15:01:17 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
15:01:21 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/01/08-vcwg-irc
15:01:21 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:01:22 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
15:01:37 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
15:01:37 <ivan> Date: 2025-01-08
15:01:37 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/e133b24e-8245-4ee7-8550-ac14d0334974/20250108T110000/
15:01:37 <ivan> chair: brent
15:01:37 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2025-01-08: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/e133b24e-8245-4ee7-8550-ac14d0334974/20250108T110000/
15:14:29 <brentz> brentz has joined #vcwg
15:58:40 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg
15:58:48 <brentz> brentz has joined #vcwg
16:00:14 <mandyv> mandyv has joined #vcwg
16:00:36 <hsano> present+
16:01:02 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #vcwg
16:01:09 <ivan> present+
16:01:09 <denkeni> present+
16:01:11 <KevinDean> present+
16:01:11 <mandyv> present+
16:01:13 <manu> present+
16:01:21 <ivan> present+ tallted
16:01:29 <ivan> present+ bigbluehat
16:01:44 <ivan> present+ brent
16:02:01 <ivan> present+ steele
16:02:41 <ivan> present+ dlongley
16:03:10 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
16:03:19 <DavidC> present+
16:04:21 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #vcwg
16:04:29 <wes-smith> wes-smith has joined #vcwg
16:04:39 <bigbluehat> present+
16:04:57 <dlongley> scribe+
16:05:25 <manu> q+
16:05:36 <dlongley> brentz: Welcome to the VCWG, this is our weekly telecon, we will be talking about the controller document (controlled identifier document) and bitstring status list.
16:05:50 <brentz> ack manu
16:06:30 <dlongley> manu: Just wanted to talk a little about proposed REC and when I should cut those documents, it's a little premature because we need our horizontal feedback, but the issues are done, CID spec needs a little work, but the rest could probably have proposed REC cut for them. Maybe February might be the right time for that.
16:07:09 <ivan> present+ will
16:07:10 <brentz> Topic: Proposed Rec
16:07:13 <dlongley> manu: Also briefly, the title of the controlled identifier document -- I was looking at the DID spec, and we say "Controlled Identifier Document" and just call it "Controlled Identifiers" in the title of the spec as an editorial change, promise no more changes to the naming.
16:07:27 <manu> q+
16:07:29 <ivan> q+
16:07:32 <dlongley> brentz: February is the soonest we could do it from my perspective and I'm hoping we're clearly there by that time.
16:07:34 <brentz> ack manu
16:07:35 <Wip> Wip has joined #vcwg
16:07:40 <dlehn2> present+
16:07:41 <Wip> present+
16:08:15 <dlongley> manu: Yeah, and to be clear, Ivan, this is just me cutting the ready document so we can move. If we get reviews that require changes then we'll have to revise of course, but this is just getting ready for the next stage. I don't think we need any announcements or anything, this is just the editors getting ready to go.
16:08:16 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #vcwg
16:08:17 <brentz> ack ivan
16:08:40 <dlongley> ivan: I appreciate being ready to go when we can so I'm fine with that. There's one thing that will require a bit more thinking before going to PR, and maybe January will be the right time for that.
16:08:47 <JennieM> present+
16:08:56 <Phil-ASU> Phil-ASU has joined #vcwg
16:09:01 <Phil-ASU> present+
16:09:02 <manu> q+ to agree, we need to do that work.
16:09:07 <dlongley> ivan: There are a number of files, vocab files, context files, etc. that are currently on github -- where those are developed -- and we said when we go to PR we have to place those docs in W3C space.
16:09:20 <dlongley> s/W3C/W3/
16:09:37 <brentz> ack manu
16:09:37 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to agree, we need to do that work.
16:09:37 <dlongley> ivan: This is something we may want to think about so as not to forget all of the various things in a last minute rush.
16:09:58 <dlongley> manu: That's right, that's exactly my concern, I'd like to give ourselves multiple weeks to get all those final files in place, potentially have a checklist and so on.
16:10:16 <dlongley> manu: That's all my request on proposed REC is -- is to take time to do it methodically with plenty of time and double check.
16:10:21 <dlongley> ivan: We are in wide agreement.
16:10:23 <dlongley> brentz: I agree.
16:11:10 <dlongley> manu: I can start cutting some of those documents sooner than later. It would be VCDM, DI, DI-ecdsa/eddsa, we're still waiting on the CID / bitstring status list, VC-JOSE-COSE, JSON schema with a few things.
16:11:19 <dlongley> manu: We're still waiting on SD-JWT for VC-JOSE-COSE?
16:11:21 <dlongley> brentz: Yes, that's the plan.
16:11:26 <dlongley> manu: Ok, that's all I needed to know.
16:11:27 <brentz> Topic: CID == Controlled Identifiers ?
16:11:30 <dlongley> brentz: Thanks, Manu.
16:11:31 <manu> q+
16:11:41 <brentz> ack manu
16:11:55 <dlongley> brentz: Anyone opposed to dropping "Document" the title that is displayed in the document.
16:12:17 <dlongley> manu: The DID spec says "Decentralized Identifiers 1.0" and it would be nice to have alignment with "Controlled Identifiers 1.0".
16:12:32 <dlongley> manu: Btw, alignment when updating the DID spec went well which was good news.
16:12:36 <ivan> q+
16:12:41 <brentz> ack ivan
16:13:08 <Phil-ASU> +1 to Ivan's admonition
16:13:13 <dlongley> ivan: Don't change the name after this next change. I have to update a lot.
16:13:16 <dlongley> manu: Totally understood.
16:13:27 <Wip> q+
16:13:27 <dlongley> dlongley: +1 for the change
16:13:34 <brentz> ack Wip
16:13:43 <ivan> +1 to the change, b.t.w.
16:13:51 <Phil-ASU> +1 to the change
16:13:56 <manu> +1 to the change, if that wasn't clear :)
16:14:25 <ivan> present+ dmitriz
16:14:35 <manu> q+ to note we discussed Content IDentifier ...
16:14:47 <dlongley> dmitri: One counterargument is -- specifically us using the acronym "CID" is the usage of "CID" content-based identifier.
16:14:54 <dlongley> dmitri: Or content-addressed identifier.
16:14:55 <brentz> ack manu
16:14:55 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note we discussed Content IDentifier ...
16:15:04 <Przemek> Przemek has joined #vcwg
16:15:19 <dlongley> manu: It's a good point and we did discuss that when we made the spec name change. Ted also noted that there are 45 other communities using "CID" for different things.
16:15:32 <dlongley> manu: Any three letter acronym is going to be used by any subset of the community.
16:15:34 <ivan> present+ Przemek
16:15:42 <dlongley> dmitri: Sure, but specifically in the decentralized identity community it's used.
16:15:49 <dlongley> manu: Yeah, we took that into account.
16:16:04 <ivan> present+ pziv
16:16:05 <dlongley> brentz: Even if we get rid of the word "document" in the title of the document we have that acronym.
16:16:29 <dlongley> brentz: Ok, I think you're cleared to make the title change, Manu.
16:16:33 <dlongley> manu: Ok, I will do that.
16:16:36 <brentz> Topic: Controlled Identifiers
16:16:38 <brentz> https://github.com/w3c/cid/pulls
16:16:49 <dlongley> brentz: There are two -- let's look at #140 to start.
16:16:51 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/cid/pull/140
16:17:01 <manu> q+
16:17:05 <dlongley> brentz: Remove numerical error codes to be in sync with the VCDM spec.
16:17:06 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #vcwg
16:17:08 <KevinDean> present+
16:17:12 <manu> q-
16:17:21 <ivan> q+
16:17:22 <manu> +1 to this change
16:17:31 <brentz> ack ivan
16:17:35 <dlongley> brentz: It does what it says. It removes the error codes while retaining the names of the error codes. Anyone want to say we don't want to do this, please say so, can take comments briefly, etc. if needed.
16:17:52 <manu> q+
16:17:59 <dlongley> ivan: Just remarking that there is a sister issue in the DI spec which does the same. It also makes the changes in the vocab definition file. These two PRs should go hand-in-hand.
16:18:05 <brentz> ack manu
16:18:08 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-integrity/pull/327
16:18:26 <dlongley> manu: Yes, +1 -- we made a decision in the group to remove the error codes in the group and this is just Ivan making sure we follow that guidance.
16:18:43 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/cid/pull/139
16:18:45 <dlongley> brentz: Ok, jump on the queue for other comments or we will move to #139.
16:18:51 <manu> q+
16:19:06 <dlongley> brentz: This PR has been open for five days, one request for changes from Ted, otherwise it's a pretty small PR.
16:19:07 <brentz> ack manu
16:19:43 <dlongley> manu: +1 in general to the PR, the PR makes two changes, the first one is not necessary because we already say it in the spec. David and I talked a bit about the PR over the break. The first change says you can't trust a controller of a document to truthfully say which VMs they have control over.
16:20:01 <dlongley> manu: You have to follow the VM URL to get its controlled identifier document and check the bidirectional relationship.
16:20:18 <dlongley> manu: I think we'd be restating it a third time but I need to get a reference for David to see if he agrees.
16:20:34 <dlongley> manu: So maybe some refinement but +1 to the general direction.
16:20:44 <DavidC> q+
16:20:50 <brentz> ack DavidC
16:21:12 <manu> q+
16:21:26 <dlongley> DavidC: I think what Manu says is correct, but it seems to me that the comment that you first addressed that it should be made at the time that the controller is introduced for VMs and an example is different -- rather than stating it at the end in the security section.
16:21:57 <dlongley> DavidC: Ted made some positive changes which I accepted apart from wording. So when it says there are outstanding comments but I don't believe it is. I don't know what to do there -- just need Ted to respond.
16:22:01 <dlongley> Ted: I resolved them.
16:22:03 <brentz> ack manu
16:22:04 <dlongley> DavidC: Thanks Ted.
16:22:07 <dlongley> brentz: Thanks Ted.
16:22:36 <dlongley> manu: I'm not opposed to keeping the first paragraph in, your reasoning works for me but can you add a reference to the security consideration section? Then people can click through and its all linked, etc.
16:22:43 <dlongley> DavidC: Sure, no problem.
16:22:47 <dlongley> brentz: I was going to ask for the same thing.
16:23:00 <dlongley> brentz: That was the PRs on the controlled identifiers spec, we have a number of open issues still.
16:23:05 <dlongley> brentz: We're going to go through them.
16:23:08 <manu> q+ to speak to open issues.
16:23:28 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/cid/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc
16:23:41 <brentz> ack manu
16:23:41 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to speak to open issues.
16:24:00 <dlongley> manu: Just to speed things along here, I think the vast majority of these are waiting for a PR from me -- I'm already assigned, that's what needs to happen and I will try to get around to those as soon as I can.
16:24:16 <dlongley> manu: There is one, issue 60, I believe is already addressed but we need Mike Jones to confirm it's addressed. Can we talk about that first?
16:24:29 <dlongley> brentz: Happy to talk about 60, note Mike isn't here though.
16:24:50 <dlongley> brentz: In my list the horizontal review issue is at the top, wanted to talk about this -- you've had exchanges with the TAG for example ... Manu?
16:24:53 <ivan> q+
16:25:06 <dlongley> manu: TAG wanted to know which changes had been made in the last 6 months, we noted we had links to those changes.
16:25:40 <dlongley> manu: Privacy noted that they are looking at it. Security knows it's in there and they know to do reviews, they are aware. Accessibility started processing and I wouldn't expect it to take very long as very little has changed.
16:25:57 <dlongley> manu: Internationalization responded as well and I let them know we didn't change anything there but they will double check.
16:26:09 <dlongley> manu: All groups doing horizontal review responded and are engaged, which is a great place to be.
16:26:11 <brentz> ack ivan
16:26:48 <dlongley> ivan: All those requests that you sent out were referring to a pre-PR review based on the fact that they had already done it, which is fine. But we need the CID document reviews, not the PR reviews. We need specific references for the CID for going to CR.
16:27:01 <manu> q+
16:27:04 <dlongley> ivan: Looking at the PRs and the issues that the only thing in the way of getting CID to CR is this.
16:27:16 <dlongley> ivan: I'm not quite sure what to put to the CR request.
16:27:18 <brentz> ack manu
16:27:34 <dlongley> manu: I thought we had resolved that last year -- I thought we had gotten our CR publication request approved for the CID spec.
16:27:54 <dlongley> ivan: I think you wanted that but we didn't put it in because we need you to complete this.
16:28:02 <dlongley> manu: Ok, they just have to do the horizontal review.
16:28:39 <dlongley> manu: I thought we discussed this and the conclusion was that all these groups did a review of the CID spec -- just on a delta between DID spec and it.
16:28:47 <dlongley> manu: I thought we were on track to publish CID end of January.
16:29:02 <dlongley> ivan: There's no transition request yet, still waiting on horizontal review request info.
16:29:25 <dlongley> ivan: Look at the CR draft -- look at what we have in the horizontal review thing and do whatever change you think needs to be changed to get management to accept the request.
16:29:56 <dlongley> manu: We have horizontal reviews from the vast majority of the content before and even doing a PR review would count and let us go into CR I would imagine.
16:30:30 <dlongley> ivan: CID has never been in CR. It's been reviewed previously in draft form, but we need newer reviews.
16:30:54 <dlongley> manu: Ok, then we're just waiting for these horizontal reviews to happen on the CID spec; does the group need to ask for more reviews?
16:31:05 <dlongley> ivan: I don't remember from the top of my head, some reviews happened last July.
16:31:11 <dlongley> ivan: Some happened in October, which is fine.
16:31:24 <dlongley> ivan: The one in October we said we'd ask them to look at the differences in the spec, not the whole thing.
16:31:41 <dlongley> ivan: We don't have to do it in this call, but please look at the transition request and make sure it's ok.
16:31:53 <dlongley> manu: TAG did a review, yes, in September.
16:32:04 <dlongley> ivan: Some were I think in July, please look.
16:32:12 <dlongley> manu: Ok, I will check.
16:32:32 <dlongley> ivan: I will also check for a formal resolution to go to CR.
16:32:46 <dlongley> manu: Yes, we had that on December 18th to publish as CR, shortname, static copy, all that.
16:32:51 <dlongley> ivan: That is correct.
16:32:51 <manu> https://www.w3.org/2017/vc/WG/Meetings/Minutes/2024-12-18-vcwg#res
16:33:07 <dlongley> manu: Let me take a look at the transition request.
16:33:10 <dlongley> ivan: Ok.
16:33:39 <dlongley> manu: The review for PR doesn't change anything. I don't think what I asked the groups to do changes anything, so that doesn't need to change.
16:33:50 <dlongley> ivan: Right, what you asked for is what we need for going to PR for the whole lot.
16:33:56 <dlongley> ivan: Don't worry about that, that's good to have.
16:34:01 <dlongley> manu: Just look at the transition request.
16:34:02 <dlongley> ivan: Yes, please.
16:34:11 <dlongley> brentz: Thanks, let's look at issue 60.
16:34:12 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/cid/issues/60
16:34:43 <dlongley> brentz: This is a suggestion or request to reword some text. The text in the current form of the document matches that in the opening statement so I don't believe this has been addressed.
16:34:48 <manu> q+
16:34:54 <brentz> ack manu
16:35:04 <dlongley> manu: I remember changing text in the specification around authentication.
16:35:22 <manu> This is the spec text we have today: The authentication verification relationship is used to specify how the subject is expected to be authenticated, for purposes such as logging into a website or engaging in any sort of challenge-response protocol. The processing performed following authentication is application-specific.
16:35:37 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
16:36:04 <dlongley> manu: That last sentence is the text that Mike asked for and there were assertions from other members in the group that the first sentence is fine as is.
16:36:22 <dlongley> manu: I would object to removal of examples because it very clearly highlights what the verification relationship can be used for.
16:36:29 <Wip> Wip has joined #vcwg
16:36:37 <ivan> For the records, my comment on this is in https://github.com/w3c/cid/issues/60#issuecomment-2414370219
16:36:42 <dlongley> brentz: I don't think we can make progress without Mike.
16:36:55 <dlongley> manu: Yeah, we need to move forward, I'll just put in the issue that I object to removing the examples.
16:36:58 <manu> q+
16:37:08 <brentz> ack manu
16:37:08 <dlongley> brentz: The other thing would be adding more examples.
16:37:13 <dlongley> manu: Agreed, we'll just wait for Mike.
16:37:36 <dlongley> manu: The issue says "Defining a login protocol is out of scope" --- and we're not doing that so I think that's a misread on what the spec says.
16:37:47 <dlongley> manu: We're not defining a login protocol.
16:38:01 <dlongley> manu: I think he's asking for the removal of something that adds clarity and we can come back to it once he's on the call.
16:38:21 <dlongley> brentz: And just to clarify the five issues that you're assigned to -- you're not feeling the need for input from the group, right?
16:38:26 <dlongley> manu: That's correct.
16:38:30 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/cid/issues/136
16:38:47 <dlongley> brentz: Context namespace does not exist. This is raised by and assigned to Ivan, what are next steps, Ivan?
16:38:50 <manu> q+
16:39:11 <brentz> ack manu
16:39:29 <dlongley> manu: We just changed the name and the examples aren't working -- so we need to publish.
16:40:00 <dlongley> ivan: We have a bunch of links that are temporary/wrong because we haven't registered the shortname, so until we are in CR these links are broken, they will get fixed when CR happens.
16:40:06 <manu> q+
16:40:12 <brentz> ack manu
16:40:34 <ivan> q+
16:41:02 <dlongley> manu: +1 to that Ivan, so all the terminology references are broken too -- I can't merge things on DID core for example. This is a lot of broken links that will be resolved when we go to CR, but it's causing issues in the meantime. I don't know if there's any reason why the `ns` stuff ... it doesn't have to do with publishing to TR...
16:41:12 <dlongley> ivan: It's the publishing of the document that is the source of the problems.
16:41:38 <dlongley> manu: It's just the URL that's being published and the name of the github version of the document path changed. If that's updated then this issue is resolved, which doesn't depend on TR space, I don't think.
16:41:42 <dlongley> ivan: I have to check.
16:41:49 <dlongley> manu: I think it's just changing a URL in the `ns` space.
16:41:58 <dlongley> ivan: We have a more generic problem and I'll look at this.
16:42:31 <dlongley> ivan: Apart from that, we said we'll do this official name change with CR and we could a working draft change and go through that and get this over with. It depends whether we want to do that as a separate process, which I'm not keen to do, but we could do that as well.
16:42:35 <dlongley> brentz: I don't think that's necessary.
16:42:37 <dlongley> ivan: Ok, good.
16:42:52 <dlongley> brentz: For #136, we're going to see what's still broken after we go to CR, right?
16:42:53 <dlongley> ivan: Yes.
16:42:54 <dlongley> manu: Yes.
16:43:00 <dlongley> brentz: Ok, that's the CID issues.
16:43:10 <dlongley> brentz: Moving to bitstring status list.
16:43:19 <dlongley> brentz: Let's look at the open PRs first.
16:43:24 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #vcwg
16:43:27 <brentz> Topic: Bitstring Status List
16:43:33 <brentz> https://github.com/w3c/vc-bitstring-status-list/pulls
16:43:46 <soba> soba has joined #vcwg
16:43:48 <KevinDean> q+
16:43:53 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-bitstring-status-list/pull/196
16:43:55 <dlongley> brentz: There is one request for changes from Dave Longley.
16:43:55 <ivan> q-
16:43:59 <Phil-ASU> for #136 a note to the effect summarizing the conversation we just had might be helpful, at least to ubamrein
16:44:01 <brentz> ack KevinDean
16:44:16 <manu> q+
16:44:18 <dlongley> KevinDean: Just to say that Joe is unable to join today, power outage, high winds, etc.
16:44:24 <dlongley> brentz: Yes, thoughts with Joe with the CA fires.
16:44:44 <dlongley> KevinDean: He feels that the PR is simple enough to be worked on without his presence.
16:44:55 <dlongley> brentz: Looks like Dave's changes are editorial for the most part.
16:44:56 <brentz> ack manu
16:45:06 <dlongley> manu: +1 to the PR as long as the changes go in, that's it.
16:45:45 <dlongley> brentz: Any other comments? Our standard practice is to allow the PR author to accept changes so we shouldn't move forward with those things regardless of how editorial they may be.
16:45:58 <dlongley> brentz: If any other folks have comments -- otherwise we can look at the issues next.
16:46:24 <dlongley> brentz: PR #196 is going to address issue #184. I don't believe we need to talk about that one.
16:46:36 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-bitstring-status-list/issues/194
16:46:37 <dlongley> brentz: I think we've talked through horizontal reviews, so it looks like the issue to discuss is #194.
16:46:52 <dlongley> brentz: Has the at-risk marker been removed?
16:46:53 <manu> q+
16:46:58 <dlongley> manu: No, I will take an action to do that.
16:47:00 <brentz> ack manu
16:47:30 <dlongley> manu: We've got the test suite going, and it's still not showing any implementers for a feature there.
16:47:38 <dlongley> manu: The "status size > 1" thing.
16:47:48 <dlongley> manu: We're still waiting on two independent implementations for that.
16:48:11 <dlongley> brentz: With Mesur.io's and the implementation mentioned in the spec will cover the requirement, we'll get with our resource and make sure we get that in.
16:48:15 <ivan> present+ wes-smith
16:48:30 <dlongley> brentz: I believe we're done with business today, thanks to Dave for scribing and thanks to all for your comments today.
16:48:37 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:48:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/08-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
16:48:45 <dlongley> brentz: We're very close to wrapping things up, thanks everyone!
17:40:37 <soba> soba has joined #vcwg
17:48:04 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
18:06:58 <soba> soba has joined #vcwg
18:11:30 <soba> soba has joined #vcwg
19:07:52 <brent_> brent_ has joined #vcwg
19:30:01 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg
19:51:54 <brent_> brent_ has joined #vcwg
22:53:01 <soba> soba has joined #vcwg
23:21:13 <soba> soba has joined #vcwg