14:26:36 RRSAgent has joined #vcwg 14:26:41 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/10/23-vcwg-irc 14:26:41 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:26:42 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan 14:26:56 Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco 14:26:56 Date: 2024-10-23 14:26:56 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/9bfb4063-230b-4f59-b14c-fbf670b8a51b/20241023T110000/ 14:26:56 chair: brent 14:26:57 ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2024-10-23: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/9bfb4063-230b-4f59-b14c-fbf670b8a51b/20241023T110000// 14:54:56 brent has joined #vcwg 14:57:40 present+ 14:58:15 present+ 14:58:42 hsano has joined #vcwg 14:59:22 present+ hsano 15:00:24 wes-smith has joined #vcwg 15:00:57 present+ 15:01:31 present+ 15:01:45 DavidC has joined #vcwg 15:01:58 present+ 15:02:39 selfissued has joined #vcwg 15:02:44 present+ 15:03:07 KevinDean has joined #vcwg 15:03:11 present+ 15:03:18 mandyv has joined #vcwg 15:03:37 present+ mandyv, wes-smith 15:03:39 scribe+ 15:03:45 present KevinDean 15:03:50 present+ KevinDean 15:04:09 brent: Our agenda today is that we're going to look at a proposal to move VC-JOSE-COSE to CR2. 15:04:10 present+ dmitriz 15:04:16 present+ dlongley 15:04:22 present+ selfissued 15:04:29 present+ manu 15:04:29 brent: We're going to very briefly entertain a discussion about renaming the controller document and then spend the rest of our time on controller document PRs and issues. 15:04:34 present+ joe 15:04:45 brent: Anyone who would like to changes to the agenda? 15:04:45 q+ 15:04:50 ack manu 15:04:52 Wip has joined #vcwg 15:04:57 present+ 15:05:17 manu: Just a quick review of where we are with the IETF BBS reviews and questions for Ivan about transition requests / horizontal reviews. 15:05:17 brent: We can do that. 15:05:18 JennieM has joined #vcwg 15:05:22 brent: Anyone want to introduce themselves that's new? 15:05:23 present+ 15:05:33 present+ campbell 15:05:38 brent: Not seeing anyone -- going to Manu's topic. 15:05:39 Topic: BBS Update 15:06:07 manu: The first thing is to just let the group know that the BBS crypto review we've been waiting on for almost a year now has been done. Two reviews have been done, hoping for a couple more, but box is ticked for the review. 15:06:16 manu: Spec authors need to review to the comments, they are working on that now. 15:07:06 manu: So that's good news. The other news is that Simone continues to work through the Security Interest group (SING) charter -- once that's wrapped up and the charter officially they can start. We're already talking with folks that are doing detailed reviews from SING when that starts up. 15:07:22 manu: I would be surprised if it wasn't early November by the time we got officially started there. 15:07:24 Topic: CR transitions 15:07:58 manu: CR2 preps for VCDM, VC-DI, and VC-DI cryptosuites (ecdsa, eddsa) have all been prepped, no non-editorial things left in any of those documents. 15:08:42 manu: We have 14 implementations for data integrity with a couple of more on the way which is way more than the two we need. We are still looking at features at risk, and the test team has worked with Gabe to create a docker mechanism to run the test suites and it's on a good trajectory, not sure when it will be fully done. 15:08:43 present+ davidc 15:09:07 manu: But looking good. Question for Ivan -- you mentioned that we needed to do something about horizontal review for CR2, was that we didn't need any necessary additional review? You said some information was missing. 15:09:58 ivan: The point is that, in theory, I think, we should have contacted the horizontal review groups and get a statement that none of the new changes would raise any issues and I don't think we've done that and I don't know if there will be push back on that. 15:10:03 q+ 15:10:14 ivan: I had a meeting with Philippe on this and that's a side note. 15:10:15 ack manu 15:10:40 q+ 15:11:00 ack ivan 15:11:06 q+ 15:11:08 manu: Would have been good to know about that -- could lead to delay, what do we want to do about that? In terms of horizontal review, we also have 14 implementers as a form of horizontal review, the CCG summary has been going out, etc. 15:12:01 ivan: This is all true, but not the point, which is that we have to look at the new substantial additions to the spec. We may try to get a statement into the request whereby none of these are relevant for i18n or a11y, where we are with security we know we're working on that with SING, same type of thing with privacy. 15:12:19 q+ 15:12:19 ack brent 15:12:19 ivan: We can look at the new features/changes and find the argument where those are irrelevant. I don't know if that's the case. 15:12:30 PL-ASU has joined #vcwg 15:12:46 present+ 15:13:04 brent: We went into CR1, we responded to the requests for changes and made those -- would it be appropriate going into CR2 we can say: "Here's the change set do you have any concerns about these minimal changes?" 15:13:22 ivan: Yes, that's what I'm saying. Another group just did this too -- and right after CR request I sent out a request like that. 15:13:29 ack manu 15:13:32 ivan: We're not talking about filling out all the forms and all that, just a note asking about concerns. 15:14:08 manu: I did do a scan through before prepping the documents, there have been zero changes about i18n or a11y -- any changes that we made were in response to previous TAG reviews that have increased and tightened down security in the doc. 15:14:21 manu: I can make a statement and point the horizontal review groups at the delta, which is documented and then ask. 15:14:29 Ivan: Yes please. 15:14:45 manu: I can do that in the request and in parallel, staff or chair requests that the horizontal groups take a look again? 15:14:57 ivan: The request is out as an issue now, the best is to add a comment there saying in terms of i18n, etc. 15:15:05 ivan: Contacting them, Brent, that would be a good thing to have. 15:15:24 brent: Whether that will be a real problem for CR2 at all we should do our best in this respect. 15:15:32 s/brent: Whether/ivan: Whether 15:15:35 present+ RobDeFeo 15:15:49 manu: I will take two actions and draft language and Brent can help there. 15:15:52 brent: Works for me. 15:15:54 Topic: VC JOSE COSE CR2 15:15:59 present+ Phil-ASU 15:16:13 brent: I believe you have the links we need and are ready to run this portion. Let me know if you need me to do anything. 15:16:40 selfissued: Gabe's not here -- so a race to see if myself, Brent, Ivan can find the CR2 candidate links. 15:17:05 -> CR 2 https://w3c.github.io/vc-jose-cose/ 15:17:30 JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg 15:17:43 present+ 15:17:48 ivan: Gabe made the main branch entry as the snapshot which isn't necessarily a good idea, but we can go with it. 15:18:00 ivan: I haven't put the docs on the website and don't want to without the greenlight. 15:18:01 https://github.com/w3c/vc-jose-cose/ 15:18:31 selfissued: If you look at the github status with the VC-JOSE-COSE ... there are no PRs and there is one issue without spec change requests. We believe we're there in terms of -- it's time to request the second CR. 15:18:40 selfissued: Is the thing we do now -- to have a resolution? 15:18:50 brent: Yes, we run a proposal to transition the doc at the link to CR2. 15:19:00 brent: With a goal to publish on Nov 5. 15:19:41 q+ 15:19:51 brent: Please look at the emoted proposal and say what language tweaks you'd like. 15:19:51 q+ 15:19:51 ack ivan 15:19:54 Submission request: https://github.com/w3c/verifiable-credentials/blob/main/admin/CR2-jose-cose-Oct-2024/Approval_request.md 15:20:08 ivan: Just for the whole record, I have created a submission request draft with the stuff for management. 15:20:19 ivan: We had one question to the formal objection part which Brent said we have to verify. 15:20:33 brent: Do we have to make any changes/textual changes to that? 15:20:37 ivan: No, not to the proposal itself. 15:20:39 ack TallTed 15:20:57 TallTed: We generally want a timestamped doc. 15:21:03 ivan: We don't have that right now. 15:21:12 selfissued: We're voting on transitioning to a timestamped link. 15:21:14 BC has joined #vcwg 15:21:16 q+ 15:21:24 TallTed: Historically here and elsewhere, a datestamped document goes out for CR. 15:21:33 ack ivan 15:21:34 selfissued: It will, once we decide to create it based on this poll. 15:21:52 +1 to what Ivan's saying 15:21:56 ivan: The practice is that in the repo one creates a separate document which is not the editor's draft and that goes to CR and we vote on that. 15:22:02 ivan: Maybe Manu can put up an example. 15:22:13 q+ 15:22:26 There is a document here: https://github.com/w3c/vc-jose-cose/blob/main/transitions/CR2/2024-11-05/index.html 15:22:35 ivan: It is a better practice because we may otherwise get into problems with updates, etc. That would have preferred that Gabe or you, Mike, would have created something like that with the final document generated by respec for CR2. 15:22:51 ivan: We can do a change in the proposed resolution saying something like one of you two will create that version quickly. 15:23:01 ivan: And we vote for the publication for the document provided that it is done. 15:23:20 ack brent 15:23:35 brent: There is a document -- I dropped the link in the chat. Is this not a date stamped version of VC-JOSE-COSE? 15:23:53 ivan: Except, we have to do precede that with the magic to make it a rendered document. 15:25:37 brent: Ok, we have a date stamped link that renders the doc now and I will adjust the proposal with that link. Any other changes? 15:25:49 PROPOSAL: Transition the document at https://w3c.github.io/vc-jose-cose/transitions/CR2/2024-11-05/ to a second Candidate Recommendation with a goal to publish on November 5, 2024 15:26:01 +1 15:26:02 +1 15:26:06 +1 15:26:07 +1 15:26:09 +1 15:26:09 +1 15:26:11 +1 15:26:14 +1 15:26:17 +0 (think it's premature, we don't have a test suite still w/ understanding of implementation depth, but not blocking) 15:26:18 +1 15:26:22 +1 15:26:45 -1 15:27:11 brent: Could you speak to your -1? 15:27:21 BC: We don't want to, but will have to file a formal objection on this, that's what it is. 15:27:40 brent: Noting Brian's formal objection. 15:27:58 BC: Not being familiar with the processing involves, appreciate your support in noting the place to do so. 15:28:07 RESOLVED: Transition the document at https://w3c.github.io/vc-jose-cose/transitions/CR2/2024-11-05/ to a second Candidate Recommendation with a goal to publish on November 5, 2024 15:28:12 s/the processing involves/the processing this involves/ 15:28:26 ivan: Can you register Brian in the proper steps to take to file his formal objection? 15:28:36 ivan: In the request I mentioned earlier we should make that clear. 15:28:44 brent: At this stage, the formal objection is noted. 15:28:50 ivan: And we have to report it for the transition. 15:28:59 brent: Any action required on Brian's part until we move toward REC? 15:29:02 ivan: Not that I know of. 15:29:17 brent: Brian for now you've done what's necessary, when the group takes this doc to REC, there will be additional steps to take. 15:29:28 BC: This is a different recommendation than this one? 15:29:53 q+ 15:30:07 brent: The same document, but a different phase for it. Right now we're moving this document to CR2 and if implementation feedback supports the normative requirements in the document, the group will move to proposed recommendation (PR) and if your formal objection still stands folks will reach out to you. 15:30:14 brent: To take part in councils and attempts to reconcile. 15:30:18 ack ivan 15:30:53 ivan: To be precise, a PR means a formal vote goes out to the AC (to members) and it's on that vote that you formally put your objection with all the right arguments. After that comes the council process brent mentioned. 15:31:06 ivan: I don't know if you are the AC for your company or someone else. 15:31:08 BC: Someone else. 15:31:17 ivan: That person will need to do a -1 vote with the formal objection. 15:31:34 brent: I will take an action to contact you and your AC rep so you are aware of the vote happening and you can vote and formally object at that time. 15:31:45 BC: Thanks, that's acceptable process-wise. 15:32:21 brent: Ok, that's that topic, any other comments before we move into controller document? 15:32:30 Topic: Controller Document Rename 15:32:39 q+ 15:32:45 ack manu 15:32:58 https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/issues/100#issuecomment-2432419800 15:33:04 manu: At the editor's call I took an action to summarize the options that are in front of us. Joe, you added another one, I'll add it to the list. 15:33:19 manu: We could open a ranked choice poll and see what people would like. 15:33:26 manu: Just to gather data. 15:33:57 manu: We keep the poll open for a week or two and then close the poll, bring the data back to the group and see if there's a particular name that's clearly winning and choose it or decide to keep the other name -- whatever we want. 15:34:26 manu: With Joe's addition, we can run the poll, gather data. If anyone wants another choice listed, please tell us right now, because once the poll is open we can't change it. 15:34:33 manu: I will open the poll after the call today. 15:34:49 brent: May I make a request? Right now -- all of the options are in the plural but the name of the document is in the singular. 15:35:20 manu: I think that's a decision -- plural or not -- that we can make later and hopefully be an easy one. Just because it's plural in the poll doesn't mean it has to be that way. 15:35:30 brent: I am eagerly anticipating that conversation. 15:36:09 brent: I am not seeing anyone jump on the queue to say their option isn't in the poll and you're cleared to move forward with this poll as a data gathering exercise so we can see which of the choices is likely to be preferred or not and we can work off of that. 15:36:21 Topic: Controller Document 15:36:23 manu: +1 I will take that action. 15:36:31 brent: Thanks, Manu. 15:36:38 brent: There are currently three open PRs. 15:36:39 https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/pulls 15:36:45 q+ to discuss 102 15:36:54 q- 15:36:59 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/pull/102 15:37:23 brent: Updated introduction to focus on verification of proofs. Request for changes from Ted. It looks like requests for changes from David Chadwick or some suggestions that have been resolved. 15:37:39 brent: If folks have comments here -- Ted have your requests been addressed? 15:37:45 q+ 15:37:54 brent: It looks like they've all been incorporated from a quick glance. If that's the case, nothing standing in the way. 15:37:54 ack manu 15:38:20 manu: That would be great with true. I thought I saw some misalignment between Joe and Dave Longley who is scribing -- that just needs to be resolved. 15:38:27 q+ 15:38:28 q+ to mention term issues 15:38:38 manu: I don't think we can do the CR without resolving this. 15:38:44 scribe+ 15:38:47 ack dlongley 15:39:09 dlongley: Taking a quick look, I was being responsive to a point that DavidC was making in comments. I don't think I had changes in the PR that I requested. 15:39:16 dlongley: I don't think I'm blocking the PR with my comments. 15:39:21 ack JoeAndrieu 15:39:21 JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention term issues 15:39:45 I don't need to speak; my changes appear to have been applied, modulo addressing that the "abstract" is entirely reproduced as the first paragraph of the "introduction", which doesn't seem to bother others as much as me. 15:40:06 JoeAndrieu: Yes, this is just the introduction section, I think Dave and I are discussing something else. I don't think the language addresses the confusion around subject not being the controller. 15:40:32 JoeAndrieu: Whether or not the controller property is semantically different when it's in a verification method or in the root of the controller document; I don't think we need to resolve that argument to resolve this PR so we can move forward. 15:40:34 +1 to joe 15:40:50 q+ 15:40:54 brent: No one else is on the queue, but I would recommend to filip that he raise his concerns as a separate issue. 15:40:59 ack DavidC 15:41:22 DavidC: Two points I want to raise: you've got cryptographic identifiers (plural) and another that is singular, we ought to be consistent. 15:41:30 q+ 15:41:41 ack manu 15:41:43 DavidC: I also suggested that the cryptographic information documents as a choice, not identifiers, so please add that to the list of names to choose from. 15:42:18 manu: You wanted me to add "Cryptographic Information" and you wanted equivalences between "Cryptographic Identifiers" and Cryptographic Identifiers Documents" ... is that correct? 15:43:01 DavidC: I think there should be consistency in singular and plural and choosing whether to have the word "document" in the title. 15:43:10 manu: I think I made the change you wanted, can you make sure I did? 15:43:17 brent: Back to PR 102. 15:43:47 brent: I can make a comment in the PR recommending that filip open an issue to track his concerns. Ted, if you can do a re-review and make sure your changes have been made to your satisfaction then this PR can be merged. 15:44:08 TallTed: My changes have all been applied, with one exception that I can live with. 15:44:15 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/pull/112 15:44:20 TallTed: About the abstract and intro being duplicated that doesn't seem to bother anyone else. 15:44:21 manu can you add Document please to the last choice in the list. 15:44:44 brent: This is about a property in a DID doc that did not exist in a controller doc and the conversation at TPAC had the group agree to bring it over. 15:44:56 q+ 15:45:01 brent: We has minimal review, but open for 3 days, so if folks can review it or if there are any comments we can take those now. 15:45:02 ack ivan 15:45:09 q+ 15:45:21 ivan: I am always the troublemaker with the vocab, the URL with the service is in the DID space, will that stay that way? 15:45:23 ack manu 15:45:30 manu: Yes, that's intentional to ensure that we don't make a backwards breaking change. 15:45:47 ivan: That means that I will not make any the vocabulary document. This property will not appear in the document. 15:46:08 manu: I think that's ok. There's a DID vocabulary where it points. 15:46:11 ivan: That's the only element. 15:46:21 manu: Yes, that's true at this point because we split the two docs apart. 15:46:28 ivan: Ok, I hold my nose, but it's fine. 15:46:31 brent: Any other comments? 15:46:44 q+ to talk about "why service"? 15:47:08 ack manu 15:47:08 manu, you wanted to talk about "why service"? 15:47:09 brent: Chair hat off, I don't fully understand why we need to bring service in, I won't object, but it points directly to a doc that should be a profile of this one; I think that one should handle that. I don't understand the use case for a service in the controller document. 15:47:29 gkellogg has joined #vcwg 15:47:44 manu: Good question, comes from the ActivityPub community and they are starting to migrate to using the data integrity JCS signatures and they want to be able to list services in their controller documents. 15:47:52 manu: That plus the other comments from TPAC. 15:48:32 dmitri: +1 to what Manu said. That said, if this group ends up ruling that no service endpoint can be in a controller document, then ActivityPub will just end up using the DID context. The point in bringing it up -- is that it's that kind of use case. A DID only have two things: keys, services. 15:48:51 dmitri: A controller document is a more generic version of a DID, cutting out service endpoints cuts out literally have of it and that seems major. 15:49:13 brent: Thank you, Dmitri, I don't know of anyone actively opposed, so it's likely this will move forward, but we do some more review on the PR and it's not yet been a week. 15:49:25 brent: Moving onto the final PR that is open if there are no more comments. 15:49:26 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/pull/113 15:49:31 q+ 15:49:46 q- 15:49:49 brent: "Use correct vocab URL for alsoKnownAs" -- this one open for 3 days, 3 approvals, just a bug fix. 15:50:11 manu: Yes, I was going to say what you said, it was a simple mistake, we're fixing it. 15:50:26 brent: Any comments on this? 15:50:59 brent: Ok, looking at issues. 15:51:08 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc+-label%3A%22during+CR%22 15:51:27 q+ 15:51:55 manu: I don't know if you want to shortcut this -- but I could run down why we don't need to talk about them, but we can do them individually. 15:51:59 ack manu 15:52:00 brent: We can do them individually, it's fine. 15:52:00 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/issues/75 15:52:04 q+ 15:52:20 brent: I believe that this is at least partially addressed by the PR that Joe raised, what's the delta? 15:52:23 ack JoeAndrieu 15:52:41 JoeAndrieu: I think it's dependent on figuring out what that new intro language is and deal with that issue Filip is bringing up. 15:52:45 q+ 15:53:15 JoeAndrieu: If we get that intro correct that will provide guidance for how to update this. I think that's where we're at. I think the other one that spawned off of issue 33 -- and we already have the PR for 33, it doesn't address DavidC's issue on subject vs. controller. 15:53:27 JoeAndrieu: If we figure out the intro and then we can talk about subject not being controller and we can update the doc. 15:53:29 ack manu 15:53:48 manu: I'm wondering if this is editorial and we can do this during CR. At TPAC we removed the "during CR" label. 15:54:16 manu: I don't know what the language will be -- whether editorial or normative -- I'd like to figure that out. I would like to presume that other introductory PR will go in and what concrete thing will close this issue. 15:54:27 q+ to request a PR 15:54:39 q+ 15:54:42 JoeAndrieu: I can put a PR together if 33 looks good, I think conceptually we as a group really haven't responded to DavidC's question and whatever PR I make to update this language should read on that. I can get to spec text. 15:54:47 ack manu 15:54:47 manu, you wanted to request a PR 15:54:51 manu: Yes, please, please raise a PR for 75. 15:54:52 ack ivan 15:54:54 JoeAndrieu: Yes, I can. 15:55:21 ivan: Is it the same issue as what we discussed elsewhere -- on what happens if there is no `controller` property, is there any entity that plays a similar role -- is it the same story? 15:55:22 q+ to note it's defined by the VDR. :) 15:55:27 JoeAndrieu: Yes, it's the same thing. 15:55:34 ack manu 15:55:34 manu, you wanted to note it's defined by the VDR. :) 15:55:37 ivan: Unfortunately for me, it's not an editorial question. 15:55:46 manu: In which case we have to deal with this then. 15:56:05 +1 to VDR decides who is the controller 15:56:08 manu: I will suggest that the controller of the document is defined by the VDR, which Dave Longley suggested as well -- and maybe we just say that. 15:56:24 manu: So the relationship is defined by the VDR and we can't say anything generalized or generic -- and we can maybe give some suggestions or expectations. 15:56:29 q+ 15:56:38 JoeAndrieu: If we do that, I think that addresses both yours and DavidC's issue. 15:56:42 ack DavidC 15:56:43 q+ to say not sure about David's issue 15:57:10 DavidC: Let's see the text, and we need to resolve it and I'll review it. You speak of the VDR as a separate entity from the controller document. 15:57:20 q+ to agree with DavidC that controller doc is part of VDR. 15:57:21 DavidC: I see the controller document as part of the VDR and it's the standardized part that someone can retrieve. 15:57:28 ack JoeAndrieu 15:57:28 JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say not sure about David's issue 15:57:32 DavidC: Am I right or wrong in that assumption? 15:58:05 ack manu 15:58:05 manu, you wanted to agree with DavidC that controller doc is part of VDR. 15:58:12 JoeAndrieu: I would say I think you're wrong. In the context of the bitcoin methods, the DID document doesn't exist in the blockchain, it's derived from transactions on the chain. The information needed to manage the document is in the chain. 15:58:32 manu: I think you're right conceptually but we have to talk more to details on how VDRs work. 15:58:48 manu: I think we can talk about specifying that there isn't one true way to do it. 15:58:49 q+ 15:58:54 ack JoeAndrieu 15:59:16 q+ 15:59:21 JoeAndrieu: I just wanted to get something in the ether -- I think then, I don't believe we have VDRs in the controller document. I've been using the language "where the document is stored". Or do we need to introduce VDRs formally? 15:59:24 ack manu 15:59:32 brent: It's sufficient to talk about where it's stored. 15:59:38 manu: +1 to not growing scope. 16:00:03 brent: Watch for VCWG meeting cancellations, IIW. 16:00:07 brent: Thanks folks! 16:00:09 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:00:10 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/23-vcwg-minutes.html ivan 16:13:37 rrsagent, bye 16:13:37 I see no action items