, but in a 3 month window I believe we are capable of getting in into CR in 3 months.
16:10:35 <ivan> q+
16:10:35 <pauld_gs1> ... Icing on the cake would be BBS which I understand is almost ready for CR.
16:10:43 <pauld_gs1> ... questions?
16:10:46 <brent> ack ivan
16:11:49 <DavidC> q+
16:11:52 <pauld_gs1> ivan: There will probably be a second CR for the data integrity Document as well.The automatic extension is typically granted, but only once. After this we will have to re-charter.
16:12:06 <brent> ack DavidC
16:12:28 <manu> q+
16:12:39 <pauld_gs1> DavidC: on Data Integrity. There is a 4th spec JSON web signatures.  I thought this was different than VC Jose Cose.  There are 5 mentioned in the folder.
16:12:47 <manu> q-
16:13:05 <pauld_gs1> brent; Data Integrity, DI EDDSA, DI ECDSA, DI BBS, and VC Jose Cose.
16:13:14 <brent> Topic: consistent meeting time?
16:13:20 <ivan> s/brent;/brent:/
16:13:30 <TallTed> s/well.The/well. The/
16:14:01 <pauld_gs1> brent: Last week were there fewer people than this week.  Goal of the afternoon slot is to make it less painful for asia pacific timezone.  For the most part they have not been attending. Should we change the meeting time to be the same every week?  The proposal is to stick with this time moving forward.
16:14:08 <manu> q+
16:14:22 <brent> ack manu
16:14:23 <pauld_gs1> ... this time was alternating with the XX working group. Should we keep the same time or alternate?
16:15:19 <pauld_gs1> manu: +1 to stop alternating and keep the current morning time slot.
16:15:46 <pauld_gs1> manu: The other option would be to make it 9 am eastern to capture europe and asia pacific.
16:15:59 <GregB> Pacific...
16:17:44 <pauld_gs1> brent: any opposition... I will discuss with Ivan and notify the group by email with calendar updates.
16:17:44 <brent> Topic: Work Item Status Updates/PRs
16:17:44 <manu> q+
16:17:44 <decentralgabe> q+
16:17:44 <pauld_gs1> Topic: Work Item status updates.
16:17:44 <pauld_gs1> brent: Please jump on the queue and give us a status update.
16:17:44 <brent> ack manu
16:17:44 <GregB> q+
16:17:52 <pauld_gs1> manu: maintenance volunteer reminder for VC specs dir..
16:18:32 <pauld_gs1> manu: Requested volunteers to maintain the VC specs directory. Required 2 of 3 review and only getting one review.  Lucking lots of volunteers (17). Just held a meeting to run people through what it looks like.
16:18:37 <manu> Video recording of the meeting: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2024Feb/0008.html
16:19:32 <ivan> q+
16:19:38 <ivan> qq+
16:19:55 <pauld_gs1> ... we have a list of linkedin profile and all are highly qualified.  Brent and Gabe were in attendance. Next step is a question to the chair.  What do we want to do. We can send out a message to CCG VCWG and working group to ask if there are any objections . If there are no objections after a few weeks
16:20:06 <brent> ack ivan
16:20:06 <Zakim> ivan, you wanted to react to manu
16:20:08 <pauld_gs1> ... we could assign them as reviewers. What is the next step.
16:20:39 <decentralgabe> it is all public info
16:20:46 <pauld_gs1> ivan: not good practice with GDPR to send linked in profiles to the mailing list. Not a GDPR expert, just worried about it.
16:21:00 <pauld_gs1> brent: This is public info on the internet.
16:21:15 <manu> q+
16:21:19 <pauld_gs1> manu: we are not sending email addresses.  We are just sending the linked in profile.
16:21:23 <ivan> q-
16:21:30 <GregB> q-
16:21:48 <brent> ack manu
16:22:25 <pauld_gs1> manu: we are not going to send email addresses.   GDPR doesnt talk about info that is available publicly.  All of these profiles are viewable by anyone.  Volunteers provide that information.
16:23:09 <ivan> qq+
16:23:19 <pauld_gs1> ... The other option is that staff and chairs do the vetting and make a statement on whether they agree that the individuals are adequate (like invited experts) if we are concerned about the profiles.
16:23:21 <brent> ack ivan
16:23:21 <Zakim> ivan, you wanted to react to manu
16:23:59 <pauld_gs1> ivan: I don't know what I would base it on.  What you propose works. No reason for brent and I to be a bottleneck
16:24:09 <manu> q+
16:24:09 <pauld_gs1> brent: I agree and please contact chairs in the event of concerns.
16:24:24 <pauld_gs1> manu: I will take the action to do this.
16:24:44 <pauld_gs1> ivan: I will put this conversation on a subtopic.
16:24:48 <pdl-asu> pdl-asu has joined #vcwg
16:24:50 <pauld_gs1> brent: back to work items
16:24:52 <ivan> subtopic: Jose-cose items
16:24:52 <brent> subtopic: VC-JOSE-COSE
16:24:59 <brent> ack decentralgabe
16:25:23 <ivan> present+ dmitriz
16:25:36 <pauld_gs1> decentralgabe: There are 14 pre-CR issues with 6 PRs.  Mostly blocked by Mike who has been travelling last week and this week. Anticipate more progress next week, but requesting that folks review the PRs.
16:25:36 <manu> q+ to discuss vc-data-model
16:25:37 <pdl-asu> present+
16:25:45 <manu> q+ GregB
16:25:46 <manu> q- later
16:25:50 <decentralgabe> open PRs needing review:
16:26:06 <brent> subtopic: BBS
16:26:06 <brent> ack GregB
16:26:07 <pauld_gs1> brent: any other VC Jose Cose? No. On to BBS.
16:26:10 <decentralgabe> https://github.com/w3c/vc-jose-cose/pull/227, https://github.com/w3c/vc-jose-cose/pull/226, https://github.com/w3c/vc-jose-cose/pull/225, https://github.com/w3c/vc-jose-cose/pull/220, https://github.com/w3c/vc-jose-cose/pull/219
16:26:27 <ivan> subtopic: BBS
16:27:19 <pauld_gs1> GregB: 2 open PRs, 21 Issues. Recently just merged a bunch of PRs. Would like to get more reviews on PRs. BBS is a subtle thing that helps with privacy and we are getting more interest from IETF, governments and countries.  Trying to get more review.  Progress is good. Feedback from all horizontal review. Addressed internationalization.
16:27:26 <manu> We're still missing security WG review, right?
16:27:52 <pauld_gs1> ... scrubbing down and getting implementations together. Would have liked to have more review on PRs, but we are moving forwards. Anyone interested, I can bring you up to speed and encourage reviews.
16:28:07 <pauld_gs1> brent: feel free to use editorial powers to add people as reviewers at your discretion.
16:28:30 <pauld_gs1> GregB.  Thanks to Ted for reviewing and revising the text.
16:28:38 <brent> subtopic: VCDM
16:28:41 <brent> ack manu
16:28:41 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to discuss vc-data-model
16:28:43 <pauld_gs1> brent: Any other questions before we move to PRs. Onward.
16:29:00 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
16:29:08 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1420
16:29:14 <pauld_gs1> manu: A number of PRs for VCDM. Huge thanks to ivan for raising a number of them. One we should talk about today (1420). Ivan raised.
16:29:47 <ivan> q+
16:30:01 <pauld_gs1> ... a question remains. We just entered CR. I think this PR is normative. It does not impact software implementations but does impact vocabulary. Wonder if this triggers a second CR.
16:30:04 <brent> ack ivan
16:30:28 <manu> q+ to note tracking normative changes
16:30:52 <pauld_gs1> ivan: AFAIK, a new draft with normative changes are OK provided that at some time we will publish a snapshot with these changes. I don't think there is any problem with these few normative changes here. We know we will republish a snapshot sometime in way. I think we are fine.
16:30:54 <brent> ack manu
16:30:54 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note tracking normative changes
16:31:06 <brent> +1 to Ivan
16:31:27 <ivan> q+
16:31:50 <pauld_gs1> manu: That is my read as well.  Ive started tracking this with a normative label so we know we have done a second CR triggering thing and that we can summarize these changes.  If you raise a PR, please try to classify as Editorial or Normative.
16:32:12 <pauld_gs1> ... also keep in mind that any normative change needs to be communicated with the test suite workers.
16:32:22 <brent> ack ivan
16:32:29 <ivan> present+ smccown
16:32:48 <pauld_gs1> ivan: If a change is normative in a serious way, then the editor of the PR should add an item to the list of changes at the end of the document or we will forget them.
16:32:50 <manu> yes, +1 to that
16:33:06 <pauld_gs1> brent: this is something reviews should remind when examining PRs.
16:33:21 <pauld_gs1> brent: Any other core data model status?
16:33:38 <pauld_gs1> manu: A number of editorial changes are out there and folks should pay attention.
16:33:44 <brent> Topic: VCDM Issue Processing
16:33:51 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc
16:34:26 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1306
16:34:43 <manu> q+
16:34:49 <pauld_gs1> brent: Right now we have 2 levels in the TOC and ivan is recommending 3. How do folks feel?
16:34:51 <brent> ack manu
16:35:03 <ivan> q+
16:35:05 <TallTed> q+
16:35:19 <pauld_gs1> manu: I dont like the three levels. It makes the TOC messy.
16:35:34 <pauld_gs1> ivan: I have major difficulties finding stuff in this spec.
16:35:35 <brent> ack ivan
16:35:38 <brent> ack TallTed
16:36:14 <pauld_gs1> TallTed: If we have a 2 level TOC we should make the document two levels deep. unless we add an index.
16:36:19 <pauld_gs1> brent: is anyone willing to do this work.
16:36:38 <pauld_gs1> manu: I can do the work. I am trying to see how sad it makes me. You can assign it to me.
16:36:46 <smccown> smccown has joined #vcwg
16:36:52 <pauld_gs1> brent: with your statement we don't have consensus.
16:37:00 <TallTed> q+
16:37:22 <brent> ack TallTed
16:37:36 <pauld_gs1> TallTed: pretty sure the work require is changing a line in the HTML souce
16:37:43 <pauld_gs1> brent: Ted are you volunteering.
16:38:06 <pauld_gs1> manu: Already done this.  They have updated respec to make the TOC items smaller.  I'm ok with this change.
16:38:12 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1301
16:39:14 <pauld_gs1> brent: This is related to the other terminology issues. We had other discussions about evidence and NIST, and it seemed the consensus of the group is that we have defined terminology in the specifications and folks that are concerned with the differences can do their own comparison.
16:39:18 <manu> q+
16:39:24 <TallTed> q+
16:39:38 <brent> ack manu
16:39:39 <pauld_gs1> ... it feels like this is an unending task; what is the scope of everywhere else.
16:39:41 <dlongley> +1 to Brent
16:40:30 <pauld_gs1> manu: agrees that feels like unending work. The places where we have don't this does not seem to improve the spec.  Even within NIST documents they are not consistent with their terminology.
16:41:12 <pauld_gs1> ... sometimes we can all this out, but picking NIST is arbitrary; this is a global standard.   I would like to stop doing this type of work unless its unclear.
16:41:15 <brent> ack TallTed
16:41:52 <pauld_gs1> TallTed: There are two flavors of this. They way this is written, its about other organizations using other terms with the same meaning as a term we are using.  Such as verifier and Relying party.  That is never ending.
16:42:17 <pauld_gs1> ... in the case where we use a term in common use elsewhere and the definitions diverge, I think it does make sense to say what we mean.
16:42:32 <manu> q+ to suggest closing the issue, and be specific when we run into a particular term
16:42:37 <pauld_gs1> ... I don't think that is common, nor that we need to search them out.  just where we run into it.
16:42:55 <manu> q-
16:43:00 <pauld_gs1> brent: my read is that there is not appetite to do this and we should mark this pending close. Any object?
16:43:16 <pauld_gs1> brent: hearing no objections, marked as pending close.
16:43:25 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1299
16:43:36 <manu> q+
16:43:49 <brent> ack manu
16:44:00 <pauld_gs1> brent: maybe this is unecessary since we have a PR to delete this section (use cases and requirements).
16:44:35 <pauld_gs1> manu: I think removing the section addresses the issue. If this affects any other sections, we should open another PR and be more specific. +1 to cose.
16:44:42 <pauld_gs1> s/cose/close/
16:45:06 <pauld_gs1> brent: 1429 is the other PR that deletes this section.
16:45:27 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1310
16:45:30 <pauld_gs1> brent: marking as pending close.
16:45:43 <manu> q+
16:45:47 <manu> q-
16:46:15 <manu> q+
16:46:24 <brent> ack manu
16:46:28 <pauld_gs1> brent: making getting started section non normative.  It is already marked as such, so I think this is done.  Suggests moving it to the introduction.  or deleted. Comments?  We could close as its marked non normative.
16:47:17 <pauld_gs1> manu: getting started is in a section called basic concepts.  Moving it to introduction doesn't make sense as its conceptually high level. Getting started is about syntax and a first example
16:47:23 <ivan> q+
16:47:29 <brent> ack ivan
16:47:51 <pauld_gs1> ivan: I think its fine as it is.  There is no question about normative-ness.
16:48:10 <pauld_gs1> brent: proposal is to close the issue because the section is marked non-normative.  If folks object, speak up.
16:48:25 <pauld_gs1> brent: no objections, closing this after the call
16:48:33 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1311
16:48:55 <manu> q+
16:49:02 <ivan> q+
16:49:08 <manu> q- later
16:49:27 <pauld_gs1> brent: its not entirely clear to me what the action is.  This was taken from one of the first review from Jeff.
16:49:29 <brent> ack ivan
16:50:15 <pauld_gs1> ivan: This was from October. Since then, this subsection has been re-written with new diagrams and new explanations. I think that the issue is now moot.
16:50:21 <brent> ack manu
16:50:53 <TallTed> q+
16:50:56 <pauld_gs1> manu: underscore what ivan said. This has been addressed by previous PRs.
16:50:59 <brent> ack TallTed
16:51:16 <manu> q+
16:51:46 <pauld_gs1> TallTed: I think this is largely addressed but we should go back for a re-review.
16:51:48 <brent> ack manu
16:51:58 <pauld_gs1> brent: seems like he is asking for more detail in the itroduction.
16:52:53 <pauld_gs1> manu: He didn't realize we had solve the graph quoting problem. We have solved it in dataset canonicalization. He was not aware that it was now possible. We should not expose readers to that in the beginning.
16:53:25 <pdl-asu> Like talking when to lawyers should be careful what we ask for... since it's been rewritten anyway (largely) it's addressed.
16:53:26 <pauld_gs1> brent: proposal is that we think it has been addressed.
16:53:32 <brent> ack manu
16:53:36 <pauld_gs1> TallTed: But this needs to bounce back to Jeffrey.
16:54:07 <ivan> q+
16:54:18 <pauld_gs1> brent: we are going to close as addressed but I dont know if Jeffrey wants us to reach out on each issue. Maybe when we close all of them we can ask for a re-review.
16:54:19 <brent> ack ivan
16:55:11 <pauld_gs1> ivan: Definitely do the latter. So many things have changed as a result of his PRs. Going back individually to each issue doesn't make sense.  Best to ask for a new review from scratch if he wants.
16:55:26 <pauld_gs1> brent: This will close after call.
16:55:31 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1331
16:56:02 <pauld_gs1> brent: it was closed as completed but Joe re-opened it. I don't know what is going on with this PR.
16:56:03 <manu> q+
16:56:09 <pauld_gs1> s/bret/brent
16:56:13 <brent> ack manu
16:56:54 <pauld_gs1> manu: we don't have this in the image now. We have verify but we don;t have validate. This is not done.
16:56:57 <manu> https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/#lifecycle-details
16:57:07 <pauld_gs1> brent: It would be a loop from verifier to verifier that says validate?
16:57:21 <pauld_gs1> manu: I don't know but I would expect something like that.
16:57:33 <ivan> q+
16:57:39 <pauld_gs1> brent: Suggest we add a loop from verifiers to verifier that says validate.  Anyone want to volunteer?
16:57:45 <brent> ack ivan
16:58:15 <pauld_gs1> ivan: I am not volunteering.  but it may be a good opportunity to look at all the figures. We have problems if the document is seen in dark mode.
16:58:46 <pauld_gs1> brent: I suggest opening an issue to track image dark-mode compatibility and raised separately.
16:58:48 <pauld_gs1> ivan: agreed.
16:59:04 <pauld_gs1> brent: did not hear anyone volunteer.  If no one volunteers, its not going to happen.
16:59:16 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
16:59:22 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:59:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/07-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
16:59:37 <pauld_gs1> brent: We are on track with a small extension.  Pay atttention as meeting times may change. Closing the meeting.
16:59:40 <pauld_gs1> scribe-
16:59:46 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
16:59:47 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been brent, GregB, ivan, tallted, manu, DavidC, decentralgabe, wesley, pauld_gs1, dlongley, will, dmitriz, pdl-asu, smccown
16:59:50 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:59:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/07-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim
16:59:57 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:59:57 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg
17:02:10 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #vcwg
17:02:12 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
17:02:12 <RRSAgent> I see no action items