15:33:39 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
15:33:43 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/12/04-vcwg-irc
15:33:43 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:33:44 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
15:33:54 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
15:33:55 <ivan> Date: 2024-12-04
15:33:55 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/d03d7ee5-c761-4c67-825e-b483138033c7/20241204T110000/
15:33:55 <ivan> chair: brent
15:33:56 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2024-12-04: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/d03d7ee5-c761-4c67-825e-b483138033c7/20241204T110000/
15:58:27 <brent> brent has joined #vcwg
15:58:32 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg
15:58:59 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #vcwg
15:59:08 <ivan> present+
15:59:40 <mandyv> mandyv has joined #vcwg
15:59:41 <brent> present+
16:00:15 <ivan> present+ TallTed
16:00:19 <ivan> present+ joe
16:00:31 <ivan> present+ mandyv
16:00:45 <ivan> present+ hsano
16:01:02 <ivan> present+ wesley
16:01:31 <ivan> present+ davidc
16:01:36 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
16:01:43 <DavidC> present+
16:02:23 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #vcwg
16:02:29 <KevinDean> present+
16:03:01 <ivan> present+ manu
16:04:10 <manu> scribe+
16:04:40 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
16:05:22 <manu> brent: Welcome, this is the VCWG meeting. We have our agenda -- ask if anyone wants to talk about anything else, and then controller document rename.
16:05:32 <manu> brent: As we go into the topic, I'll layout what I'm looking for there.
16:05:43 <manu> ivan: short question on something.
16:05:52 <manu> brent: ok, that should be fine.
16:06:05 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #vcwg
16:06:17 <bigbluehat> present+
16:06:22 <Wip> Wip has joined #vcwg
16:06:34 <manu> ivan: Our Chinese colleagues have received a question/request from Chinese Expert who defines Multikeys for SM2, seems to be a Chinese alternative to elliptic curves, can it be added to the table for Multikeys?
16:06:35 <manu> q+
16:06:57 <manu> ivan: To be precise, question is around DID spec, but by now, the place is in the controller document. I don't know what the official answer is.
16:07:05 <KevinDean> scribe+
16:07:07 <brent> ack manu
16:07:20 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
16:07:28 <KevinDean> manu: All hats off, yes, it's easy to add it and I was expecting the request to come in at some point.
16:07:44 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #vcwg
16:07:51 <KevinDean> ...I can add it to the controller document. It's widely recognized in China, it's supported by their national standards body.
16:08:03 <KevinDean> Ivan: Raise an issue in the controller document repository.
16:08:06 <KevinDean> scribe-
16:08:10 <JennieM> present+
16:08:17 <brent> Topic: Controller Document Rename
16:08:19 <manu> brent: ok, seeing no one else on the queue, let's go into our topic for today.
16:08:29 <ivan> present+ selfissued, meier, will
16:09:01 <manu> brent: I'm seeing 14 people on the call today, currently.
16:09:16 <manu> brent: anyone is free to make a proposal, anyone is free to queue, anyone is free to talk about other proposals people have made.
16:09:17 <manu> q+
16:09:38 <KevinDean> q+
16:10:06 <KevinDean> Procedural question, so perhaps better to take me first.
16:10:15 <manu> brent: my plan is to run queue, when a proposal is made, count the plusses, with 14 people, I expect to see at least 8 pluses and no minuses. If I see minuses, I'll ask if they see it's a formal objection, and if not, if there is a single or just a couple, we can move forward. That's what I'm leaning toward as far as guidance on whether to determine we have consensus or not.
16:10:36 <brent> ack KevinDean
16:11:08 <manu> KevinDean: Quick procedural question, regarding pluses, 14 people in meeting, some companies represented by more than one person, how does that work? Since company is registered, not individual, how do pluses and minuses work in those circumstance.
16:11:16 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say process is clear on this on
16:11:23 <ivan> present+ smccown
16:12:01 <manu> brent: Previously in the group, we've allowed people to indicate preference, if this were to turn into a vote, I'll have to be clear that individual companies need to be represented, if that's what people want to do today, happy to try to do the math to figure out how to do that.
16:12:08 <brent> ack manu
16:12:10 <KevinDean> scribe+
16:12:28 <KevinDean> manu: I had proposed something about how we go about this today that is aligned with your proposal.
16:12:38 <smccown> smccown has joined #vcwg
16:12:57 <KevinDean> ...The first being that I don't think you can formally object to the title of a spec. The last time we asked for formal objections, but that's not what we're looking for today.
16:13:16 <selfissued> PROPOSAL: Close issue #100 with no further action on the renaming topic.
16:13:21 <KevinDean> ...Today, we're looking for the proposal that has the last number of -1s. Those who -1 will be asked to clarify their objection.
16:13:43 <selfissued> q+
16:13:50 <KevinDean> ...I feel like formal objections for the title of the spec are totally off the table. The -1s indicate that you really don't like it but there should be no formal objection.
16:14:01 <KevinDean> ...I'm fine with multiple people providing input and one vote per org.
16:14:31 <KevinDean> ...I think we pick the one with the least number of objections, but I don't know if that's aligned with Brent's position.
16:14:45 <manu> brent: All I'm trying to say is that if the group decides on a different name, that's fine, in my view, I haven't seen that yet.
16:14:49 <KevinDean> Brent: If the group all agree on a different name, that's fine. So far, in my view, I haven't seen that. Others say they have.
16:14:53 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
16:14:53 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say process is clear on this on
16:14:58 <TallTed> q+ to indicate that any "decision" is subject to the Formal Objection process
16:15:17 <manu> JoeAndrieu: I would like to follow process, when it gets to a point where we hae a vote, we might do a poll first, ultimately, I think it meets process -- one vote per member, IE counts as one vote.
16:16:15 <manu> JoeAndrieu: Other thing to push back to, you can't formally object to something, you can formally object to anything under process -- spoke w/ Florian and PlH about it -- not aligned, but Florian says anyone can object to anything, PlH noted he doesn't necessarily agree.
16:16:28 <manu> brent: for my benefit, say who will indicate preferences.
16:16:33 <ivan> q+
16:16:39 <brent> ack selfissued
16:17:17 <manu> selfissued: I'll note that when we ran the polls, no poll for a name change garnered a majority of the recipients. Clear signal to not change name to anything in particular, I think we should be done. Proposal to that effect in the chat that I'd like to run.
16:17:28 <manu> brent: I'll run through queue and then run the proposal.
16:17:29 <brent> ack TallTed
16:17:29 <Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to indicate that any "decision" is subject to the Formal Objection process
16:18:04 <brent> ack ivan
16:18:07 <manu> TallTed: What Joe said, the process says that any decision is subject to FO, that includes a decision to title a spec. It does seem like a heavy lift for that decision, but it is a decision. If someone wants to make that heavy lift, they can make it happen.
16:18:41 <manu> ivan: something I noted, when we come out of the call, is the decision final or do we have an implicit CfC via email until next meeting.
16:19:06 <manu> ivan: we can decide that with this decision, we close no matter the outcome, but we have to agree on that first.
16:19:25 <manu> brent: As much as I'd like to proceed in that way, my recollection is that any decision made has a week of time where people can object.
16:19:41 <manu> brent: I am hesitant to act in a way that differs from our operating mode.
16:19:50 <brent> PROPOSAL: Close issue #100 with no further action on the renaming topic.
16:20:02 <selfissued> +1
16:20:03 <JoeAndrieu> -1
16:20:05 <DavidC> -1
16:20:08 <brent> +0
16:20:16 <manu> -1
16:20:19 <ivan> 0
16:20:28 <smccown> 0
16:20:28 <hsano> 0
16:20:34 <JennieM> 0
16:20:40 <TallTed> +0
16:21:38 <manu> brent: I believe we have 11 organizations, we'd have to see six positive indications and no negative indications for a proposal to be clearly resolved.
16:21:43 <manu> ivan: I counted 11 as well.
16:21:43 <selfissued> q+
16:21:49 <manu> brent: This proposal doesn't resolve, we have a single +1
16:21:49 <brent> ack selfissued
16:22:16 <manu> selfissued: What that result tells me, given that it was predominance of zeros, that a lot of people don't care about this.
16:24:07 <manu> brent: I did not mean to imply that only folks w/ proposals can run things... anyone can join conversation about title of the specification.
16:24:22 <manu> brent: We have three proposals to put forward, want to invite people to speak to proposal to add themselves to the queue.
16:24:23 <manu> q+
16:24:29 <brent> ack manu
16:24:40 <KevinDean> manu: I just want to highlight some of the thinking behind each proposal.
16:24:54 <KevinDean> ...The first is just to establish if we want to keep the current title.
16:25:05 <ivan> present+ dlehn
16:25:06 <KevinDean> ...If we see a lot of +1s and few or no -1s or 0s, we should keep it.
16:25:29 <brent> q+ to ask a process question
16:25:31 <ivan> present+ steele
16:25:33 <KevinDean> ...We may find ourselves in a situation where we don't have a title and so we change the title to "Identifier document".
16:26:19 <KevinDean> ...Third, we try to align with what Dave Longley and maybe Ted said, is to try to get alignment with the folks who want to keep identifier document, and add "controller" to the title. Keep both as a compromise.
16:26:20 <brent> ack brent
16:26:20 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to ask a process question
16:27:03 <manu> brent: First is to recap for those that have recently joined, today's proposals... preferences are being made as organizations. Please coordinate with your company for single indication of preference or not. We can't assume 11, we're up to 13 or 12?
16:27:50 <selfissued> q+
16:27:58 <brent> ack selfissued
16:28:01 <manu> brent: A question to the group -- if none of the proposals receive positive indications, of more than half of those organizations present, in my view, that's an indication that none of the proposals have consensus. I would love to hear what people in the group feel the most appropriate action as chair should be in that event. Inclination as chair is to say there is no consensus and move on.
16:28:07 <manu> selfissued: If there is no consensus, we should move on.
16:28:07 <manu> q+
16:28:14 <manu> selfissued: then move to CR.
16:28:15 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to speak to weakest objections
16:28:15 <brent> ack manu
16:28:38 <selfissued> q+
16:28:53 <KevinDean> manu: If there's no proposal that we agree on, we keep the existing title. That's one of the arguments being made.
16:29:11 <KevinDean> ...If we can't change the title to any other title, then we don't have a title that we agree to.
16:29:29 <KevinDean> ...This is about more than the title. We need to do an IANA registration and we need a title as part of the registration.
16:29:55 <KevinDean> ...If we don't have agreement on current or new terminology, my position is that we have no decision and we will sit here until we have one.
16:29:58 <brent> q+ to ask if it would be sufficient to name as resolved the proposal with the highest number of positive indications
16:30:18 <KevinDean> ...That's my current interpretation, I realize that's not everybody else's, but I don't think there's a clean argument for what the fallback position should be.
16:30:50 <KevinDean> ...The other way that other working groups deal with this is to proceed with the ones that have the least number of objections. If that turns into a formal objection, we deal with that then.
16:31:01 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
16:31:01 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to speak to weakest objections
16:31:06 <KevinDean> ...If we go with the one with the least number of objections and the most support, we can move forward.
16:32:03 <manu> JoeAndrieu: There is good language about the fallback in the W3C Process document, I think those are good rules to do the proposal brent, thank you. If those rules don't meet rules, then whole process where there is dissent, and we should move on (agree to move on). Groups should favor proposals that receive weakest objections.
16:32:04 <brent> ack selfissued
16:32:59 <manu> selfissued: I strongly disagree with what Manu said about there being no decision. Controller document came from two documents that had WG approval, one was VC DI and one was VC JOSE COSE. Manu and I as editors consolidated it leaving the name in place, the name was already in WG approved documents. Unless there is consensus to change the name, we already have a consensus name.
16:33:07 <brent> ack brent
16:33:07 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to ask if it would be sufficient to name as resolved the proposal with the highest number of positive indications
16:33:10 <manu> q+ to note we do not :) -- that's why we're here.
16:33:49 <manu> brent: If there is not clear consensus on a proposal, I'll declare as resolved the proposal with higest number of indications, least number of negative indications. I think that's in line with what people have said and W3C Process. I'd like to move to the proposals.
16:33:50 <manu> q-
16:34:07 <manu> brent: If it was clear we had consensus on the name, we would not be having this discussion.
16:34:29 <brent> PROPOSAL: Keep the "Controller Documents" title
16:34:31 <brent> +0
16:34:31 <manu> -1
16:34:35 <JoeAndrieu> -1
16:34:36 <hsano> 0
16:34:49 <ivan> 0
16:34:49 <DavidC> -1
16:34:52 <JennieM> -1
16:34:59 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
16:35:00 <TallTed> +0
16:35:03 <smccown> 0
16:35:04 <selfissued> +1
16:35:07 <selfissued> present+
16:35:38 <JoeAndrieu> present+
16:35:43 <manu> brent: This proposal doesn't have consensus
16:36:04 <brent> PROPOSAL: Change the title of the "Controller Documents" to "Identifier Documents"
16:36:07 <selfissued> -1
16:36:08 <brent> +0
16:36:09 <JoeAndrieu> +1
16:36:10 <manu> -1
16:36:13 <JennieM> +1
16:36:13 <DavidC> +1
16:36:13 <hsano> +1
16:36:18 <smccown> +1
16:36:23 <ivan> 0
16:36:26 <TallTed> -0
16:37:15 <manu> brent: five +1s, 3 0s, and 2 -1s -- my suggestion is we run the other proposal to see how it compares before talking w/ people w/ indication of -1s.
16:37:25 <brent> PROPOSAL: Change the title of the "Controller Documents" to "Controllable Identifier Documents"
16:37:29 <manu> +1
16:37:29 <brent> 0
16:37:30 <DavidC> +1
16:37:33 <hsano> 0
16:37:33 <ivan> 0
16:37:35 <JoeAndrieu> +1
16:37:37 <smccown> 0
16:37:42 <TallTed> +0
16:37:45 <JennieM> +1
16:37:46 <selfissued> -1
16:38:42 <ivan> q+
16:38:53 <manu> brent: the first proposal has more support and more objection. The first proposal is meeting qualification at beginning of call wrt. abstentions... obstentions do matter as they are not in support.
16:39:00 <brent> ack ivan
16:39:16 <manu> ivan: I voted zero everywhere, customary for company-based vote, W3C abstains. That's the reason I voted 0.
16:39:39 <KevinDean> manu: Yes, it's non-blocking.
16:40:06 <KevinDean> ...I know that Dave feels very strongly about "Identifier Document" in that it's not very descriptive.
16:40:17 <manu> brent: MikeJ, can you speak to your -1s?
16:41:07 <manu> selfissued: Identifier Document as a name is pretty meaningless, it's not evocative as a name as what it does -- titles should indicate what it does. This does not, the second name "Controllable Identifier Documents" as english is also strange, it raises the mental question of if there are "uncontrollable identifier documents"
16:41:08 <manu> q+
16:41:10 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to support controllable identifier
16:41:13 <manu> selfissued: In what sense are they controllable?
16:41:14 <manu> q-
16:41:35 <manu> selfissued: The english result is non-sensical, I would object to having my name on either of those.
16:41:47 <manu> brent: Is either of your objections weaker than the other?
16:41:52 <TallTed> "Identifier Controller Document"
16:42:01 <manu> selfissued: They're both non-sensicle names, neither of those help.
16:42:07 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
16:42:07 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to support controllable identifier
16:42:20 <manu> JoeAndrieu: I'd look at those two -1s as more objections, and would support that.
16:42:21 <ivan> s/sensicle/sensible/
16:42:35 <DavidC> selfissued your arguements equally apply to the name Controller Documents
16:43:10 <manu> JoeAndrieu: Also want to push back on what you're saying MikeJ, it's one of the hardest problems -- that's what we've been doing with DIDs -- whole point is through proofs, you show control over an identifier. That is, in fact, quite semantically accurate that describes controllable identifiers and how you establish/prove control.
16:43:17 <brent> PROPOSAL: Change the title of the document to "Identifier Controller Document"
16:43:29 <manu> brent: I've drafted as a proposal, TallTed's comment.
16:43:30 <ivan> 0
16:43:31 <manu> -1
16:43:33 <brent> 0
16:43:37 <JoeAndrieu> -1
16:43:40 <selfissued> -1
16:43:46 <DavidC> 0
16:43:49 <JennieM> -1
16:43:52 <smccown> -1
16:43:55 <hsano> 0
16:43:59 <TallTed> +0 ... it was mostly an attempt to address mike's objection to the other names
16:44:17 <selfissued> PROPOSED PROPOSAL: Change the title to Verifiably Controlled Identifiers
16:44:49 <selfissued> q+
16:45:07 <manu> brent: I'm going to run proposal as just the title.
16:45:23 <manu> TallTed: When resolved, do the full string.
16:45:50 <manu> selfissued: The problem with Controllable, in terms of the English, it raises the question of "uncontrollable identifiers"
16:45:51 <manu> q+
16:45:58 <brent> ack selfissued
16:46:06 <JoeAndrieu> rogue identifiers are identifiers you don't control
16:46:07 <brent> ack manu
16:46:13 <DavidC> q=
16:46:21 <DavidC> q+
16:46:24 <manu> selfissued: It has same linguistic problem, hope we don't go with that, the "controllable" vs. "uncontrollable" distinction is real.
16:46:46 <KevinDean> manu: Just to respond, Mike, an uncontrollable identifier example is a Social Security Number.
16:47:12 <KevinDean> ...There are many uncontrollable identifiers that we use: URNs, SSNs, tax ID numbers, these are all uncontrollable because you can't prove that you control it.
16:47:21 <KevinDean> ...If you assert it to someone, you can't prove that you control it.
16:47:40 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to suggest options like "manifest" or "descriptor" instead of "document
16:47:44 <KevinDean> ...The name "controllable identifier" is the thing that makes these types identifiers provable of having control over it.
16:48:10 <KevinDean> ...That is what this specification establishes. It isn't a decentralized version of that, because it doesn't have the characteristics of a DID.
16:48:28 <manu> brent: We are at the tail end of our call, can we run proposals before we're done.
16:48:29 <brent> ack DavidC
16:48:49 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
16:48:49 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to suggest options like "manifest" or "descriptor" instead of "document
16:48:51 <manu> DavidC: Wanted to address Mike's point of "rogue identifier" -- equally controllable as non-controllable -- think rogue identifier is spurious.
16:49:18 <manu> JoeAndrieu: Maybe shifting term around document might open up some options -- could run Controllable Identifier Descriptor? How control is done there.
16:49:44 <brent> PROPOSAL: "Controllable Identifier"
16:49:46 <manu> brent: Can you draft proposals for that? I'm going to run one Dave proposed, one Mike proposed, then we can try to get others in.
16:49:48 <selfissued> -1
16:49:49 <manu> +1
16:49:52 <JoeAndrieu> -1
16:49:54 <brent> 0
16:49:58 <ivan> 0
16:50:03 <JennieM> -1
16:50:07 <hsano> 0
16:50:15 <smccown> 0
16:50:15 <TallTed> -0
16:50:17 <DavidC> 0
16:50:40 <brent> PROPSAL: Verifiably Controlled Identifiers
16:50:47 <selfissued> +1
16:50:48 <brent> 0
16:50:49 <JoeAndrieu> -1
16:50:52 <ivan> 0
16:50:58 <manu> -1
16:51:00 <DavidC> +1
16:51:00 <JennieM> -1
16:51:05 <hsano> 0
16:51:05 <TallTed> +0
16:51:06 <smccown> 0
16:51:37 <brent> PROPOSAL: Controllable Identifier Descriptor
16:51:42 <brent> 0
16:51:45 <DavidC> 0
16:51:46 <ivan> 0
16:51:51 <JoeAndrieu> +1
16:51:52 <smccown> 0
16:51:56 <selfissued> 0
16:51:59 <manu> -1 we don't use descriptor anywhere else :(
16:52:08 <JennieM> 0
16:52:08 <TallTed> -0
16:52:08 <JoeAndrieu> lol
16:52:14 <hsano> +0
16:52:34 <manu> brent: I'm not seeing consensus on any of the last 3 proposals.
16:52:44 <brent> PROPOSAL: Controlled Identifier Documents
16:52:50 <manu> +1
16:52:50 <brent> 0
16:52:50 <DavidC> +1
16:52:55 <ivan> 0
16:52:56 <JoeAndrieu> 0
16:52:59 <JennieM> 0
16:53:06 <TallTed> +0
16:53:08 <smccown> 0
16:53:13 <hsano> 0
16:53:35 <manu> brent: least objections, but active support for it is poor. Not seeing everyone's vote either.
16:54:28 <selfissued> -1 because it should be "Document"
16:54:31 <manu> brent: MikeJ? Comments?
16:54:55 <JoeAndrieu> q+
16:55:05 <TallTed> -1 "Controlled Identifiers Document"
16:55:07 <selfissued> I would support Controlled Identifiers Document
16:55:07 <manu> selfissued: Should it be controlled "Identifiers"?
16:55:10 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
16:55:27 <manu> JoeAndrieu: There is only one identifier in the document that is what the document is about.
16:55:38 <manu> selfissued: What about the keys?
16:55:47 <selfissued> I would support Controlled Identifier Document
16:55:54 <brent> PROPOSAL: Controlled Identifier Document
16:55:55 <manu> brent: Othere documents would hav etheir own documents that proved control.
16:55:55 <brent> 0
16:55:57 <selfissued> +1
16:55:57 <manu> +1
16:56:02 <ivan> 0
16:56:03 <smccown> +1
16:56:03 <JoeAndrieu> 0
16:56:05 <hsano> +1
16:56:06 <JennieM> 0
16:56:07 <TallTed> +1
16:56:25 <DavidC> +1
16:57:15 <manu> brent: I'm not seeing anyone on the queue, not seeing anyone else making other proposals, this has 6 +1s, no indications against, clearly indicates consensus, we are resolved.
16:57:18 <DavidC> clap clap clap
16:57:34 <brent> RESOLVED: Change the title of the"Controller Document" to "Controlled Identifier Document"
16:58:07 <manu> brent: We have consensus.
16:58:27 <manu> brent: I hope to participate next week, but might not work out, next weeks call might be an issue. Please look for calendar invite update.
16:58:46 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:58:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/12/04-vcwg-minutes.html ivan