15:16:36 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
15:16:40 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/01/29-vcwg-irc
15:16:40 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:16:41 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
15:16:41 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
15:16:41 <ivan> Date: 2025-01-29
15:16:41 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/d03d7ee5-c761-4c67-825e-b483138033c7/20250129T110000/
15:16:41 <ivan> chair: brent
15:16:42 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2025-01-29: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/d03d7ee5-c761-4c67-825e-b483138033c7/20250129T110000/
15:56:06 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #vcwg
15:59:49 <brent> present+
16:00:09 <ivan> present+
16:00:17 <ivan> present+ TallTed
16:00:33 <ivan> present+ mahmoud, selfissued
16:01:19 <ivan> present+ rene
16:01:26 <ivan> present+ kevin
16:01:37 <ivan> present+ bigbluehat
16:01:53 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #vcwg
16:01:57 <KevinDean> present+
16:02:14 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg
16:02:31 <ivan> present+ dlongley, Davidc
16:02:49 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
16:02:55 <DavidC> present+
16:02:56 <mkhraisha> mkhraisha has joined #vcwg
16:02:58 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
16:03:06 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
16:03:09 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #vcwg
16:03:12 <selfissued> present+
16:03:30 <ivan> present+ hsano, joe, will
16:03:43 <bigbluehat> present+
16:04:21 <mkhraisha> present+
16:05:28 <selfissued> scribe+
16:05:44 <ivan> scribe+ mkhraisha
16:05:58 <ivan> q+
16:06:14 <brent> ack ivan
16:06:16 <ivan> present+ dmitri
16:07:07 <selfissued> ivan: CR of CID will go out tomorrow
16:07:20 <Wip> Wip has joined #vcwg
16:07:24 <Wip> present+
16:07:38 <selfissued> ... There is a preference to have one big request for PRs rather than separate ones
16:07:45 <selfissued> ... We have 7 or possibly 9 documents
16:08:03 <selfissued> ... Idea is to submit them all to management at the same time
16:08:12 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #vcwg
16:08:16 <JennieM> present+
16:08:38 <selfissued> ... VC-JOSE-COSE and (another document) are dependent upon IETF standards
16:09:03 <selfissued> ... Yes, we can publish them provided that the dependencies are technically stable
16:09:16 <brent> q+
16:09:17 <selfissued> ... Then we can take them to standard with the rest
16:09:42 <selfissued> ... Of course, the other normal requirements for PR need to be done
16:09:52 <brent> ack brent
16:10:16 <selfissued> brent: SD-JWT is on the verge of that state
16:10:40 <selfissued> ... Latest requests for changes are only to the privacy considerations section
16:11:18 <selfissued> ... SD-JWT is close to the state where we can go to proposed PR
16:11:24 <selfissued> ... I'm not sure of the state of BBS
16:11:27 <selfissued> q+
16:11:42 <brent> ack selfissued
16:12:03 <mkhraisha> selfissued: BBS remains a CFRG WD, there are still reviews happening. It is not stable
16:12:49 <ivan> -> dependency https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-di-bbs/
16:12:49 <Wip> This is the github - https://github.com/w3c/vc-di-bbs
16:13:08 <mkhraisha> ... we cannot claim the dependency is stable
16:13:33 <selfissued> ivan: It is never to early to think about having the W3C issue a press release when we go to REC
16:13:54 <brent> this is the IRTF document https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-irtf-cfrg-bbs-signatures-07.html
16:13:55 <selfissued> ... We should have a clear yes or no about wanting a press release
16:14:14 <brent> Toic: VC JOSE COSE
16:14:16 <selfissued> brent: VC-JOSE-COSE next on our agenda
16:14:23 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-jose-cose/issues
16:14:31 <ivan> s/Toic/Topic/
16:14:45 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-jose-cose/issues/325
16:16:03 <ivan> q+
16:16:08 <mkhraisha> selfissued: I reviewed it this morning, hoping to get a PR done, I agree with the suggestion about the Cut + paste error. I don't know how gabe was signing the JWTs given that we haven't published the keys, the signature is kind of irrelevant. I will try to investigate how we have signed other examples
16:16:20 <brent> ack ivan
16:16:57 <mkhraisha> Ivan: we have a respec extension that allows us to sign, Benjamin was maintaining it he should be able to let us know
16:17:23 <selfissued> ivan: There's a respec extension that generates signatures for VC-JOSE-COSE.  I've used it before.
16:17:23 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-jose-cose/issues/320
16:17:53 <selfissued> q+
16:18:08 <brent> ack selfissued
16:19:02 <mkhraisha> selfissued: what he is talking about is that there is differences between the two specs, I believe the DIF profile is obsolete but I propose close the issue on that basis
16:19:30 <mkhraisha> brent: anyone opposed to adding pending close? no opposition, adding.
16:19:36 <selfissued> brent: Would anyone be opposed to me adding a "pending close" label and potentially closing in a week?
16:19:44 <ReneL> ReneL has joined #vcwg
16:19:44 <selfissued> (There were no objections)
16:19:46 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-jose-cose/issues/310
16:20:07 <selfissued> brent: This was raised by you, Ted
16:20:10 <TallTed> q+
16:20:19 <brent> ack TallTed
16:20:30 <selfissued> ... What is the action that would satisfy this issue, Ted?
16:20:46 <selfissued> TallTed: There is no good action
16:21:03 <selfissued> ... All I can do is review the whole document and look for commits that were lost
16:21:26 <selfissued> ... Squash merges can apparently lose commits
16:21:47 <selfissued> brent: Do you want to keep this open until you've completed the review or close it?
16:21:56 <selfissued> TallTed: It might as well be closed
16:22:02 <selfissued> brent: I will close it after the call
16:22:15 <ivan> q+
16:22:17 <brent> Topic: VC JSON Schema
16:22:25 <brent> ack ivan
16:23:02 <selfissued> ivan: Where are we with implementations?
16:23:09 <selfissued> brent: We will have a topic for that
16:23:45 <selfissued> brent: We will have a discussion on 11th-hour editorship
16:23:52 <selfissued> Block no longer exists
16:24:02 <selfissued> Mike Prorock no longer attends these calls
16:24:23 <selfissued> ... Mahmoud has recently added a number of edits
16:24:32 <dlongley> +1 to Mahmoud
16:24:41 <selfissued> ... Should we add Mahmoud as an editor?
16:24:41 <ivan> +1 to mahmoud
16:24:55 <selfissued> Mahmoud:  I am willing to do this
16:25:12 <selfissued> brent: Mahmoud - Please raise a PR adding yourself as an editor
16:25:28 <selfissued> Mahmoud: I have raised PRs for the things that I could
16:25:38 <selfissued> brent: We will go through PRs first, then issues
16:25:45 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-json-schema/pulls
16:26:00 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-json-schema/pull/243
16:26:26 <ivan> +1 to remove older schemas
16:26:38 <selfissued> brent: This is a straightforward PR.  I encourage people to view it.
16:27:14 <selfissued> ... Our standard work mode is if there are no concerns raised after a week, the PR can be merged
16:27:34 <selfissued> Don't we also require a few approvals?
16:27:36 <selfissued> brent: Yes
16:27:40 <ivan> q+
16:28:01 <brent> ack ivan
16:28:03 <selfissued> brent: If anyone has concerns after a PR has been merged, we can always unmerge it
16:28:34 <selfissued> ivan: Mahmoud, when you create the PR adding yourself as an editor, please also update the code owners
16:28:41 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-json-schema/pull/242
16:29:25 <selfissued> brent: This is the tiniest of PRs and I would be surprised if there is opposition to it
16:29:48 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-json-schema/pull/241
16:30:37 <selfissued> brent: This changes the media types to align with what we've registered
16:30:50 <selfissued> ... Ted, if you could re-review, that would be appreciated
16:31:03 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-json-schema/pull/240
16:31:31 <mkhraisha> q+
16:31:36 <selfissued> brent: A comment will result in updates to the PR
16:31:47 <selfissued> ... It does what it says in the title
16:31:49 <brent> ack mkhraisha
16:32:08 <selfissued> Mahmoud: Ted's comment appears in a few other areas.  I will fix all the occurrances.
16:32:16 <selfissued> ... I would like to merge them all in the same PR
16:32:22 <selfissued> brent: That makes sense to me
16:32:30 <TallTed> +1 for mkhraisha's plan
16:32:53 <selfissued> brent: This PR will add an example and fix the HTML
16:32:57 <selfissued> ... Those are the PRs
16:33:01 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-json-schema/issues
16:33:03 <selfissued> ... We're going to move to the issues
16:33:24 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-json-schema/issues/239
16:33:57 <selfissued> brent: Will be fixed by the PR removing additional schema versions
16:34:27 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-json-schema/issues/238
16:35:20 <selfissued> brent: Will be addressed when the PR is merged
16:35:24 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-json-schema/issues/236
16:35:39 <selfissued> ... We have a PR that does that
16:36:00 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-json-schema/issues/235
16:36:20 <selfissued> brent: A PR has been raised that addresses this
16:36:36 <mkhraisha> q+
16:36:51 <brent> ack mkhraisha
16:37:00 <selfissued> Manmoud: I would love it if we could get more implementers
16:37:05 <ivan> q+
16:37:13 <selfissued> ... I'm going to be working on the JSON Schema suite as well
16:37:16 <brent> ack ivan
16:37:39 <selfissued> ivan: You don't have to be a W3C member to participate in the testing
16:38:04 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-json-schema/issues/183
16:38:09 <ivan> q+
16:38:19 <selfissued> brent: In my opinion, this should continue to be marked future
16:38:39 <brent> ack ivan
16:38:46 <selfissued> ... Once (something) exists, we should update this spec to reference it
16:38:58 <selfissued> ivan: There are three or four different versions of schemas
16:39:05 <selfissued> ... Ideally there should be only one
16:39:19 <selfissued> brent: The JSON Schema org has stable versions we can point to
16:39:27 <selfissued> ... They haven't officially finalized anything
16:39:36 <selfissued> ... If they do, we should point to that
16:39:53 <selfissued> ivan: This would be a maintenance change
16:40:02 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-json-schema/issues/143
16:40:34 <selfissued> brent: We are currently in CR with this
16:40:54 <selfissued> ... Currently assigned to someone not actively participating.  Hopefully Mahmoud can pick this up.
16:41:24 <selfissued> brent: Post-CR is now.  Future is for another group in the future.
16:41:36 <ivan> +1 for one of each
16:41:42 <dlongley> +1 to one of each being sufficient
16:42:17 <selfissued> brent: When this was raised, we weren't fully stable with VC-JWT and Linked Data Proofs.  They are now stable, and so this becomes actionable.
16:42:54 <selfissued> Mahmoud: How do we find the keys used?
16:43:13 <selfissued> brent: I'm not aware of any ways of finding these keys.  So using your own setup is fine.
16:43:18 <ivan> +1
16:43:49 <brent> Topic: Implementation Concerns
16:43:51 <selfissued> brent: Thank you Mahmoud for stepping forward to work on this
16:44:32 <mkhraisha> thank you!
16:44:47 <selfissued> brent: We have plenty of implementations for VC-DATA-MODEL
16:45:08 <dlongley> q+
16:45:14 <brent> ack dlongley
16:45:17 <selfissued> brent: We have implementations for VC-DATA-INTEGRITY and some of the signing specs, but possibly not BBS
16:45:43 <ivan> q+
16:45:53 <brent> ack ivan
16:45:53 <selfissued> Dave: The IETF has recently updated their APIs for BBS
16:46:04 <dlongley> q+
16:46:13 <brent> ack dlongley
16:46:13 <selfissued> ivan: Do we have 2 independent implementations of the BBS specification
16:46:18 <bigbluehat> q+
16:46:27 <selfissued> Dave: We have at least 2.  We may have more than that.
16:46:35 <brent> ack bigbluehat
16:46:45 <bigbluehat> https://w3c.github.io/vc-di-bbs-test-suite/
16:47:23 <selfissued> bigbluehat: We have 5 implementations of the BBS specification
16:47:49 <selfissued> brent: BitstringStatusList we are looking for implementations supporting multiple statuses in the same list
16:48:01 <selfissued> ... I know that measur.io has an implementation
16:48:05 <ivan> q+
16:48:20 <selfissued> ... I know that there are two.  Whether the test suite report shows that is another question.
16:48:22 <brent> ack ivan
16:48:52 <bigbluehat> q+ to ask about what difficulties are being faced
16:49:00 <selfissued> ivan: If there are implementations that have difficulty integrating with the test suite, we can amend the report to include their own assertions of compliance
16:49:26 <bigbluehat> We have 7 implementations on Bitstring Status List: https://w3c.github.io/vc-bitstring-status-list-test-suite/
16:49:33 <brent> ack bigbluehat
16:49:33 <Zakim> bigbluehat, you wanted to ask about what difficulties are being faced
16:49:40 <selfissued> ... If there are two implementations, we should amend the report to say that so we can proceed
16:49:54 <selfissued> biggluehat: What difficulties are being faced?
16:50:10 <selfissued> ... There are sections where there are no implementations of the features
16:50:13 <dlongley> +1 to get self-attested reports from implementations if we need to rely on them for any feature
16:50:28 <selfissued> brent: It's less ability to integrate than capacity and resources to do so
16:50:36 <ivan> q+
16:50:58 <selfissued> ... There are aspects of some of the test suites that my implementers have pushed back on
16:51:15 <selfissued> ... Integration would require implementation of features we don't plan to add to our products
16:51:25 <brent> ack ivan
16:51:54 <selfissued> bigbluehat: The test suite has a pretty minimal http API
16:52:15 <selfissued> ... We've tried to make it as simple as possible
16:52:46 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg
16:53:19 <selfissued> ivan: Looking at the implementation report there are large sections not implemented
16:53:31 <selfissued> ... Does that mean we will need to remove these features?
16:53:54 <selfissued> bigbluehat: Some of the tests are "if-implemented"
16:54:14 <selfissued> ... I'm not sure how at-risk plays out for optional features that are not implemented
16:54:40 <selfissued> brent: VC-JOSE-COSE test suite
16:54:54 <selfissued> ... We have a single independent implementation for all features.  I know that there are more.
16:55:15 <selfissued> ... It's for editors of the spec and myself to evangelize that the test suite is ready for people to interact with it.
16:55:26 <ivan> q+
16:55:28 <selfissued> ... Mahmoud, we're meeting with Gabe to do some work on it
16:55:32 <selfissued> Mahmoud: Yes
16:55:54 <brent> ack ivan
16:55:57 <selfissued> brent: Is it time to reach out to implementers I know of?
16:56:07 <selfissued> selfissued: I would assert that it's time to reach out
16:56:50 <dlongley> if we're still lagging on one or more of these by the time the others go to PR we should not delay those others, but as ivan said, it would be good to have them all together.
16:57:01 <ivan> q+
16:57:01 <selfissued> brent: There was concern that the one independent implementation is Gabe's, who wrote the test suite.
16:57:09 <brent> ack ivan
16:57:18 <selfissued> brent: Those are the implementation consideration concerns I'm aware of for all our specs
16:57:25 <selfissued> ivan: What do we do for CID?
16:57:35 <selfissued> ... CID isn't something that should be tested separately
16:57:46 <selfissued> ... We have to report it in some manner
16:57:48 <bigbluehat> q+
16:57:53 <selfissued> brent: That is an excellent question
16:58:00 <brent> ack bigbluehat
16:58:05 <selfissued> ... My suggestion is to make that a primary topic for our call next week
16:58:47 <ivan> q+
16:58:59 <selfissued> bigbluehat: Patrick St. Louise and I are working on creating a JSON Schema based validator for CID documents
16:59:13 <ivan> q-
16:59:17 <selfissued> ... If that's not necessary, we can drop it
16:59:19 <selfissued> brent: I think that's sufficient
16:59:24 <bigbluehat> q+
16:59:30 <bigbluehat> q-
16:59:36 <selfissued> ... That's better than arguing that it's tested elsewhere
16:59:57 <selfissued> brent: Thanks all for coming
17:00:16 <selfissued> ... Thanks Mahmoud for assuming editorship of VC JSON Schema to get it over the line
17:00:39 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:00:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/29-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
17:00:48 <selfissued> ... If you know of people who have implemented VC-JOSE-COSE or Bitstring Status List, please encourage them to use the test suites
17:56:09 <brentz> brentz has joined #vcwg
19:04:04 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg