15:07:02 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
15:07:06 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/02/05-vcwg-irc
15:07:06 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:07:07 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
15:07:31 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
15:07:31 <ivan> Date: 2025-02-06
15:07:31 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/d8dbb80a-e09f-49ed-8a49-536d60d7753c/20250205T110000/
15:07:31 <ivan> chair: brent
15:07:32 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2025-02-06: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/d8dbb80a-e09f-49ed-8a49-536d60d7753c/20250205T110000/
15:53:58 <brent> brent has joined #vcwg
15:58:09 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg
15:58:34 <denkeni> denkeni has joined #vcwg
15:58:39 <ivan> present+
15:58:49 <denkeni> present+
15:59:50 <hsano> present+
15:59:50 <ivan> present+ mahmoud
16:01:28 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
16:01:37 <brent> present+
16:01:37 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #vcwg
16:01:51 <ivan> present+ TallTed , manu
16:01:52 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #vcwg
16:01:58 <ivan> present+ KevinDean
16:02:04 <ivan> present+ davidc
16:02:23 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
16:02:28 <identitywoman> identitywoman has joined #vcwg
16:02:28 <DavidC> present+
16:02:32 <ivan> present+ joe
16:02:56 <ivan> present+ identitywoman
16:03:27 <JoeAndrieu> scribe+
16:03:42 <manu> present+
16:04:00 <JoeAndrieu> brent: we'll start today with a report out from security group
16:04:10 <JoeAndrieu> ... then CID, then JOSE-COSE
16:04:11 <identitywoman> present+
16:04:30 <JoeAndrieu> ... any introductions?
16:04:43 <brent> Topic: Security group meeting
16:04:50 <ivan> present+ bigbluehat
16:05:06 <JoeAndrieu> manu: A couple of us joined the first meeting of the security interest group yesterday
16:05:11 <ivan> present+ dlongley
16:05:12 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #vcwg
16:05:21 <JoeAndrieu> ... we discussed VCDM and a variety of topics including their upcoming review queue
16:05:33 <JoeAndrieu> ... We wanted answers about (1) the review
16:05:43 <JoeAndrieu> ... they raised an issue asking us to restructure part of the spec
16:05:51 <JoeAndrieu> ... We mentioned that would be a burden
16:06:06 <JoeAndrieu> ... They agreed, that would be a challenge and this is a more long term ask
16:06:17 <JoeAndrieu> ... They didn't find any particular problems with the spec, so we are cleared to go to spec
16:06:44 <JoeAndrieu> ... Second, they said that any threat modeling work... if they request a more complete threat model that does not apply to the recent proposed REC things we are trying to do
16:07:08 <JoeAndrieu> ... They believe that SING plus the threat modeling CG will publish notes about threat models related to VCs, JOSE-COSE, etc. And tha twork will likely take several months.
16:07:13 <ivan> q+
16:07:19 <JoeAndrieu> ... So that work won't be a blocker
16:07:26 <JoeAndrieu> ... We said we'd be willing to help
16:07:32 <mkhraisha> mkhraisha has joined #vcwg
16:07:41 <manu> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2025Feb/0000.html
16:07:48 <JoeAndrieu> manu: I'm going to copy/past some of the proposed rec docs
16:07:50 <manu> Verifiable Credentials Data Model v2.0
16:07:50 <manu> https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/transitions/2025/PR/
16:07:50 <manu> Verifiable Credential Data Integrity 1.0
16:07:50 <manu> https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-integrity/transitions/2025/PR/
16:07:51 <manu> Data Integrity ECDSA Cryptosuites v1.0
16:07:51 <manu> https://w3c.github.io/vc-di-ecdsa/transitions/2025/PR/
16:07:53 <manu> Data Integrity EdDSA Cryptosuites v1.0
16:07:55 <manu> https://w3c.github.io/vc-di-eddsa/transitions/2025/PR/
16:07:57 <manu> Bitstring Status List v1.0
16:07:59 <manu> https://w3c.github.io/vc-bitstring-status-list/transitions/2025/PR/
16:08:09 <ivan> present+ pziv
16:08:23 <JoeAndrieu> ... One thing did come up. They confirmed they have not done security reviews of DI, CIDs, [and a few others], but they are at the top of the queue
16:08:51 <JoeAndrieu> ... We clarified we'll put this up for proposed REC and hopefully they can get those reviews done before we more to next stage
16:09:20 <JoeAndrieu> ... We also offered our help to come up to speed with design intent, etc. They appreciated that for VC2.0 and would appreciate it for other specs.
16:09:30 <JoeAndrieu> ... one of the chairs has actually implemented DI
16:09:41 <JoeAndrieu> ... so they have familiarity with the tech, it's just a lot of work on their plate
16:09:48 <JoeAndrieu> ... That's the report
16:09:56 <brent> ack ivan
16:10:23 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: on the practical side, manu can you put in the issues that are revelant, especially the ones where we asked for review.
16:10:32 <JoeAndrieu> ... Just add them to IRC
16:10:37 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1575
16:10:48 <JoeAndrieu> manu: all the review requests?
16:10:54 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/security-request/issues/81
16:10:55 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: all the security ones (relevant to SING)
16:11:13 <JoeAndrieu> manu: ok, I think that's that.
16:11:27 <JoeAndrieu> one is the tracking issue for horizontal reviews, the other is the security request
16:11:43 <JoeAndrieu> s/one/... one/
16:11:54 <JoeAndrieu> brent: anything else on this topic?
16:12:08 <brent> Topic: VC Data Model
16:12:18 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
16:12:20 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #vcwg
16:12:23 <JoeAndrieu> brent: ok. moving on. we have a PR on VCDM
16:12:26 <JennieM> present+
16:12:50 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1589
16:12:54 <JoeAndrieu> ... this updates references to CIDs in the spec
16:13:19 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: there are six pull requests that are essentially identical in six different places
16:13:22 <JoeAndrieu> ... it's nothing.
16:13:31 <JoeAndrieu> ... the CID spec is now published. Short name is changed.
16:13:39 <JoeAndrieu> ... It's part of the referenec generator used by respec
16:13:52 <manu> q+
16:14:00 <manu> q+ to ask about normative references and PR.
16:14:19 <JoeAndrieu> ... I went through all the document that I believe have adjusted all informative and normative references
16:14:32 <brent> ack manu
16:14:32 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about normative references and PR.
16:14:36 <ivan> present+ dlehn
16:14:38 <JoeAndrieu> manu: +1 to this PR and the others. Thanks for raising them.
16:14:49 <JoeAndrieu> ... This is related to the administrivia question
16:15:06 <ivan> q+
16:15:12 <JoeAndrieu> ... VCDM now has a reference to CID spec and if we take VCDM to proposed REC before CID, that's ok per W3C process
16:15:28 <JoeAndrieu> ... I'm wondering if the publication team is going to have an issue if we don't take them all at the same time.
16:15:49 <JoeAndrieu> ... Like, VC-JOSE-COSE... we don't know when SD-JWT will be at whatever state at IETF it needs to be
16:16:14 <JoeAndrieu> ... and VCDM we refer to VC-JOSE-COSE normatively. Which means we can't take VCDM to global standard until the chain of dominos line up
16:16:37 <brent> ack ivan
16:16:37 <JoeAndrieu> ... I think we can argue that the spec is stable and our reference to it is stable because it's just a recommendation
16:16:51 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: unfortunately, I raised the same issues last week.
16:16:57 <JoeAndrieu> ... There are two aspects.
16:17:16 <JoeAndrieu> ... First, personally (and management) would prefer to publish them all at the same time.
16:17:37 <JoeAndrieu> ... We might do a press release about it, but that wants all the docs to be bundled
16:17:53 <JoeAndrieu> ... So the problem then is that they should be published at the same time.
16:18:39 <JoeAndrieu> ... Specifically for JOSE-COSE, the judgment is that we CAN publish JOSE-COSE as a recommendation because the SD-JWT as a spec is technical stable as it goes through administrative proecess at IETF. That's acceptable.
16:18:53 <JoeAndrieu> ... If that is all correct, we won't have a problem.
16:18:59 <JoeAndrieu> manu: Excellent. That answered my questions.
16:19:16 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: that means we need to synchronize everything and do it in a single launch to AC vote as a block
16:19:39 <JoeAndrieu> brent: there are no issues in VCDM we need to address
16:19:55 <brent> Topic: CID Issues
16:19:59 <JoeAndrieu> ... there are a few future tracking things, but we can move to the next topic
16:20:21 <JoeAndrieu> brent: One open PR that is updating echinda. We don't need to look at that one.
16:20:23 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/cid/issues
16:20:39 <JoeAndrieu> brent: we'll go through these issues
16:20:41 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/cid/issues/147
16:20:45 <manu> q+
16:21:05 <JoeAndrieu> brent: there is a name conflict with the identifier with CIDs as used in IPFS
16:21:05 <brent> ack manu
16:21:15 <JoeAndrieu> manu: this is them asking us to change the name of the spec again
16:21:43 <JoeAndrieu> ... I think they are concerned that people are going to confuse Content Identifiers with Controlled Identifiers. There are more acronyms that use CID.
16:21:50 <JoeAndrieu> ... We've debated this to death.
16:22:00 <JoeAndrieu> ... It took six weeks plus to do the actual rename.
16:22:11 <JoeAndrieu> ... If we made a change at this point it would be a huge lift.
16:22:52 <JoeAndrieu> ... The other argument is that the people providing this input are the bluesky and @proto folks, who don't really care about controlled identifiers. They are building decentralized systems and they care more about DIDs.
16:23:08 <JoeAndrieu> ... My suggestion is CIDs don't meet their needs, so they shouldn't use them.
16:23:29 <JoeAndrieu> ... They are different communities: CIDs if for centralized community, DIDs are for decentralized.
16:23:36 <identitywoman> q+
16:23:37 <bigbluehat> q+
16:23:47 <brent> ack identitywoman
16:24:12 <JoeAndrieu> identitywoman: I saw something go by about CIDs and I just rolled my eyes. What the heck are these and how are they different?
16:24:24 <JoeAndrieu> ... it confused me. And I track this world a lot.
16:24:29 <JoeAndrieu> ... I think this causes confusion.
16:24:31 <ivan> q+
16:24:35 <brent> ack bigbluehat
16:24:41 <brent> q+
16:24:49 <JoeAndrieu> bigbluehat: I do think we need to be careful here. Fatigue is real. Burnout is real.
16:24:59 <JoeAndrieu> ... I like to know if there is a streamlined way to do renaming.
16:25:02 <bigbluehat> `ctrlid`
16:25:14 <JoeAndrieu> ... I was going to propose ctrlid
16:25:31 <manu> -1 to ctrlid :(
16:25:32 <JoeAndrieu> ... I think its unwise to say "there will not be conflict" when we have a conflict now.
16:25:48 <JoeAndrieu> ... Its not fine right now.
16:25:54 <dlongley> q+ to ask how much trouble does the confusion actually cause?
16:25:57 <JoeAndrieu> ... We are in a waiting period anyway.
16:26:07 <JoeAndrieu> ... I don't think this confusion is going to away.
16:26:30 <brent> ack ivan
16:26:31 <JoeAndrieu> ... These groups do co-exist within the VC space. I don't think we need to scare off friends if we can avoid it
16:26:47 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: unfortunately there is no streamlined way to update.
16:26:59 <JoeAndrieu> ... we've done this several times and each time it is a major pain.
16:27:02 <manu> I can't express how much of a pain it is to do a spec rename
16:27:12 <denkeni> +1 to this confusion isn't going away with other namings. We have discussed it a lot.
16:27:17 <manu> (and it's not clear to me that the rename would be helpful)
16:27:32 <JoeAndrieu> ... It has to be formally republished, involving the webmaster, and must keep the provenance of the doc. Then additional things to get into spec-ref. This time it was at least a week.
16:27:35 <JoeAndrieu> ... It's a major pain.
16:27:49 <JoeAndrieu> ... The other thing, is we have spent hours and hours on the naming
16:28:03 <JoeAndrieu> ... This is probably the longest and biggest thread in this spec.
16:28:17 <JoeAndrieu> ... In the 24th hour, we probably should not reopen.
16:28:20 <manu> I think we're /concerned/ about confusion between spec names -- I'll suggest that people were horribly confused about Decentralized Identifiers and Verifiable Claims/Credentials in the beginning as well.
16:28:27 <JoeAndrieu> ... I don't think the world will collapse with this conflict.
16:28:35 <brent> ack brent
16:28:58 <JoeAndrieu> brent: We may have already mentioned: the ask is not to change the name of the spec, just the short name.
16:29:08 <manu> q+
16:29:17 <JoeAndrieu> ... Not to speak to our ability to come to agreement on a new name, but the scope isn't the entire name.
16:29:21 <brent> ack dlongley
16:29:21 <Zakim> dlongley, you wanted to ask how much trouble does the confusion actually cause?
16:29:42 <JoeAndrieu> dlongley: it's clear there is confusion. But the mere existence of confusion doesn't mean we should change the name
16:29:51 <JoeAndrieu> ... the question is how much trouble is it going to cause.
16:30:15 <bigbluehat> q+ to suggest we instead work to distance the two CIDs from each other instead
16:30:17 <JoeAndrieu> ... These two techs do very different things, so I think the confusion will resolve quickly
16:30:22 <brent> ack manu
16:30:41 <JoeAndrieu> manu: remember everyone was horribly confused when we put out decentralized identifiers?
16:30:58 <JoeAndrieu> ... same thing with VCs: These are confusing, what are you doing?
16:31:09 <JoeAndrieu> ... Assertions at each point that we are confusing the market
16:31:25 <JoeAndrieu> ... We also have people claiming things are VCs that are completely incompatible with the spec
16:31:38 <JoeAndrieu> ... So its natural that at first people might be confused
16:32:01 <JoeAndrieu> ... To Brent's point, they are asking to change the acronym
16:32:15 <JoeAndrieu> ... We can make the change later if there really is confusion in the market
16:32:30 <brent> q+
16:32:36 <JoeAndrieu> ... it took us a long time to get here.
16:32:44 <brent> ack bigbluehat
16:32:44 <Zakim> bigbluehat, you wanted to suggest we instead work to distance the two CIDs from each other instead
16:32:46 <JoeAndrieu> ... changing this at the last hour feels like a bad move
16:33:09 <JoeAndrieu> bigbluehat: if we are keeping the acronym, then anyhting we can do to put this in a completely different place...
16:33:24 <JoeAndrieu> ... and communicate with that community how we are going to help with that confusion
16:33:26 <manu> q+ to note that CID /is/ a completely separate thing, I don't think the specs will bump into each other.
16:33:33 <identitywoman> q+
16:33:35 <brent> q-
16:33:36 <JoeAndrieu> ... I don't think we'll revisit it later.
16:33:42 <JoeAndrieu> ... So we should clarify
16:33:43 <brent> ack manu
16:33:43 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that CID /is/ a completely separate thing, I don't think the specs will bump into each other.
16:34:03 <JoeAndrieu> manu: there is a subset of this community that wanted this specification.
16:34:17 <JoeAndrieu> ... I don't think most people building out VCs with DIDs care about CIDs at all.
16:34:27 <JoeAndrieu> ... It half-solves the problem. It's centralized.
16:34:37 <JoeAndrieu> ... I don't think there is overlap.
16:34:52 <JoeAndrieu> ... You can use a CID to do things. But most of us aren't going to use them.
16:35:06 <JoeAndrieu> ... The deployment community for CIDs is non-existent today.
16:35:33 <JoeAndrieu> ... The concept if VERY different from a content identifier. And if there is a concern about that being confusing in context, spell it out.
16:35:56 <brent> the use of CIDs outside their use as DIDs is virtually non-existent
16:36:01 <JoeAndrieu> ... When you say "controlled identifier" and "content identifier" its clear what is meant.
16:36:17 <JoeAndrieu> ... So don't use the acronym where it might be ambiguous.
16:36:21 <brent> ack identitywoman
16:36:44 <JoeAndrieu> identitywoman: If people aren't pushing to have the spec renamed, just the acronym. Then the acronym is the problem.
16:37:00 <JoeAndrieu> ... I like the suggestion that it's 'ctrlid'
16:37:08 <JoeAndrieu> ... That makes it clear that its different.
16:37:12 <JoeAndrieu> q+
16:37:42 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
16:38:25 <manu> q+ to ask if we can just take the shortname rename off of the table?
16:39:13 <JoeAndrieu> joeandrieu: agreed with Manu. If the acronym is the problem, don't use the acronym. The spelled out terms are clear.
16:39:14 <brent> ack manu
16:39:14 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask if we can just take the shortname rename off of the table?
16:39:43 <JoeAndrieu> manu: just from a process perspective, can we take the short-name rename off the table, that is a huge impact for the team
16:40:08 <bigbluehat> +1 for taking the shortname change off the table--since that seems to be where the cost/pain would be
16:40:17 <ivan> +1 to manu
16:40:17 <JoeAndrieu> ... maybe we call it a CRID or CTRLID... but can we get some finality so editorial team can put together a proposed recommendation
16:40:34 <dlongley> +1 to either no change to the short name or do CRID and be done with it forever :)
16:40:35 <JoeAndrieu> brent: before we go there, I have a suggestion
16:40:36 <brent> what if we change "Controlled Identifiers (CIDs) v1.0" to "Controlled Identifiers v1.0", but keep the short name "cid-1.0" as is?
16:40:47 <JoeAndrieu> ... what if we just changed the title?
16:40:57 <JoeAndrieu> ... does that help anything?
16:41:15 <manu> q+
16:41:20 <brent> ack manu
16:41:21 <JoeAndrieu> ... Then we back away from the officialness of the acronym.
16:41:29 <JoeAndrieu> manu: +1 to that suggestion
16:42:01 <denkeni> +1 to that suggestion. The communities would pick their beloved short name afterwards.
16:42:05 <JoeAndrieu> manu: then it just shows up in spec-refs, so I've been using expanded form, so you wouldn't see CID anywhere
16:42:25 <ivan> q+
16:42:38 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: minor change, the title
16:42:48 <brent> PROPOSAL: change the title "Controlled Identifiers (CIDs) v1.0" to "Controlled Identifiers v1.0", but keep the short name "cid-1.0" as is
16:42:52 <ivan> +1
16:42:53 <manu> +1
16:42:53 <bigbluehat> +1
16:42:53 <JoeAndrieu> +1
16:42:54 <denkeni> +1
16:42:55 <dlongley> +1
16:42:56 <JennieM> +1
16:42:56 <TallTed> +1
16:43:00 <hsano> +1
16:43:31 <brent> RESOLVED: change the title "Controlled Identifiers (CIDs) v1.0" to "Controlled Identifiers v1.0", but keep the short name "cid-1.0" as is
16:43:36 <JoeAndrieu> brent: hearing no objections
16:44:01 <JoeAndrieu> brent: second issue in CID spec
16:44:01 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/cid/issues/141
16:44:24 <manu> q+
16:44:24 <JoeAndrieu> brent: might just be a small editorial change
16:44:38 <brent> ack ivan
16:44:40 <brent> ack manu
16:44:53 <JoeAndrieu> manu: you're just waiting on me to raise a PR
16:45:05 <JoeAndrieu> brent: that's it. the rest are tracking issues
16:45:12 <brent> Topic: VC JOSE COSE
16:45:17 <JoeAndrieu> brent: one more topic on the agenda
16:45:19 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-jose-cose/pulls
16:45:34 <manu> q+
16:45:35 <JoeAndrieu> ... two PRs, but one is the same as VCDM
16:45:39 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-jose-cose/pull/327
16:46:14 <JoeAndrieu> ... This is in response to issue #325 a copy-paste error where values were identical in couple examples which was confusing.
16:46:41 <JoeAndrieu> ... Happy to take comments, but this is going in and addresses the last issues of JOSE-COSE
16:46:55 <manu> we are so beyond done for these specs :P
16:47:21 <JoeAndrieu> brent: Kudos to the group. This has been a remarkable amount of work.
16:47:29 <manu> q?
16:47:39 <brent> ack manu
16:47:57 <JoeAndrieu> manu: +1 to your comments. I noticed that we generate examples, like signed examples, for JOSE-COSE, SD-JWT.
16:48:18 <JoeAndrieu> ... I noticed the JOSE-COSE says they'd provide the data in some special mode
16:48:24 <JoeAndrieu> ... but they don't
16:49:07 <JoeAndrieu> ... I just put a feature last weekend for CBOR diagnostics. I could update that to handle COSE? Or we could remove "diagnostic mode" from the COSE examples.
16:49:11 <_denkeni> _denkeni has joined #vcwg
16:49:15 <JoeAndrieu> brent: i'm not finding what you mean.
16:49:26 <JoeAndrieu> manu: you see the orange text?
16:49:37 <JoeAndrieu> brent: I'm seeing something
16:49:54 <JoeAndrieu> manu: application/cbor/diagnostic (example 8 in VC-JOSE-COSE)
16:50:25 <JoeAndrieu> ... that information is the same across all the examples
16:50:29 <JoeAndrieu> ... oh way, maybe not.
16:50:39 <dlongley> q+ to ask if we could do it later during maintenance?
16:50:44 <JoeAndrieu> ... but its definitely not CBOR diagnostic
16:50:54 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to ask about diagnostic mode
16:51:01 <brent> ack dlongley
16:51:01 <Zakim> dlongley, you wanted to ask if we could do it later during maintenance?
16:51:10 <JoeAndrieu> dlongley: is this something we can improve during maintenance with better tooling.
16:51:20 <JoeAndrieu> brent: this is absolutely something that would fit in maintenance mode.
16:51:28 <mkhraisha> q+
16:51:34 <JoeAndrieu> manu: then let's remove it for now. They can use the blob.
16:51:48 <JoeAndrieu> brent: or we do nothing at all. is the other option.
16:52:01 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
16:52:01 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to ask about diagnostic mode
16:52:01 <manu> scribe+
16:52:09 <manu> JoeAndrieu: What does diagnostic mode do?
16:52:12 <manu> q+ to answer "what does that do"
16:52:18 <brent> ack manu
16:52:18 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to answer "what does that do"
16:52:50 <JoeAndrieu> manu: CBOR diagnostic mode is just a huge hex string, which isn't very useful. CBOR diagnostic mode will dump that out as JSON so you can see the structure and check it
16:52:58 <JoeAndrieu> ... the current thing that is shown isn't helpful
16:53:09 <JoeAndrieu> ... It doesn't tell me what the payload is or what the signature is.
16:53:23 <brent> ack mkhraisha
16:53:26 <JoeAndrieu> ... It's showing me sometthing, but it's not really CBOR diagnoatics and it isn't helping
16:53:47 <JoeAndrieu> mkhraisha: About delete? Is that to delete the diagnostic part?
16:54:04 <bigbluehat> q+
16:54:04 <JoeAndrieu> manu: these are all autogenerated, so we would have to remove it from all of them.
16:54:15 <JoeAndrieu> ... happy to remove it, but I'd rather not do anything.
16:54:23 <manu> q+ to note it might be harmful.
16:54:33 <JoeAndrieu> brent: argue that this is "not useful" rather than harmful.
16:54:36 <brent> ack bigbluehat
16:54:41 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to ask about normativeness
16:55:00 <JoeAndrieu> bigbluehat: we can shut off a given tab, e.g., the diagnostics tab
16:55:13 <brent> ack manu
16:55:13 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note it might be harmful.
16:55:13 <JoeAndrieu> brent: turning it off should be minimal
16:55:30 <bigbluehat> q+
16:55:31 <JoeAndrieu> manu: can't turn the whole tab off.
16:55:45 <JoeAndrieu> bigbluehat: that would be extra work. I misunderstood.
16:55:54 <JoeAndrieu> q?
16:55:54 <bigbluehat> q-
16:56:04 <JoeAndrieu> manu: five minutes to make the change.
16:56:20 <JoeAndrieu> ... currently, it looks like we don't know what we are doing.
16:56:25 <JoeAndrieu> ... I think it's actively harmful
16:56:51 <JoeAndrieu> ... We don't hurt anything by removing it. They can grab the blob and use a real CBOR tool
16:56:53 <JoeAndrieu> q-
16:57:04 <JoeAndrieu> brent: that's our agenda for today
16:57:09 <JoeAndrieu> ... thanks Joe. Thanks all.
16:57:31 <JoeAndrieu> ... Next week's call: we may have a PR or two, but we may cancel. (Probably)
16:57:42 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:57:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/05-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
16:57:51 <JoeAndrieu> brent: thanks all. See you in couple weeks.
16:58:57 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
16:58:57 <RRSAgent> I see no action items