14:10:06 RRSAgent has joined #vcwg 14:10:11 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/10/08-vcwg-irc 14:10:11 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:10:12 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan 14:10:41 Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco 14:10:41 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2025Oct/0000.html 14:10:41 chair: brent 14:10:41 ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2025-10-08: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2025Oct/0000.html 14:38:01 rhiaro has joined #vcwg 15:00:06 present+ 15:00:09 phila has joined #vcwg 15:01:19 present+ phila 15:01:20 KevinDean has joined #vcwg 15:01:26 present+ 15:01:34 present+ KevinDean 15:02:39 present+ parth 15:02:56 present+ selfissued 15:03:05 present+ msporny 15:03:13 present+ 15:03:19 present+ bigbluehat 15:03:40 present+ jandrieu 15:03:43 JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg 15:03:49 present+ brent 15:04:04 present+ 15:04:27 bigbluehat has joined #vcwg 15:05:25 selfissued has joined #vcwg 15:05:31 dmitriz has joined #vcwg 15:05:38 present+ 15:05:45 present+ 15:05:45 Parth has joined #vcwg 15:07:00 scribe+ 15:07:23 q+ to agenda+ community updates. 15:07:35 ack manu 15:07:35 manu, you wanted to agenda+ community updates. 15:07:35 JennieM has joined #vcwg 15:09:24 Topic: Community Updates 15:10:13 present+ dmitriz 15:10:20 scribe+ 15:10:29 present+ identitywoman 15:10:43 present+ 15:11:00 Phil: I'm formerly with W3C on the team for about 8 years, now with GS1 for about 8 years, lots of W3C experience, looking forward to being chair. 15:11:33 manu: Great news, CA DMV has made an announcement that they are putting W3C VCs every single physical driver's license and identification cards. 15:12:05 manu: Every single one of these new cards going forward will have a W3C compliant VC embedded into the barcode on the back of the driver's license. There are verifiers that are out there that can check these already. 15:12:32 manu: It uses the ecdsa-xi-2023 cryptosuite and the VC barcode spec that has been incubated in the CCG. 15:12:44 manu: CA DMV also issues digital W3C VCs and ISO mdoc mDLs. 15:12:58 Link - https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news-and-media/dmv-to-release-new-california-drivers-license-and-identification-card-design-with-advanced-security-features/ 15:13:08 s/xi-2023/di-2023/ 15:13:09 DavidC has joined #vcwg 15:13:15 present+ 15:13:22 manu: Another update is from MOSIP. MOSIP creates an opensource digital identity government platform. They released some new numbers, they deployed a long time ago with VC 1.1. Over the last year they now issued over 100 million W3C VCs. 15:13:53 PDL-ASU has joined #vcwg 15:13:58 manu: In the Philippines, India, Uganda, some other countries, will have more data at TPAC. By the end of this year there will be around 200 million W3C VCs just through their platform. 15:14:01 Is there a URL for the Mosip #s? 15:14:07 MOSIF is the acronym? 15:14:07 manu: So great news for W3C VCs over the past couple of months. 15:14:14 present+ PDL-ASU 15:14:20 Topic: render method and confidence method 15:14:35 brent: We've received word that the CCG has published these specs as final community group drafts. 15:14:37 @Ivan thanks ;-) 15:14:53 brent: That means they have been through the process of IPR releases and that important step. That means that we as a WG can consider working on them. 15:15:03 brent: Our charter allows us to adopt and bring those in without any need to recharter. 15:15:21 brent: I've said in the past that I think how we handle those specs should be an indication of whether adding even more items through a new charter is feasible. 15:16:00 denkeni has joined #vcwg 15:16:02 brent: Given that, let's have a conversation about who will become editors for these specs. We're not changing our meeting cadence at this time and the plan is to have task forces for working on these specs and moving them forward and then bringing things back to this group. 15:16:15 present+ 15:16:18 q+ to note folks volunteered :) 15:16:19 brent: We need editors other than our good friend, Manu, who has been carrying the burden. 15:16:19 Is there a more up to date link than https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-render-method/? 15:16:38 brent: That is the conversation I'd like to have, who will do the editing work and who will do the talking work -- showing up to the task force meetings? 15:16:42 ack manu 15:16:42 manu, you wanted to note folks volunteered :) 15:16:46 brent: Please jump on the queue. 15:17:04 manu: I agree, your not my Mom, you're much taller than that. 15:17:09 brent: Other than that, we're the same. 15:17:11 manu: I agree. 15:17:20 manu: People filled out a poll and volunteered to be editors. 15:17:23 present+ denken 15:17:28 manu: I passed that list to you, Brent, and Ivan. 15:17:50 q+ 15:18:06 manu: We have people that have volunteered to do that work, some are not on this call or might not be part of the WG, so wanted to provide that as data. For render method and confidence method and almost every other spec, except the post quantum suites, we have 2-3 editors that aren't me that have volunteered. 15:18:09 brent: Thank you, Manu. 15:18:10 ack phila 15:18:38 phila: Wearing a co-chair hat, editors are a crucial thing and we need to make clear who those people will be. If we will take it on, I will want to know whether test suites exist, whether there is the capacity in the group to create them. 15:18:49 phila: I imagine that's a "yes" and I know there are good implementations of render method at least. 15:19:06 phila: I'd like to know how far away we are from candidate rec at this stage and I'd like to know what we need to do to get there. 15:19:30 phila: I know there are 9 open issues on render method, 4 on the confidence method -- a more recent issue on render method, no new issues from confidence method since May. 15:19:33 q+ 15:19:44 ack manu 15:19:46 phila: I am less confidence about the confidence method, render method looks great, I'd like to know if I'm wrong about any of this. 15:20:08 q+ 15:20:45 manu: We've had regular incubation meetings in the CCG. For render method, it has 4 different implementations and 6-7 if you count some in asia -- and confidence method has 1-2 and we need test suites to know. So for render methods we need test suites to figure out what's being tested, visual output or data model. 15:20:51 manu: I know our company has committed to do an implementation. 15:21:27 manu: As far as how far along render method is -- it's been incubated for 3 years now, there's the US/EU/decentralized approach and the asia approach, both participants on both sides looking to move things forward as well. 15:21:43 manu: A number of education institutions want the decentralized PDF/SVG approach as well. 15:22:05 manu: The spec is really over-incubated at this point, we've got maybe 3-4 months of spec to get to CR, that's my expectation. The core architecture and design is done but we have to work through details. 15:22:54 manu: Confidence method -- the reason for not a lot of activity is that there isn't a lot to the spec. There are actually zero interoperable implementations -- the unknown things are not the data structure or the data model, getting a test suite is easy -- it's the protocol stuff that is hard to get to interop and test suites. 15:23:13 manu: There's some stuff in the VC API work to define what that looks like -- do we put it into a protocol and test it or do we test the data model? 15:23:35 manu: The other thing with confidence method, people have been pushing biometric confidence methods -- like a picture of a person -- there are privacy questions. 15:23:52 manu: Faces, fingerprints, other biometric things -- the WG will need to make some decisions on what we think is appropriate to standardize. 15:24:14 manu: Those are the remaining big rocks that need to be worked through in a WG. I have some thoughts on how we meet to move these things forward. 15:24:24 phila: Yes, that more or less confirms my view, thank you. 15:24:28 ack ivan 15:24:37 ivan: Two things, one is a very formal one. Which goes back to editorship. 15:24:39 q+ 15:24:53 ivan: After resolving that -- then we need to officially publish a FPWD for both docs or for render method to start. 15:25:04 ivan: In both cases it's required to have an editor who has signed on and given their name to the document. 15:25:19 ivan: If we need invited expert status for an editor we have to get that behind us before we can get to formal publication. 15:25:56 ivan: Less administration -- Manu you said that we may want to check visually -- and that raises one flag for me. Which we may not be able to avoid, as soon as we are having anything that is related to user-facing things then the accessibility and i18n review will be much more complicated. 15:26:21 q+ to say the real work for confidence method seems to be in the different types of confidence, which if any do you think are "ready" versus needs hard work 15:26:27 ivan: So far we have been lucky with those being easier -- in this case -- who knows how it will work. If we stop at SVG and say nothing about what will be in the SVG we might get by, but let's be ready. 15:26:29 ack phila 15:27:03 ack JoeAndrieu 15:27:03 JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say the real work for confidence method seems to be in the different types of confidence, which if any do you think are "ready" versus needs hard work 15:27:07 q+ 15:27:08 phila: I was also thinking about a11y and i18n, I was thinking of render method -- and we need to render to all users. I would expect that at the same time, assuming we've got one or both of them to FPWD either today or the next time we meet in Kobe, we would immediately seek horizontal review to get those communities onboard asap. 15:27:09 agree w/ phila -- immediate HR for renderMethod 15:27:25 present+ tallted 15:27:26 q+ 15:27:50 JoeAndrieu: I agree with Manu about confidence method. The spec is straightforward and the work is in the different types. Manu, which types do you think are easier and low-hanging fruit. But proof of control over private keys is an easy one. Could you paint a picture... could we pick one and get it in there without solving all of them? 15:27:54 ack manu 15:28:09 manu: It's exactly what you said, Joe, proof of possession of a key is super easy and straightfoward. 15:28:30 manu: There are orgs that will roll out biometrics whether we get there or not. 15:28:45 q+ 15:28:49 brent: I am happy to propose publishing FPWD for both of these today. But we need to name editors. 15:28:53 q+ 15:28:59 ack brent 15:29:02 ack ivan 15:29:27 ivan: I think, formally, and administratively, it's perfectly fine to pass a resolution which says to have FPWD provided that we get one or more editors for each spec. 15:29:48 ivan: The only thing I'm worried about is ... because we have one meeting a month and we have everything lined up, then we have to wait 3 weeks for a formal resolution and that's a bit silly. 15:29:55 q+ to suggest meeting cadence for work items and note editors. 15:29:57 ack manu 15:29:57 manu, you wanted to suggest meeting cadence for work items and note editors. 15:29:58 brent: I'm happy with that as a path forward, next meeting is TPAC. 15:30:02 manu: +1 to that. 15:30:28 manu: +1 to saying we're going to publish FPWD based on editors signing up. There are 7 people who said they want to be editors of render method and we have 2 for confidence method. That's the data we have. 15:30:37 brent: Good data. How many are members of the group? 15:30:53 q+ 15:30:59 manu: Two are here today -- another that's a member of the group and me. 15:31:01 ack JoeAndrieu 15:31:08 JoeAndrieu: I may have said I'd be an editor of the confidence method. 15:31:10 manu: You did not. 15:31:14 JoeAndrieu: Ok, but I will now. 15:31:25 manu: Dmitri has said he wants to be editor as well for render method. 15:31:35 brent: Ok, we have one editor for at least each document. 15:31:40 brent: So that's enough to make a proposal. 15:32:11 s/another that's/in addition to those two another that's/ 15:33:10 JennieM has joined #vcwg 15:34:44 +1 15:34:52 +1 15:34:57 +1 15:35:02 PROPOSED: We will publish a First Public Working Draft of Render Method, with a shortname of vc-render-method, with initial content from https://www.w3.org/community/reports/credentials/CG-FINAL-vc-render-method-20250831/ 15:35:06 +1 15:35:06 +1 15:35:06 +1 15:35:06 +1 15:35:07 dlongley: +1 15:35:07 +1 15:35:07 +1 15:35:08 +1 15:35:10 +1 15:35:10 +1 15:35:12 +1 15:35:15 +1 15:35:31 +1 15:36:00 RESOLVED: We will publish a First Public Working Draft of Render Method, with a shortname of vc-render-method, with initial content from https://www.w3.org/community/reports/credentials/CG-FINAL-vc-render-method-20250831/ 15:36:42 PROPOSED: We will publish a First Public Working Draft of Confidence Method, with a shortname of vc-confidence-method, with initial content from https://www.w3.org/community/reports/credentials/CG-FINAL-vc-confidence-method-20250831/ 15:36:49 +1 15:36:50 +1 15:36:51 +1 15:36:53 dlongley: +1 15:36:54 +1 15:36:55 +1 15:36:56 +1 15:36:57 +1 15:36:59 +1 15:36:59 +1 15:37:00 +1 15:37:00 +1 15:37:01 =1 15:37:09 +1 15:37:18 s/=1// 15:37:33 RESOLVED: We will publish a First Public Working Draft of Confidence Method, with a shortname of vc-confidence-method, with initial content from https://www.w3.org/community/reports/credentials/CG-FINAL-vc-confidence-method-20250831/ 15:37:34 q+ to ask about work mode for those specs. 15:37:35 q+ 15:37:43 ack manu 15:37:43 manu, you wanted to ask about work mode for those specs. 15:38:12 manu: I'll propose something, but I don't think we should discuss today -- food for thought. I was wondering if we could get a new charter proposal in front of the group to talk about it at TPAC, that's our next meeting. I wanted to hear what the plan might be. 15:38:56 q+ 15:38:59 manu: We have been meeting -- we have 3 weekly standing calls for different calls in CCG. We could shift those times over to work on these specs, is that the expectation or will we just get into a weekly cadence with this call -- Brent you had mentioned parallelizing the work but I'm worried about doing too much of that. 15:39:42 manu: The question is -- do we want to have standing calls for these and alternate between render method and confidence method, that's one proposal. We have a new meeting infrastructure in the CCG, it auto-scribes, it records video, it does everything automatically and then emails the list with minutes, topics, summary, etc. 15:40:04 smccown has joined #vcwg 15:40:14 ack ivan 15:40:16 manu: The downside here is that it IS recorded and it doesn't follow PA/Ivan's tooling. I'm suggesting that if we're going to massively parallelize that we use more automated tooling and that could get controversial. 15:40:18 present+ 15:40:50 q+ to talk work mode 15:40:53 ivan: First, before I forget about the tooling -- personally I don't care if we use my tooling or not, but a longer discussion would be need and could be discussed in Kobe or something. Not an easy thing to do, there has been experimentation with automated tools and the results were iffy at best. 15:41:12 ivan: Totally different thing: the group had a special slot for special calls -- the slots are there we could use those. 15:41:19 ivan: We can call the calls whatever we want. 15:41:54 q+ to work with ivan to move these things over to W3C. 15:42:00 ivan: The practicalities that I don't know -- I presume if I follow that your intention is to have each of these documents in its own github repository -- then I will need all the usual things to transfer to W3C to set them up as WG repos. 15:42:05 ivan: We can discuss that offline next. 15:42:08 manu: Yes. 15:42:10 ack phila 15:42:42 ack brent 15:42:42 brent, you wanted to talk work mode 15:42:43 phila: Can I get a sense, please, what is the overlap in personnel -- is it the same people? If so you can't parallelize, if it's the same people we would alternate. If they are distinct groups you could parallelize. 15:43:28 brent: Yup good point. We could meet every week and talk about those two specs and the maintenance stuff as well. Alternatively, if there are more dedicated groups and smaller groups of people whether they alternate or not -- I think that's the second option. 15:44:11 brent: My inclination is to allow the render method and confidence method folks to each self-organize. You are welcome to use this meeting slot when this meeting isn't happening obviously -- and if people going to both meetings find we talk about the same things then that conversation can grow organically about of that. I don't want to say top down what must be done. 15:44:24 brent: I want to allow you guys to work it out -- Dmitri for example has said he's only working on render method. 15:44:43 brent: Feel empowered to start meeting if you care about these things and make sure that Phil and I are invited to those meetings. 15:44:59 brent: Editors should run those calls. Any decisions in those decisions are proposed decisions until the WG gets to look at them. 15:45:00 q+ 15:45:02 ack manu 15:45:02 manu, you wanted to work with ivan to move these things over to W3C. 15:45:17 manu: Just some feedback: Ivan I'll work with you to move the repos over to the WG. 15:45:28 q+ to talk about the chartering 15:45:54 +1 I'm fine with alternating / sharing a call 15:45:56 manu: Phil, the overlap is like 60% -- that is working on all these specs. I would suggest, even with what Dmitri said, that we just have one call to work on these two specs. Or we'll alternative if folks really don't like it. I'd rather start with just one call and just see how we do until we split further. 15:46:18 manu: We already hold the incubation calls during this exact time and we could just say that we're going to move those calls over to render and confidence method and they will be WG calls. 15:46:28 q- 15:47:02 manu: We'll need help setting up a time for that -- a W3C calendar thing for that, but that's the proposal for that. The only thing for that is do we use this tooling or that -- I was anti the automation stuff for years and it reached a point where it now is great. 15:47:19 TallTed has joined #vcwg 15:47:39 q+ 15:47:40 manu: The machine does not get tired and it largely captures every word but messes up the acronyms -- you can't tell it not to scribe stuff, it doesn't auto-link like your tooling, Ivan, but we can modify its output to generate an HTML page with links and stuff, but no auto-resolution stuff. 15:47:50 +1 for starting with one unified call for both methods 15:47:53 manu: We don't have to start with it, but it has made meetings so much easier, and all the minutes and scribing is taken care of. 15:47:56 ack ivan 15:47:56 ivan, you wanted to talk about the chartering 15:48:21 ivan: I don't want to get into the tooling issue right now -- that's a separate issue, but at to the rechartering. Do we go there now or do we discuss on the two documents still? 15:48:37 brent: No plans to talk about chartering today. 15:48:39 ack dmitriz 15:48:40 ivan: Manu raised it. 15:49:15 dmitriz: Just to weigh in, I think I'd love to start with the CCG auto-scribe infrastructure for the render method calls until someone complains and would be happy to establish one call and alternate calls between render and confidence. 15:49:36 +1 to Dmitri's suggestion 15:49:40 brent: Ok, either Ivan or I can set up the calendar stuff in the W3C WG page, so as you determine meeting times and links, we can assist, reach out to us. 15:49:44 +1 to what Dmitri said. 15:49:49 brent: I'd like to spend the last bit of time we have looking at issues. 15:50:04 q+ 15:50:07 brent: I do want to say that, in the VCDM, we have 8 open issues and they are already triaged, nothing new there. 15:50:12 ack manu 15:50:12 brent: Which is fantastic. 15:50:22 Topic: VCDM Issues 15:50:23 it will be worthwhile investigating a way to `mute recorder` 15:50:32 +1 Ted 15:50:41 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/08-vcwg-minutes.html TallTed 15:50:53 manu: Yes, they have been triaged. I did look through all of them, I don't know what to write for some of them, the WG might need to weigh in. It's just editorial text, but do we want to add that text or what are we trying to accomplish. 15:51:18 manu: I'm not saying we need to go through them in this call, nothing time sensitive -- fine to just say ... we'll need to put some effort into processing them, maybe we do it at TPAC, maybe another call. 15:51:22 brent: Thank you, Manu. 15:51:23 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/08-vcwg-minutes.html TallTed 15:51:42 brent: I am noting that Manu -- I'm seeing you added the class 2 determination on a number of these. 15:51:45 manu: Yeah, maybe. 15:51:53 brent: I'm looking at the VC-JOSE-COSE repo. 15:51:56 manu: Oh, yes. 15:52:03 i/RESOLVED: We will publish a First Public Working Draft of Confidence Method/ +1 15:52:17 brent: That's fine, glad you did that, I think that's a difference between editor/team of editors did an initial pass vs. group did it. 15:52:51 i/RESOLVED: We will publish a First Public Working Draft of Confidence Method/ +1 15:52:54 brent: I am glad that you did that (categorized some issues on VC-JOSE-COSE). 15:53:07 brent: I think it's important as a group that we say we agree, it speeds up processing, so thank you for that! 15:53:09 manu: +1 15:53:31 Topic: CID Issues 15:53:36 brent: Unfortunately, I don't remember where we were at with the VCDM, I don't think we got to controlled identifiers at all, so let's spend a couple minutes there. 15:53:38 https://github.com/w3c/cid/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20sort%3Aupdated-asc 15:54:01 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/cid/issues/157 15:54:02 brent: This is labeled "Possible erratum / enhancement". This was back in July. 15:54:15 brent: I think it fits in with our ... I think this is clearly something that we can address. 15:54:17 q+ 15:54:25 ack manu 15:54:29 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/08-vcwg-minutes.html TallTed 15:54:35 brent: But what's the extent to which this is a class 4 change -- we don't have a class on it. 15:54:59 manu: I think you can argue it either way, the IANA consideration section is non-normative, could be class 2, but a new named information hash entry request ... sounds class 4 to me. 15:55:19 manu: Someone would have to write the spec on the IETF side or we'd have to write something in our spec. I didn't necessarily see it as an errata, I think. 15:55:38 i/RESOLVED: We will publish a First Public Working Draft of Render Method/ +1 15:55:39 brent: Any other input from folks with IANA experience? 15:55:57 brent: I agree, technically with Manu -- it's a non-normative section, but it does feel somewhat substantive. 15:56:03 brent: So any objections to labeling this class 2? 15:56:24 brent: I'm hearing no objections, so this is a class 2 change. 15:56:54 Manu: Eh... ah ... ew ... I don't think it's appropriate to add something of this magnitude to our spec and someone needs to write the IETF doc for us to link to. 15:57:03 ivan: We are just classifying right now. 15:57:21 brent: Ok, I'm writing class 4. Which means we'll do it in the future. 15:57:22 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/08-vcwg-minutes.html TallTed 15:57:29 brent: I don't think it's an errata, it's not an error in the spec. 15:57:29 manu: Correct. 15:57:39 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/cid/issues/161 15:58:00 brent: Fix assertion narrative ... etc. Labeled class 2 ready for PR. I agree. 15:58:10 brent: This was moved over from the DID spec originally, I believe. This is from 2022. 15:58:18 brent: Any objections to keeping this class 2? 15:58:30 brent: Ok, no objections. 15:58:33 brent: One more. 15:58:42 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/cid/issues/160 15:58:44 brent: Service ID required or optional, number 160. 15:58:58 q+ 15:59:03 brent: This is marked class 3 with a discuss label. I should remember deep in my bones what class 3 means ... but it's ... what? 15:59:04 ack manu 15:59:46 manu: You are clarifying or modifying conformance of existing implementations. Either making something previously non-conformant => conformant or vice versa. Here this is clearly contradictory and we need to clarify. I recommend we make this property optional. 16:00:09 manu: We just need to strike the "id" bit that says each service needs to contain these properties. 16:00:23 brent: Ok, I will label this as errata in addition to the class 3 label and we can and will address it. 16:00:26 brent: Any objections? 16:00:32 brent: Not hearing any objections. We're at time. 16:01:04 brent: Thank you everyone for being here, thanks Dave for scribing and I look forward to seeing task force meeting invites, reach out if you need any help getting things on the official calendar, you are all fantastic, it's a pleasure working with you. 16:01:06 dlongley: You're welcome! 16:01:10 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:01:11 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/08-vcwg-minutes.html ivan 16:01:28 s|mute recorder|pause/restart recorder| 16:02:25 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:02:27 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/08-vcwg-minutes.html ivan 16:02:44 rrsagent, bye 16:02:44 I see no action items