14:09:08 RRSAgent has joined #vcwg 14:09:12 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/09/18-vcwg-irc 14:09:12 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:09:13 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan 14:09:42 Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco 14:09:42 Date: 2024-09-18 14:09:42 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/326e4693-22a7-48ba-b083-3e74e79e6088/20240918T110000/ 14:09:42 chair: brent 14:09:43 ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2024-09-18: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/326e4693-22a7-48ba-b083-3e74e79e6088/20240918T110000/ 14:40:59 TallTed has joined #vcwg 14:48:51 brent has joined #vcwg 14:56:15 present+ 14:57:38 regrets+ 14:59:33 brent has joined #vcwg 14:59:51 hsano has joined #vcwg 15:00:03 present+ 15:00:50 decentralgabe has joined #vcwg 15:00:53 present+ 15:01:14 bigbluehat has joined #vcwg 15:01:50 present+ 15:01:50 present+ steele, manu, bigbluehat, kevin 15:02:02 present+ davidc 15:02:29 present+ 15:02:42 Wip has joined #vcwg 15:02:46 present+ 15:03:18 KevinDean has joined #vcwg 15:03:23 present+ 15:03:29 DavidC has joined #vcwg 15:03:34 dmitriz has joined #vcwg 15:03:36 present+ 15:03:38 PL has joined #vcwg 15:03:41 present+ 15:03:44 present+ 15:03:54 scribe+ 15:03:56 present+ dmitriz, dlongley 15:05:10 Brent: agenda is TPAC prep and the path forward for each spec with the goal to identify obstacles to get there and how to remove them, if possible. These can be addressed at TPAC to move all specs forward. 15:05:15 JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg 15:05:16 Topic: TPAC Agenda 15:05:25 present+ JoeAndrieu 15:05:34 present+ jennie 15:05:37 JennieM has joined #vcwg 15:06:10 Brent: sharing agenda to the group 15:06:15 present+ 15:07:03 Brent: TPAC 45 mins for intros and logicstics. Then first session is focused on the data model to get to resolution for CR2 15:08:02 Brent: second session is on Data Integrity - a big issue regarding the security vulnerability whether or not the context file is the subject of resource integrity protection. 15:08:40 Brent: Friday arranged full day starting at 9:00 am PDT. First sessions is VC-JOSE COSE. Issue is the Media Types 15:09:04 Brent: controller document is the topic after break until lunch 15:09:42 q+ 15:09:44 Brent: if there is a session you want to be in the room for, but the agenda sequence may change so talk to Brent if there is a particular topic you want to be present for 15:10:54 Brent: after lunch Rec-track docs are the focus. Later the use cases documents will be presented by the authors and hopefully agree to republish as a note 15:11:24 Brent: Hope to get feedback from the Security Group 15:11:33 ack ivan 15:11:34 All of this looks like a good plan / Agenda for W3C TPAC :) 15:12:36 Sorry - I thought others might be reading this document for updates and the TPAC agenda discussion might have been useful 15:14:29 Ivan: the new charter votes will end this evening. No big issues to discuss. Hopefully no objections to the charter will emerge at the last minute. Have one comment about liaison statements are outdated should be a short discussion. 15:15:07 Topic: Path forward each spec, boulder discovery 15:15:13 smccown has joined #vcwg 15:15:16 q+ to speak to VCDM and DI 15:15:22 subtopic: VC Data Model 2.0 15:15:24 present+ 15:15:30 ack manu 15:15:31 manu, you wanted to speak to VCDM and DI 15:17:26 Manu: have been issue stable for awhile. Multiple editorial passes on the document, as have many others. Re: Test Suite, almost there. Enough implementations but need to clear out some statements, somethings are implemented that aren't recognized. Some tests implementers are failing, and should be easy for implementers to fix. 15:19:17 Manu: multiple implementations for every feature. Incorrectly serialized time values may require downgrading the statement from must to should. Test Suite is in good shape. Envelope VC and Envelope VPs have not gotten feedback from implementers re: whether they are going to implement them or not. May be VC JOSE-COSE stuff but at least two 15:19:17 implementers are expected. 15:19:47 Manu: presentations regarding holder claims will be implemented by Digital Bazaar but not sure about others. 15:20:04 q+ 15:20:37 Manu: Having only two implementers for any given part of the test suit is a bit risky but going forwards but in ok enough shape for CR2 15:20:39 ack ivan 15:21:30 Ivan: Risky to go into a CR2 is an issue because? 15:21:30 Manu: would like more implementations 15:22:06 Ivan: that's exactly the state that CR2 expects - at least 2 implementations PR is different 15:22:44 Ivan: suggests anything without 2 check boxes is a "feature at risk" and move forward 15:22:52 q+ to speak to Data Integrity 15:22:53 subtopic: Data Integrity 15:23:15 ack manu 15:23:15 manu, you wanted to speak to Data Integrity 15:23:23 Brent: group needs to decide about what we can agree on for Data Integrity 15:24:32 Manu: in great shape, except for the aforementioned issue. Same with EcDSA sill has a couple of items (context injections will be removed), includes EcDSA-SD as well. 15:25:47 Manu: In better shape for DI test suites than ed25519 signature suite. 15:25:47 Manu: EdDSA as in good shape and go to CR2 with the concern regarding the one remaining security concern. 15:26:15 q+ 15:26:18 Brent: are there any other concerns inhibiting moving the spec forward for TPAC 15:28:21 Manu: BBS is not ready. Awaiting cryptographic review at IETF. Have multiple implementations, have 3 and expecting a 4th. But from an IETF perspective things are way behind schedule (asked back in Dec 2023). Have reached out to those beyond IETF who are experts in BBS. Many individuals and institutions who are interested in doing a review. A bit 15:28:21 confused that they're asked to review now 15:28:45 q+ 15:28:49 Manu: Need to give crypographers a standards process 101 as to why its still necessary. 15:29:04 q- 15:29:22 Manu: issue around adding subparts as pseudonyms but will continue the work in the recharter 15:29:23 s/if there is a session you want to be in the room for, but the agenda sequence may change so talk to Brent if there is a particular topic you want to be present for/the agenda sequence may change, so talk to Brent if there is a particular topic you want to be present for/ 15:29:25 ack brent 15:30:06 Brent: we aren't going to have people review BBS at TPAC 15:30:39 Manu: Will have some people looking at BBS looking at our spec 15:31:00 subtopic: VC JOSE COSE 15:31:32 Brent: need conversation about media types at TPAC that leads to the lowest probability of formal objections. 15:31:37 q+ 15:31:52 ack decentralgabe 15:32:16 Gabe: For TPAC Gabe will present slides presenting the positions to catalyze decisions. 15:32:40 q+ 15:32:50 Gabe: for VC JOSE COSE there are 7 open issues 5 of which have PRs. Test Suite is underway. Help in implementing welcomed. 15:32:59 ack ivan 15:33:27 q+ 15:33:29 Ivan: What is the status of SDJWT? 15:33:31 ack 15:33:35 ack brent 15:34:35 q+ 15:35:05 ack ivan 15:35:06 Brent: SDJWT is a rec track doc at IETF. Authors say it was near completion. If it proceeds, the VC JOSE COSE spec it can remains. 15:35:09 q+ 15:35:38 ack brent 15:35:47 Ivan: Should JOSE COSE be put aa At Risk if it's not done after TPAC? Yes 15:36:02 s/yes/ / 15:36:19 Brent: yes it should be marked At Risk 15:37:42 Brent: VC JOSE COSE now has several conflicts re: media types. Natural media type for VC JOSE COSE SDJWT should be the same media type was used by VCs 15:37:58 q+ 15:38:10 Brent: VCDM relates to VC JOSE COSE SDJWT is unclear. 15:38:13 ack ivan 15:38:49 Ivan: aren't we at the point where it is safer to remove the SDJWT from the spec and move on. 15:39:06 Brent: that's a TPAC conversation 15:39:42 subtopic: VC JSON Schema 15:39:42 q+ 15:39:46 ack decentralgabe 15:40:16 present+ TallTed 15:40:41 Gabe: re: JSON Schema, there are a few issues, mostly updating examples and clarifying language and reacting to whatever the JOSE COSE discussion reveals. 15:41:09 https://github.com/w3c/vc-json-schema/issues/235 15:41:30 Brent: since going into CR has there been any substantive changes for the VC JSON Schema spec? 15:41:30 Gabe: just a some clarification but no normative changes expected 15:41:54 Brent: next step get some clean up and implementers and we're ok 15:41:58 q+ to speak to bitstring status list 15:42:03 Gabe: Yes 15:42:11 subtopic: Bitstring Status List 15:42:14 ack manu 15:42:14 manu, you wanted to speak to bitstring status list 15:42:32 Manu Bit String Status list in ok shape. 15:42:52 Manu: effectively 4 issues. Could be normative changes to the spec. 15:43:22 Manu: changed where to put status messages and status size. SpruceID has some concerns about that and short discussion needed. 15:44:08 q+ 15:44:10 Manu: Have a TTL issue to talk about. Discuss multiple revocations entries and such. Need more time on the spec, test suite and implementers. Not ready for CR2 at TPAC 15:44:23 Brent: no roadblocks? 15:44:38 Manu: no just getting implementers remains an issue 15:44:57 ack ivan 15:45:05 Manu: Can mark those with concern as At Risk. 15:45:38 steele has joined #vcwg 15:46:01 Ivan: No requirement to go to CR2 if the changes are minimal to the document. If there aren't major changes to the document it doesn't need to go to CR2, and go straight to PR when there are implementations 15:46:21 Manu: Agrees with that. 15:46:25 agree 15:46:58 Ivan: For JSON Schema there is equally no need to go to CR2 can encourage implementations and go to PR 15:47:05 subtopic: controller document 15:48:35 q+ to propose something for the discuss issues. 15:48:36 Brent: have not yet entered CR with the controller doc. Some issues. Formal responses from TAG and PING that need to be addressed. A number of issued marked "discuss", and these can be brief. Preference emphasis is does it need to be solved before publication or not? Can it be closed and published? 15:48:48 ack manu 15:48:48 manu, you wanted to propose something for the discuss issues. 15:49:54 Manu: Almost all issues can be dealt with in CR1. They look mostly editorial. One may have a normative change. If that's true can be marked At Risk as the language might change. 15:50:09 +1 to manu 15:50:18 Brent: agrees with that as a course of action. i.e., go through issues to mark changes as normative or editorial to define future work 15:50:58 subtopic: Use Cases 15:51:22 q+ 15:51:29 ack KevinDean 15:51:51 gkellogg has joined #vcwg 15:52:01 q+ 15:52:13 https://github.com/w3c/vc-use-cases/ 15:52:14 ack JoeAndrieu 15:52:14 KevinDean: asks if people would take a look at the use cases they have it would be appreciated 15:52:54 JoeAndrieu: said at last TPAC that there be a section on deployed examples but haven't gotten any submissions. Would help the use case docs. 15:53:05 subtopic: Implementation Guideleines 15:53:37 s/Guideleines/Guidelines/ 15:53:49 Brent: published Implementation Guidelines in 2018. A revision of the doc could be very beneficial. 15:54:52 Brent: It's a note, old, and have many newer ideas. Needs attention. Do we have the time to spend on it? 15:56:17 Brent: TPAC plan to end week with a solid path forward for each document. For VC Data Model it's to publish it CR2. Data Integrity the issue security, for JOSE COSE there is considerable work media types, etc. 15:56:49 s/the issue/the issue is/ 15:57:34 Brent: will be using this chat channel for TPAC. Zoom links likely changing 15:57:41 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:57:43 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/18-vcwg-minutes.html ivan 17:05:09 steele has joined #vcwg 17:30:07 dlehn1 has joined #vcwg 17:37:29 gkellogg has joined #vcwg 17:52:12 gkellogg has joined #vcwg 18:44:06 gkellogg has joined #vcwg 18:50:09 steele has joined #vcwg 19:03:46 gkellogg has joined #vcwg 19:05:09 Zakim has left #vcwg 19:23:45 gkellogg has joined #vcwg 21:51:42 steele has joined #vcwg 22:44:06 gkellogg has joined #vcwg 23:21:47 gkellogg has joined #vcwg 23:38:57 gkellogg has joined #vcwg 23:52:24 dmitriz has joined #vcwg 23:55:36 gkellogg has joined #vcwg