14:11:34 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
14:11:38 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/09/10-vcwg-irc
14:11:38 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:11:39 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:12:00 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
14:12:00 <ivan> Date: 2025-09-10
14:12:00 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2025Sep/0001.html
14:12:00 <ivan> chair: brent
14:12:01 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2025-09-10: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2025Sep/0001.html
14:38:35 <brent> brent has joined #vcwg
15:00:49 <ivan> present+
15:01:04 <ivan> present+ brent, davidc
15:01:38 <ivan> present+ manu, tallted
15:01:56 <ivan> present+ parth
15:02:10 <ivan> present+ melissa
15:02:26 <ivan> present+ hiroyuki
15:02:46 <ivan> present+ dmitriz
15:02:59 <ivan> present+ kevin
15:03:39 <durkinza> durkinza has joined #vcwg
15:04:10 <ivan> present+ bigbluehat
15:05:52 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg
15:05:54 <dlongley> present+
15:05:58 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
15:06:00 <dmitriz> present+
15:06:01 <dmitriz> scribe_
15:06:02 <hsano> present+
15:06:05 <dmitriz> scribe+
15:06:25 <ivan> s/present+ hiroyuki//
15:06:26 <dmitriz> brent: welcome everyone, this is the monthly VC WG call (in maintenance mode)
15:07:18 <dmitriz> ... we'll take a look at some issues, hopefully make some resolutions
15:07:26 <dmitriz> ... any changes/additions to the agenda?
15:07:56 <brent> Topic: SD-JWT media types update
15:07:58 <dmitriz> brent: ok, let's jump into SD-JWT Media Types
15:08:23 <dmitriz> brent: just to give an update - we've requested registration of application/vc+sd-jwt  (and vp+...) in IANA
15:08:44 <dmitriz> ... the vc+ application is proceeding (Mike Jones had a couple of questions), the vp+ media type has been contested
15:09:07 <dmitriz> ... Mike Jones and I have been in conversation with the person who has contested it
15:09:08 <manu> q+
15:09:12 <ivan> q+
15:09:25 <dmitriz> ... there is slight potential that this can lead to the SDO equivalent of an international incident
15:09:34 <dmitriz> ... we're waiting on word with the designated expert at the IETF
15:09:35 <brent> ack manu n
15:09:45 <dmitriz> manu: I love how just about everything we do results in that :)
15:09:46 <denkeni> denkeni has joined #vcwg
15:09:49 <ivan> present+ denkeni
15:10:04 <dmitriz> ... I saw the objector's response. I think they said there was no use cases for sd-jwt for presentations?
15:10:21 <dmitriz> ... I think the reason we asked for registration before -- one, it's helpful if you're using a certain cryptographic envelope format to be consistent
15:10:48 <dmitriz> ... the other one - there were some use cases related to (one of the counter arguments was - there is no need to selectively disclose a presentation -- that's not correct
15:10:55 <dmitriz> ... sometimes, when you want to do a proof of existence
15:11:11 <dmitriz> ... like, I'm presenting something, and I want to prove that I have the info, doing a selecting disclosure in a VP is one way of doing that
15:11:28 <brent> q?
15:11:29 <dmitriz> ... which establishes a legal anchor that you had the info at a particular point in time (but did not want to reveal it)
15:11:31 <brent> ack manu
15:11:42 <brent> ack ivan
15:11:43 <dmitriz> ... so I want to make sure that at least those two use cases can be added to the record (and brought up at IETF if needed)
15:12:14 <dmitriz> ivan: practical question - I get emails from Amanda B. (Bieber?) -- is there something I should do about those?
15:12:27 <dmitriz> brent: if you could forward those emails to me and Mike Jones
15:12:31 <dmitriz> ivan: will do
15:12:41 <brent> Topic: render method and confidence method
15:12:55 <dmitriz> brent: Render Method and Confidence Method has recently become final community draft status documents
15:13:14 <dmitriz> ... the time has come for us to begin considering adopting them as work items for this group
15:13:19 <manu>  Confidence Method v0.9 - https://www.w3.org/community/reports/credentials/CG-FINAL-vc-confidence-method-20250831/
15:13:26 <dmitriz> ... our charter has no problem with this, we wouldn't have to recharter
15:13:33 <manu> Verifiable Credential Rendering Methods v0.9 - https://www.w3.org/community/reports/credentials/CG-FINAL-vc-render-method-20250831/
15:13:43 <dmitriz> ... however, before making such a resolution, I would want us as a group to be sure that there's at least 2 people willing to be Editors
15:13:57 <manu> q+
15:14:10 <dmitriz> ... and enough orgs / participants in the group intersted, to make it worthwhile
15:14:16 <dmitriz> ... I have concerns about our capacity (not our willingness)
15:14:34 <brent> ack manu
15:14:46 <dmitriz> ... we can talk about other specs we could pull in (with a recharter)
15:15:02 <dmitriz> manu: we sent a poll out to the CCG and the VC WG
15:15:29 <dmitriz> ... we've gotten 28 responses. each spec (including renderMethod) includes -- the spec, how important it is for the ecosystem, whether or not the org is going to use the spec,
15:15:32 <brent> q+ to ask about granularity of responses
15:15:40 <dmitriz> ... and whether or not people are willing to be active Editors on the spec
15:15:50 <dmitriz> ... so, we're collecting email addresses of potential editors / implementers
15:15:54 <ivan> q+
15:16:23 <dmitriz> ... for render method and confidence people, we had 5 editor volunteers, plus 9 maybe
15:16:34 <dmitriz> s/confidence people/confidence method/
15:16:44 <dmitriz> ... for confidence method - 2 people and 10 people maybe
15:17:08 <dmitriz> manu: it's clear people want render method a bit more than confidence method, but people think confidence is important
15:17:17 <brent> ack brent
15:17:17 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to ask about granularity of responses
15:17:49 <dmitriz> brent: I notice one of the question is 'will implement'? what's the granularity -- if more than one person in an org voted, would that show up as more than one?
15:18:10 <dmitriz> manu: yes. we should change it to one per org, we can do that
15:18:41 <dmitriz> brent: also, any of the volunteers here on this call?
15:18:57 <dmitriz> manu: Parth would be interested
15:19:08 <dmitriz> dmitriz: I would be interested in being editor of the Render Method spec
15:19:15 <brent> ack ivan
15:19:24 <dmitriz> manu: also, some people in Singapore / apac are very intersted, but this time slot is awkward for them
15:19:52 <dmitriz> ivan: do any of the editors that you listed belong to w3c / working group?
15:20:10 <dmitriz> manu: yes, a fair number of them are, I need to go back over it. (we don't have that data right now)
15:20:12 <dmitriz> ... but we can get at that data
15:20:29 <dmitriz> brent: chair hat firmly on, here's how I would like us to proceed
15:20:52 <dmitriz> ... I would like first step - to get at that additional info (people vs org, membership). following that,
15:21:08 <dmitriz> ... if the additional views are consistent with what we're seeing, I believe it would be appropriate for this WG to adopt Confidence Method and Render Method
15:21:15 <manu> Here's the poll results (hopefully folks can see them): https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1jenKflxUsE-T-Y3zjEh3JBhXDr-M_kY5X0snQCx-Bo0/edit#responses
15:21:16 <dmitriz> ... as we do so, I believe we should explore a Task Force style work mode
15:21:40 <dmitriz> ... where the group continues on its monthly cadence, but a TF would be created for each spec that would proceed with their own call cadence, and would report on progress
15:21:41 <dlongley> +1 to task force approach
15:21:46 <ivan> q+
15:22:10 <dmitriz> ... my recommendation is - we try out this mode as an experiment, to judge capacity for additional work. will inform our rechartering discussions
15:22:47 <manu> q+
15:22:48 <brent> ack ivan
15:23:15 <dmitriz> ivan: is the intention to incorporate the CCG document into the VC spec?
15:23:30 <dmitriz> ... in a VC 2.1 version? or to publish as separate recs / docs?
15:23:44 <brent> ack manu
15:23:45 <dmitriz> ... we already have a large number of documents, and we know more docs have management costs
15:23:57 <dmitriz> manu: the plan would be to publish as separate. I don't know how we could easily fold it into the current spec
15:24:06 <brent> +1 to them being separate documents
15:24:16 <dmitriz> ... Render Method itself would add like 30 pages to the spec
15:24:24 <dmitriz> ivan: ok, just something we need to make a decision on
15:24:24 <manu> q+
15:24:36 <dmitriz> ... if we have separate docs, we need separate repos, first public working draft calls, etc
15:24:37 <hsano> +1 to separate document
15:24:41 <dmitriz> +1 to separate
15:24:47 <brent> ack manu
15:25:00 <dmitriz> manu: copy that, +1. Brent, I put myself on the queue to respond to your TF based plan
15:25:18 <dmitriz> ... the only downside (not saying we shouldn't do it) is -- we do, at some point, want broader WG focus and attention on this
15:25:49 <dmitriz> ... my concern would be - main group members might not see things they might have issue at
15:26:10 <dmitriz> ... so we'd need to find points through the process to sync with larger group
15:26:28 <dmitriz> brent: any time there'd be a resolution on the document, the WG would review it (such as, transition to a rec, etc)
15:26:36 <ivan> q+
15:26:39 <pdl0> pdl0 has joined #vcwg
15:26:41 <dmitriz> ... my hope is also - whenever there's sticky issues, those would be brought to the larger group
15:26:45 <brent> ack ivan
15:27:03 <manu> q+
15:27:08 <dmitriz> ivan: just to understand the procedure -- so for the time being, we'd meet once a month. Does that mean that concrete actions (transfering to repos etc) should wait til Mid-October?
15:27:24 <dmitriz> brent: this group could decide, today, to adopt them. but we're hoping to get more data. (so, yes, mid-october)
15:27:25 <ivan> s/til/till/
15:27:31 <brent> ack manu
15:27:58 <dmitriz> manu: my concern with that approach is - we just published FCGSs, so we shouldn't be updating spec, ... though this may not be true for render and confidence method
15:28:10 <dmitriz> brent: yes, FPWDs we'll do those today
15:28:19 <dmitriz> manu: should we go through til the next of the specs?
15:28:44 <dmitriz> ivan: I'd prefer to combine that with the general rechartering discussion
15:28:50 <dmitriz> brent: I'll make sure it's on the agenda next month
15:29:01 <dmitriz> ... by then, the IPR sign-off should be done for Render and Confidence method
15:29:22 <dmitriz> ... and we can have that conversation on other specs etc, to see if it makes sense to recharter
15:29:35 <dmitriz> ... we'll meet at TPAC (this time, not a super long meeting, refreshing)
15:29:45 <dmitriz> ... but I suspect the bulk of the TPAC meeting time will be a re-charter conversation
15:29:55 <dmitriz> manu: how long should we keep the poll open?
15:30:10 <dmitriz> brent: let's do one more push, and close it up next week
15:30:13 <dmitriz> manu: sounds good, I'll send another reminder, and close it off next Friday
15:30:25 <dmitriz> brent: ok, I think that was everything on that topic
15:30:29 <pdl0> +1 to another week  - meeting with two institutions friday to brief them on the poll.
15:30:34 <brent> Topic: FPWD Resolutions
15:30:50 <dmitriz> brent: ivan, how granular do we need to be here? can we cover it with a single resolution?
15:31:07 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
15:31:10 <manu> q+
15:31:16 <DavidC> present+
15:31:26 <dmitriz> ... like, 'For each spec we're maintaining, if there are changes we need to make, we'll resolve to make a First Public Working Draft'?
15:31:28 <manu> q-
15:31:38 <pdl0> present+
15:31:41 <dmitriz> ivan: you should talk to the person who's responsible for the process these days
15:31:47 <dmitriz> brent: I've been talking to that guy, and he's fine with it
15:32:10 <dmitriz> ivan: let's try
15:33:19 <ivan> q+
15:33:20 <manu> q+
15:33:42 <dmitriz> ivan: that phrasing might be slightly too vague
15:34:31 <dmitriz> brent: (wordsmiths some potential proposals)
15:36:10 <dmitriz> manu: just to be clear. if this proposal passes -- I update anything that has changes (which is all the docs, as this point), bump a minor semver version, then we'll do an FPWD
15:36:15 <dmitriz> ... it'll get a new URL in TR space
15:36:39 <dmitriz> ... we'll use Echidna to publish updated working drafts for it. then transition to CR, then (using new process) go to Rec?
15:36:48 <dmitriz> brent: yes, that matches my understanding
15:37:09 <manu> q+
15:37:15 <dmitriz> ivan: just to be clear, that means we have to ask for a transition request (for an FPWD), publish it by hand old-school style, then once that's done, we'll do Echidna etc
15:37:18 <brent> ack ivan
15:37:39 <dmitriz> ivan: other thing we'll have to do is - when we publish the FPWD, we'll make sure the history goes back to the current REC version
15:37:56 <brent> ack manu
15:38:07 <manu> q+
15:38:09 <dmitriz> brent: so far I'm hearing alignment, on process details?
15:38:13 <brent> PROPOSAL: As the WG maintains the Recommendations under its purview, we will create a First Public Working Draft for a new version of each document as necessary.
15:38:15 <manu> q+ to note process change request for transition request
15:38:16 <ivan> +1
15:38:18 <brent> +1
15:38:19 <dlongley> +1
15:38:19 <manu> +1
15:38:19 <pdl0> +1
15:38:20 <dmitriz> +1
15:38:22 <DavidC> +1
15:38:24 <TallTed> +1
15:38:33 <hsano> +1
15:38:59 <brent> RESOLVED: As the WG maintains the Recommendations under its purview, we will create a First Public Working Draft for a new version of each document as necessary.
15:39:08 <brent> ack manu
15:39:08 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note process change request for transition request
15:39:26 <ivan> q+
15:39:36 <dmitriz> manu: i think it's weird to ask for a transition request, for a point-release of a doc we're chartered to work with?
15:39:46 <dmitriz> ... is there any way we can modify the process to require less overhead?
15:39:55 <brent> q+
15:40:07 <brent> ack ivan
15:40:22 <dmitriz> ivan: so by coincidence, there were some discussions (chartering) on json-ld / rdf -- when you start a new version number,
15:40:37 <dmitriz> ... then officially you start a new line of recommendations in terms of IPR. hence the formalism
15:40:49 <dmitriz> ... I don't like it as much as you. so, 2.1 has its own IPR regime
15:41:03 <dmitriz> ... and whatever happened with 2.0 has no reflection
15:41:07 <brent> ack brent
15:41:21 <dmitriz> brent: ok, with Process CG hat on, to answer Manu's question. the short answer is - yes, the process can certainly be changed
15:41:22 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/process/issues
15:41:34 <dmitriz> ... I'll drop a link into the chat. anyone who would like to see changes, please open an issue
15:41:57 <dmitriz> ... additionally, the process CG, under the AB, is planning on interrupting as many WG meetings as possible during TPAC, with questions and conversations about the process, to get feedback from the source
15:43:30 <brent> Topic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20sort%3Aupdated-asc
15:44:08 <dmitriz> brent: I think there's only one issue here that's not Class 4 (those are marked Future)
15:44:13 <dmitriz> ... everything else, Class 2, has been triaged
15:44:19 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1614
15:44:27 <manu> q+
15:44:34 <manu> q-
15:44:37 <brent> ack manu
15:45:04 <manu> +1 to what brent said -- mark as class 2
15:45:26 <brent> Topic: https://github.com/w3c/cid/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20sort%3Aupdated-asc
15:45:54 <dmitriz> brent: ok, here's some CID issues, a couple marked as Editorial, some Class 3
15:45:58 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/cid/issues/141
15:46:22 <dmitriz> brent: manu, you've labeled this as Editorial. but it's recommending substantive changes. can you give us a summary?
15:46:39 <dmitriz> manu: the 'Editorial' tag might have been just leftover
15:47:03 <dmitriz> ... debatably Class 3?
15:47:10 <dmitriz> brent: it's removing a normative statement
15:47:12 <ivan> q+ to ask about our processing on these?
15:47:17 <dmitriz> manu: yes, I think you can do that in a Class 3
15:47:34 <dmitriz> brent: so existing impls won't be affected
15:47:37 <brent> ack ivan
15:47:37 <Zakim> ivan, you wanted to ask about our processing on these?
15:47:38 <dmitriz> manu: yes
15:47:43 <dmitriz> ivan: this is about processing of these
15:47:50 <dmitriz> ... so if there's more content, go ahead
15:48:10 <dmitriz> brent: for this issue, I'm hearing Class 3, so I'll add that as a label, will remove Editorial and Future labels
15:48:10 <manu> +1 to getting rid of editorial/future for all of these.
15:48:26 <dmitriz> ivan: how do we want to proceed? I hear about Editorial / Class 3 changes etc,
15:48:32 <manu> q+
15:48:42 <dmitriz> ... in practice, do we want to change the RECs as they are now? or just reflect them in the new working draft?
15:48:58 <brent> ack manu
15:48:59 <dmitriz> brent: are you asking, should we publish FPWDs as they are, or do we add these changes?
15:49:06 <brent> +1 to manu's -1
15:49:12 <dmitriz> manu: no, I'd be -1 to changing the current docs, that'll be harder procedurally
15:49:12 <dlongley> +1 to manu, sounds much simpler
15:49:19 <dmitriz> ivan: that makes me happy
15:49:27 <dmitriz> brent: agree, let's make review as simple as possible
15:49:44 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/cid/issues/152
15:50:10 <dmitriz> q+
15:50:11 <dmitriz> brent: question is, is this truly editorial?
15:50:18 <brent> ack dmitriz
15:50:38 <Parth> Parth has joined #vcwg
15:50:43 <manu> q+
15:50:54 <ivan> i/ivan: how do we want to proceed/subtopic: procedural issue on the changes/
15:51:06 <dmitriz> dmitriz: if you say 'during these cases, the Verifier's business logic takes over',
15:51:11 <dmitriz> ... is that normative? is that editorial?
15:51:15 <brent> ack manu
15:51:28 <dmitriz> manu: this modification specifically is Class 2, since it's not in a normative statement
15:51:41 <dmitriz> ... it is modifying / suggesting a change to the Business Logic, which is almost always out of scope
15:52:10 <dmitriz> brent: so, Class 2 says "describes changes that do not functionally affect the interpretation of the document". does that apply here?
15:52:12 <manu> q+
15:52:23 <brent> ack manu
15:52:26 <dmitriz> manu: I get what you're saying. my concern about taking a broader view -- meaning, if we anchor the classes to
15:52:31 <dmitriz> ... normative statements in the spec
15:52:46 <dmitriz> ... in theory, the only statements we make in the spec that affect implementation are the normative ones.
15:52:53 <dmitriz> ... that's why I'm suggesting Class 2
15:53:47 <dmitriz> brent: ok, just want to be clear that, at times, there are substantive changes we're making that are not normative, so we're walking a fine line between Class 2 and Class 3
15:53:55 <dmitriz> ... which I'm ok with, as long as we have clear reasons for our decisions
15:53:59 <manu> +1 to what brent said our strategy should be
15:54:04 <pdl0> +1 for Class 2
15:54:10 <dmitriz> brent: anyone opposed to me marking this as Class 2?
15:54:11 <manu> +1 for class 2
15:54:12 <dmitriz> +1 for Class 2
15:54:24 <dmitriz> brent: ok, I'll get rid of 'Future', keep 'Editorial'
15:54:37 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/cid/issues/154
15:54:45 <dmitriz> brent: clarify relationship to DID
15:55:03 <dmitriz> ... there was a comment made during review of CID - Introduction should clarify why CID is necessary (when DID exists)
15:55:15 <dmitriz> ... So, in my view, this is Editorial / Class 2 change
15:55:17 <manu> +1 to this being class 2
15:55:28 <pdl0> +1 as an editorial class 2
15:55:35 <dmitriz> brent: ok, not seeing any oppopsition
15:55:49 <dmitriz> s/oppopsition/opposition
15:56:21 <dmitriz> brent: all right, keep an eye on the mailing list. If you're assigned on an issue currently, feel free to raise PRs _after_ the FPWDs are processed
15:56:25 <dmitriz> brent: thank you all, good bye
15:56:37 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:56:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/10-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
15:59:26 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #vcwg
16:38:04 <brent> brent has joined #vcwg
18:14:45 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg
19:36:18 <brent> brent has joined #vcwg
22:24:45 <brent> brent has joined #vcwg
22:31:44 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #vcwg