15:38:56 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
15:39:00 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/02/19-vcwg-irc
15:39:01 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:39:02 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
15:39:17 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
15:39:17 <ivan> Date: 2025-02-19
15:39:17 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/d8dbb80a-e09f-49ed-8a49-536d60d7753c/20250219T110000/#agenda
15:39:17 <ivan> chair: brent
15:39:18 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2025-02-19: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/d8dbb80a-e09f-49ed-8a49-536d60d7753c/20250219T110000/#agenda
15:55:08 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #vcwg
15:57:38 <denkeni> denkeni has joined #vcwg
15:57:52 <ivan> present+
15:58:01 <ivan> present+ TallTed
15:58:56 <denkeni> present+
15:59:39 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
15:59:54 <brent> brent has joined #vcwg
16:00:39 <ivan> present+ kevin, joe
16:00:52 <ivan> present+ brent
16:00:59 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg
16:01:35 <ivan> present+ selfissued, davidc, hsano
16:01:51 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg
16:02:04 <hsano> present+
16:02:24 <ivan> present+ rene
16:02:39 <dlongley> present+ dlongley
16:02:41 <ivan> present+ manu
16:04:22 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #vcwg
16:04:27 <KevinDean> present+
16:04:42 <ivan> present+ dave_lewis
16:04:59 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
16:05:05 <DavidC> present+
16:05:13 <DavidC> scribe+
16:06:03 <manu> q+
16:06:09 <ivan> present+ Geunhyung
16:06:09 <brent> ack manu
16:06:36 <TallTed> present+
16:06:39 <DavidC> manu security group are reviewing the data integrity spec
16:06:55 <ivan> s/manu/manu:/
16:06:57 <Geun-Hyung> Geun-Hyung has joined #vcwg
16:07:20 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
16:07:26 <selfissued> present+
16:07:35 <brent> Topic: Path to Proposed Recommendation
16:07:36 <Geun-Hyung> present+
16:08:41 <ivan> -> overview of the implementation status https://github.com/w3c/verifiable-credentials/blob/main/admin/PR-March-2025/PR%20preparation.md
16:08:47 <manu> q+ to support PR for VCDM v2.0
16:09:13 <DavidC> brent: 2 outstanding PRs (non-normative). Set of issues have all been addressed
16:09:19 <brent> ack manu
16:09:19 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to support PR for VCDM v2.0
16:09:19 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #vcwg
16:09:24 <KevinDean> present+
16:09:40 <gattaca> gattaca has joined #vcwg
16:09:50 <DavidC> manu: agree doc is ready for progressing
16:09:54 <ivan> present+ jennie
16:10:09 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #vcwg
16:10:17 <ivan> q+
16:11:01 <DavidC> brent: we are (will be?) chartered to progress the VCDM
16:11:04 <brent> ack ivan
16:11:29 <JennieM> present+
16:11:40 <brent> subtopic: Data Integrity
16:11:53 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #vcwg
16:12:24 <bigbluehat> present+
16:12:27 <ivan> q+
16:12:38 <manu> q+ to agree that DI is ready to go to PR (modulo editorial changes, if we want to make them)
16:12:48 <DavidC> brent: testing is being done by ECDSA sub suite. We have 2 independent implementations of each feature. So fully covered
16:12:49 <brent> ack ivan
16:12:56 <brent> q+ivan
16:12:59 <brent> q+ ivan
16:13:03 <brent> ack manu
16:13:03 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to agree that DI is ready to go to PR (modulo editorial changes, if we want to make them)
16:13:54 <DavidC> manu: issue raised about acknowledgements using github handles. I am still progressing this
16:15:23 <DavidC> ... issue is still being progressed and is not blocking
16:15:31 <ivan> q+
16:15:41 <dlongley> +1 to mark it as future
16:16:09 <brent> ack ivan
16:16:28 <manu> q+
16:16:32 <TallTed> q+
16:16:36 <DavidC> selfissued: still needs to be addressed in DI spec. Does not mention they are github handles
16:16:38 <manu> q- later
16:17:08 <selfissued> The links in the DI acknowledgements are not identified as being GitHub user IDs.
16:17:16 <DavidC> ivan: the AC must vote on the same document that we submit so no changes allowed except spelling mistakes
16:17:42 <manu> I meant /before/ we go to Proposed Rec, Ivan... we can do editorial /before/ we go to Proposed Rec.
16:17:45 <brent> ack TallTed
16:17:51 <DavidC> ... can update with editorial changes after AC has voted
16:18:03 <selfissued> Whereas, they are called out in VCDM:
16:18:04 <selfissued> The Working Group would like to thank the following individuals for reviewing and providing feedback on the specification (in alphabetical order by first name or their Github handle if a name was not provided):
16:18:06 <PDL-ASU> PDL-ASU has joined #vcwg
16:18:13 <PDL-ASU> present +
16:18:15 <brent> ack manu
16:18:25 <selfissued> I'm fine with applying that text to the other specs
16:18:33 <DavidC> TallTed: messages to github handles could go to the wrong person
16:19:18 <DavidC> selfissued: please use text from ?? in other specs as well
16:19:24 <DavidC> @manu: will do
16:20:29 <selfissued> ?? -> VCDM
16:20:42 <ivan> s/??/VCDM/
16:21:03 <brent> subtopic: VC JOSE COSE
16:21:41 <DavidC> brent: 1 open issue and non-normative PRs
16:22:27 <DavidC> ... test suite only lists a single full independent implementation. We need at least 1 more before we can move to PR
16:22:43 <ivan> q+
16:22:57 <brent> ack ivan
16:23:52 <DavidC> ivan: AC meeting not far away. If we cannot make a resolution next week to move our docs to PRs, there will be a long delay
16:24:46 <DavidC> ... would be a shame if JOSE/COSE cannot move with rest of documents
16:25:10 <DavidC> ... danger that it might never progress as people may switch to competing IETF spec
16:26:05 <ivan> q+
16:26:30 <brent> ack ivan
16:27:13 <DavidC> ... request for transition will be for 8 documents. They need several long hours to review all these
16:27:41 <DavidC> ... so cannot expect a quick answer. At least 2 weeks will be needed
16:28:00 <ivan> q+
16:28:08 <brent> ack ivan
16:28:13 <DavidC> brent: can reference IETF sd-jwt spec
16:29:49 <ivan> -> Draft transition request https://github.com/w3c/verifiable-credentials/blob/main/admin/PR-March-2025/PR%20preparation.md
16:31:33 <DavidC> selfissued: I have an email to send out re: testing of JOSE-COSE. Can we check my wording please via screenshare
16:31:58 <DavidC> brent: yes, all good
16:32:07 <brent> subtopic: Controlled Identifiers
16:32:42 <ivan> q+
16:32:50 <brent> ack ivan
16:33:14 <DavidC> ivan: implementation report is incomplete
16:34:20 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/cid/pull/149
16:34:37 <manu> q+
16:34:49 <brent> ack manu
16:35:50 <DavidC> manu: nobody likes the wording of this PR yet. Stronger MUST statements are needed. I will take another stab at this when I have time
16:36:18 <selfissued> q+
16:36:30 <dlongley> s/Stronger MUST statements are needed/Stronger MUST statements are requested, but it is already a MUST, just needs language tweaks/
16:36:41 <brent> ack selfissued
16:36:45 <DavidC> brent: if this PR is not resolved during the next week then the issue 141 will be marked for future resolution
16:37:21 <manu> q+
16:37:31 <brent> ack manu
16:37:32 <DavidC> selfissued: why not simply change SHOULD of existing text to MUST without any rewording
16:37:59 <DavidC> manu: we will also need tests for this
16:38:39 <DavidC> ... we were trying to not introduce new normative statements and more tests
16:38:44 <selfissued> I just checked.  The CID spec still says "SHOULD be treated as invalid".
16:39:24 <DavidC> manu: we could instead simply delete the statement because currently it is not being tested
16:39:53 <selfissued> I'm also fine marking this as future or pending close
16:39:59 <DavidC> brent: any opposition of marking this for future now?
16:40:09 <manu> +1 to mark as future, we need more time to find the right text.
16:40:17 <ivan> +1 to future
16:40:17 <dlongley> +1 to mark it as future, simplest fix is to delete the text starting with "and the identifier".
16:40:18 <JoeAndrieu> +1
16:40:39 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/cid/issues/141
16:40:49 <manu> q+
16:41:57 <brent> ack manu
16:42:23 <DavidC> manu: can we close some issues prior to the review i.e. 22, 23, 25.
16:42:46 <ivan> q+ to look at an issue onn jose-cose
16:42:47 <selfissued> I'm good
16:42:57 <brent> ack ivan
16:42:57 <Zakim> ivan, you wanted to look at an issue onn jose-cose
16:43:15 <selfissued> https://github.com/w3c/vc-jose-cose/issues/333
16:44:01 <DavidC> ivan: we need a change control section to say how the doc has evolved between versions
16:44:11 <brent> subtopic: bitstring status list
16:44:13 <manu> q+
16:45:00 <ivan> q+
16:45:19 <brent> ack manu
16:45:22 <DavidC> brent: a single issue and no PRs, so good to go. But implementation report has significant gaps in it. So we need more implementations to perform the test suite
16:46:09 <DavidC> manu: the multi-status mechanism needs a statement of support from two implementations.
16:46:52 <DavidC> ... shall I produce a PR for major surgery to take this feature out, along with the corresponding tests?
16:47:06 <DavidC> brent: we can wait till next week
16:47:27 <DavidC> ... I hope we will get the tests in time
16:47:58 <brent> ack ivan
16:48:29 <DavidC> ivan: timing is crucial and I am not available next week
16:49:07 <DavidC> ... so no changes after next Friday please
16:49:59 <DavidC> manu: I will produce the major PR at the weekend if it is needed
16:50:01 <dlehn1> dlehn1 has joined #vcwg
16:50:17 <brent> subtopic: VC JSON SCHEMA
16:51:10 <DavidC> brent: been finished for a long time now. Two PRs are maintenance ones, and a single issue (143) that should have a PR raised ASAP
16:51:19 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-json-schema/issues/143
16:51:23 <manu> q+
16:51:26 <DavidC> ... but the PR should be only editorial
16:51:37 <brent> ack manu
16:51:43 <dlongley> +1 to mark as future
16:51:49 <DavidC> ... or I can mark the issue as Future
16:52:03 <DavidC> manu: please mark it is Future now
16:52:33 <DavidC> brent: the implementation report is completely empty, so this is a major problem. Means we cannot transition this doc to PR
16:52:49 <ivan> q+
16:52:57 <brent> ack ivan
16:53:51 <DavidC> ivan: we can publish this doc later if we find implementations later. Unlike JOSE-COSE which is more critical to the whole group of specs
16:54:28 <manu> +1 to delay transition to Proposed Recommendation for VC JSON Schema... we can always do it later, not pushing it to Proposed Rec it isn't going to blow anything up, AFAICT
16:54:39 <dlongley> +1 to delay and transition with the other specs later.
16:54:44 <DavidC> brent: proposal is to remove JSON schema from transition request
16:55:14 <DavidC> ... since no objections this is what we will do
16:55:23 <ivan> q+
16:56:15 <ivan> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/verifiable-credentials/issues/61
16:56:53 <ivan> q+
16:57:00 <DavidC> brent: there are a number of vocabs and contexts here, and they should have W3C URLs
16:57:00 <brent> ack ivan
16:57:53 <DavidC> ivan: currently they exist but merely redirect to github. They need moving from there to W3C storage
16:58:41 <manu> q+
16:58:49 <brent> ack manu
16:59:02 <DavidC> ... after transition request is submitted we will have 2 weeks to move these files
16:59:51 <DavidC> ... then we can change the redirection to their new home
17:00:48 <DavidC> ivan: dont forget that next week we have to formal resolutions
17:01:31 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:01:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/19-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
17:01:39 <Geun-Hyung> Geun-Hyung has left #vcwg
17:02:34 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
17:02:34 <RRSAgent> I see no action items