14:40:43 RRSAgent has joined #vcwg 14:40:47 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/04/08-vcwg-irc 14:40:47 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:40:48 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan 14:41:07 Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco 14:41:07 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2026Apr/0021.html 14:41:07 chair: brentz, phila 14:41:07 ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2026-04-08: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2026Apr/0021.html 14:48:57 TallTed has joined #vcwg 14:59:07 phila has joined #vcwg 14:59:39 present+ 14:59:51 present+ phila 15:00:24 present+ PatStLouis 15:00:45 present+ elaine 15:01:00 present+ wesley 15:01:20 wes-smith has joined #vcwg 15:01:37 present+ msporny 15:01:58 present+ kezike 15:02:12 present+ parth 15:02:32 present+ susanne 15:02:39 DPPSusanne has joined #vcwg 15:02:59 present+ dmitriz 15:03:27 present+ joe 15:03:29 scribe+ 15:03:36 present+ dlongley 15:03:55 Wip has joined #vcwg 15:04:04 present+ 15:04:05 phila: ok, lets get underway 15:04:10 present+ scott_jones 15:04:10 present+ 15:04:15 ... we're still kind of in a rebooting (rechartering) of the group 15:04:27 ... and this is the first time I've chaired a meeting under a new charter 15:04:30 present+ 15:04:36 ... I'd like to ask people who we haven't heard from before to introduce themselves 15:04:38 present+ elnar 15:04:45 ... I'll also introduce myself 15:04:58 JoeAndrieu1 has joined #vcwg 15:05:05 present+ smccown 15:05:07 ... I've been at GS1 for over 9 years. before that, I was at W3C over 8 years, 15:05:23 ... I worked on mobile web, other data standards, looked after the Semantic Web suite and some other things 15:05:38 ... I've chaired various groups, most recently RDF Canonicalization group I cochaired with Markus Sabadello 15:05:55 smccown has joined #vcwg 15:05:55 ... when I chair like this, I will do my best to be a neutral independent chair 15:05:58 present+ 15:06:00 ... if I need to switch my hat to a GS1 representative, I will say so 15:06:06 ... but will do my best to stay neutral 15:06:17 JennieM has joined #vcwg 15:06:27 ... are there any others in the group who want to introduce or re-introduce themselves? 15:06:36 present+ JennieM 15:06:43 Elnar: (no irc nick I think) hi everyone, this is my first time joining this call 15:06:53 ... I come from a company called Realize (sp?), we work on biometric solutions 15:07:08 ... we recently became members of the VC WG, in order to work on VC Confidence Method, specifically related to biometrics 15:07:18 ... hopefully we'll be able to help out there and push the topic forward 15:07:24 ... since we have natural interest in that area 15:08:02 Scott: (no irc nick) Hi, I'm a colleague of Elnar, 15:08:09 ... collaborating on privacy preserving client side biometrics 15:08:15 ... excited to be part of this group 15:09:07 phila: ok, lot to get through 15:09:12 present+ bigbluehat 15:09:35 ... I'd like to go through the Task Forces 15:09:45 PDL-ASU has joined #vcwg 15:09:52 present+ PDL-ASU 15:09:52 present+ 15:09:55 kezike has joined #vcwg 15:09:58 ... lets start with -- Scott and Elnar mentioned they're interested in Confidence Method, lets start with that 15:10:00 Topic: Task Forces 15:10:08 Subtopic: Confidence Method 15:10:12 JoeAndrieu1: main think we did at the Confidence Method Task Force is to choose a meeting cadence 15:10:13 q+ 15:10:25 DPPSusanne has joined #vcwg 15:10:27 ... every other week, starting next week 15:10:28 present+ 15:10:29 ... on Weds 15:10:30 Yes, sorry, was not able to invite fast enough. I introduced myself last time. I am here to work on the DPP vocabulary. 15:10:53 *unmute* 15:11:05 ivan: I added it to the calendar, made it every week by accident. should we change it to every other week? 15:11:15 JoeAndrieu1: let's change it, make sure people don't show up by accident 15:11:43 JennieM has joined #vcwg 15:11:45 KevinDean has joined #vcwg 15:11:47 phila: thanks Joe. One question - 15:11:48 bigbluehat has joined #vcwg 15:11:50 present+ 15:11:53 s/to invite fast/to unmute fast 15:11:56 ... how far are you away from seeking wide review, for the Confidence Method? 15:12:03 s/*unmute*// 15:12:12 PatStLouis has joined #vcwg 15:12:27 JoeAndrieu1: pretty far. we don't have yet the spec text the meat of the spec of various methods. we still need to write up the biometrics method, etc. we have the framework 15:12:32 ... and we do have the question of -- evidence vs Assurance Level vs Confidence Method 15:12:44 ... so that the group can help decide terminology 15:12:52 phila: should we set aside one of these meetings to decide on that? 15:13:00 Test has joined #vcwg 15:13:01 JoeAndrieu1: yes? I'm not sure how much time it will take 15:13:20 phila: it's making good use of the time, allowing the meeting to be genuinely useful to everyone 15:13:26 ... like, today is for generally orienting everyone 15:13:42 ... but like you said, we should specifically add it to an agenda 15:14:14 scribe+ 15:14:20 Subtopic: render Method 15:14:22 dmitriz: Regarding VC Render Method 15:14:42 dmitriz: I'm not sure we've set new meeting cadence, we're working on the broad categories of the render methods. 15:15:00 dmitriz: We have an iframe/sandbox method, talking about general purpose template substitution method is useful or not, or if iframe supercedes it. 15:15:08 +1 15:15:28 dmitriz: Discussing what to do with OCA proposed method and one other existing one. Ongoing work, not sure how close we're to asking for broad review. Would like to do it sooner than later... 15:15:48 phila: Don't have to ask all the groups at the same time. 15:16:02 phila: You could ask groups sooner rather than later. 15:16:13 phila: one issue that came up yesterday in one of the TFs is the security issue 15:16:18 scribe- 15:16:26 ... whether every one of our specs needs a regular Security Considerations section 15:16:29 ... OR if we can write one Thread Modeling document, and point to it 15:16:43 ... I'm hoping we can do that latter one 15:16:54 ... I've already sent an email to Simone, Security Lead at W3C staff, let's see what happens 15:17:03 ... I'd like to invite him to one of these future meetings to possibly answer that 15:17:40 how do I get on the queue? 15:17:51 phila: that raises the question - who's going to write the Threat Model? 15:17:56 q+ 15:17:58 q+ 15:18:00 ... I'm initially thinking Joe, but he's busy with Confidence Method 15:18:04 ivan: one step at a time... 15:18:05 q+ 15:18:06 ack ivan 15:18:14 q- 15:18:18 scottjeezey-Realeyes has joined #vcwg 15:18:18 ack PatStLouis 15:18:31 PatStLouis: just wanted to chime in, Dmitri mentioned an OCA render method, that was my one proposal, 15:18:49 ... last thing to discuss was - do we want to define an OCA specific thing in Render Method, or whether it fits into a broader method category 15:18:56 ... so we still would need to discuss that 15:19:12 phila: should that be a full WG discussion, or start with the TF? 15:19:19 patStLouis: we can start in the task force, yes 15:19:21 ack JoeAndrieu1 15:19:34 JoeAndrieu1: I'm happy to help out with the Threat Modeling stuff 15:19:49 ... however I will at least need a domain lead on each of the specs. since they each need their own threat model 15:20:09 q+ 15:20:12 ... what Simone and I have been trying to figure out (this and the DID work are tough litmus tests) -- within a set of related specs, how do you reconcile that 15:20:14 ack JoeAndrieu1 15:20:21 ack JoeAndrieu1 15:20:27 ... individual threat models vs a monolithic threat model 15:20:34 ... so, I'm happy to be an overall editor, but will need individual domain experts 15:20:35 ack JoeAndrieu 15:20:35 ack ivan 15:20:53 ivan: that worries me slightly, as a general problem (and I'm not sure if it's something you can comment on) 15:21:03 ... it looks like the Threat Modeling approach, for security, it's still in the process of forming 15:21:11 ... (like, you mentioned you're still working with Simone on it) 15:21:23 ... and we have 12 or 13 docs in this WG to go through 15:21:25 https://w3.org/tr/threat-modeling-guide 15:21:34 ... so I feel a little bit uneasy for this WG being the experimental subject, for this new process 15:21:35 denkeni has joined #vcwg 15:21:39 ... we already have our hands full as it is 15:21:54 q+ to say the DID WG is way ahead of us on the guinea pig rota 15:22:13 present+ 15:22:23 ack JoeAndrieu1 15:22:28 ... could we get away with just using the old method, of Security Consideration sections? 15:22:30 ... while the Threat Modeling approach is being worked out? 15:22:31 ack JoeAndrieu 15:22:31 JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say the DID WG is way ahead of us on the guinea pig rota 15:22:37 q+ to ask if threat model replaces security/privacy considerations... what's needed for horizontal review? 15:22:41 JoeAndrieu1: I know change is hard, and every transition is going to feel like this 15:23:04 ... I have to endorse Simone's perspective and experience -- seeing these Security Consideration sections, it's hard for reviewers to fully overview 15:23:10 kezike has joined #vcwg 15:23:14 ... that's what we're trying to address, to have it be a higher value security review 15:23:14 q+ 15:23:17 ack manu 15:23:17 manu, you wanted to ask if threat model replaces security/privacy considerations... what's needed for horizontal review? 15:23:25 ... if we at all can, we shouldn't refuse this opportunity 15:23:34 manu: I agree, we should transition to the Threat Modeling approach 15:23:59 ... Joe, I'm not sure if you saw my email to the security mailing list, asking -- if we're doing a Threat Modeling doc, do we ALSO need a Security Considerations section? 15:24:00 q+ 15:24:09 ... does a Threat Model meet the horizontal review reqs? 15:24:15 ... Simone responded, but it's unclear. 15:24:45 ... so, I'd like to assert -- I want us to write a Threat Model, and when we go to horiz review, neither Security nor PING should also ask for a Security Considerations 15:24:46 ack me 15:24:54 phila: that's my concern too 15:25:14 ... with so many docs in flight (which is a good thing) -- if we have to write one or more Threat Model docs before we write other ones, that's a lot of work 15:25:20 ... but on the other hand we want to avoid copying and pasting 15:25:26 ack JoeAndrieu 15:25:28 ... so, we do need that answer for Simone 15:25:38 JoeAndrieu1: haha yes sometimes it's confusing 15:26:19 q+ to ask "Can we put the threat model in the document itself?" 15:26:29 ... my understanding is -- from SING's perspective, you COULD simply have a Security Consideration section "go read the Threat Model" 15:26:40 ... I think it's more readable, for people reading the spec, if we contextualize that "go over there and read" a bit, with some paragraphs 15:26:46 ... like, mention tamper evidence with VCs, etc 15:27:01 ... I don't think there's a bottleneck, with the Threat Model docs 15:27:07 ... that's how we're dealing with it in the DID WG 15:27:15 ... so that will hopefully provide an example 15:27:30 ... other thing to add - I have JSON-ified the presentation layer in our DID Resolution Threat Model, 15:27:38 ... and we'll have a repo of that, which we can use as template 15:27:41 ... for consistent look and feel 15:27:58 Elnar has joined #vcwg 15:27:59 ... what we DON'T know is whether or not PING will accept privacy considerations in the format of a Threat Model 15:28:29 ... we think that the Threat Modeling guide can encompass privacy threats, but I haven't confirmed with PING yet 15:28:43 ... I'm hoping that if we go into the Threat Modeling doc with both Security and Privacy in mind, we can cover both 15:28:49 ack manu 15:28:49 manu, you wanted to ask "Can we put the threat model in the document itself?" 15:28:52 phila: SING is the Security Interest Group, PING is Privacy Interest Group 15:29:07 manu: the other question is - can we put the Privacy Threat Model as an appendix? 15:29:14 q+ to say yes 15:29:19 ... or do we need like 20 different separate documents (which could get out of control) 15:29:21 ack JoeAndrieu 15:29:21 JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say yes 15:29:46 q+ to tag as privacy threats and assert that's our privacy analysis 15:29:51 ack manu 15:29:51 manu, you wanted to tag as privacy threats and assert that's our privacy analysis 15:29:53 JoeAndrieu1: yes, absolutely. (when I made a sample Threat Model for the web as an example, I was shocked how long it became). But, an Appendix is a reasonable approach, it does not need to be a standalone note 15:30:13 manu: I think we should, in the threat model, tag some threats as Privacy Threats, and then treat that as our Privacy Considerations section 15:30:17 +1 to advance that proposal to PING 15:30:29 phila: I think you're right 15:30:37 ... that's partly why I'm constantly asking for wide review -- because it takes so long, to get the ball rolling 15:30:49 ... thank you. I will follow up with Simone 15:31:13 phila: ok, let's move on, I want to hear from other Task Forces 15:31:20 q+ 15:31:22 Subtopic: VCALM 15:31:27 ack PatStLouis 15:31:55 PatStLouis: I want to preface this by -- this is my first time being actively involved in W3C VC WG standard process. I've observed from outside, but welcome guidance and tips 15:31:59 phila: guidance: RUN WHILE YOU CAN 15:32:07 PatStLouis: ok, we had a good discussion yesterday 15:32:10 ... about the state of VCALM 15:32:29 ... a review of how the spec has been progressing 15:32:39 ... we voted on presenting a First Public Working Draft (and it was unanimous), but we want to vote here on the wider group 15:32:44 phila: do you prefer Patrick or Pat? 15:32:51 DPPSusanne has joined #vcwg 15:32:51 PatStLosuis: Patrick 15:33:11 phila: thanks Patrick. Next one: Barcodes 15:33:16 Subtopic: Barcodes and Data Integrity 15:33:20 ... would that be you, Elaine? 15:33:23 s/PatStLosuis:/PatStLouis:/ 15:33:31 Elaine: that is me -- yes, that's me and Wes 15:33:40 ... we'll do a poll on whether a different meeting day might be better 15:33:47 q+ 15:33:54 ... the draft is in good shape. 15:34:29 phila: to come back to what Patrick was just saying -- I'm well aware that both VCALM, Barcode and Data INtegrity task forces want to publish FPWDs 15:34:29 ... for input documents 15:34:29 ack wes-smith 15:34:31 ... ideally, what would happen now is that the full group would have a week at least to take a look at those documents 15:34:57 wes-smith: wrt readiness of wide review of the Barcode Spec -- the majority of the doc is ready for wide review, but there is one significant feature that the group needs to decide on, 15:35:10 ... and that's whether (and how) to add a Quantum-Resistant feature to the spec 15:35:13 ... the rest is just polish 15:35:34 phila: you should submit for wider review anyway. (once you submit, you won't hear for 8-12 weeks, so it might make sense to kick it off early) 15:35:46 wes-smith: ok, that's good to know. I'm not sure about right now, but we'll kick it off when the end is in sight 15:35:54 q? 15:36:14 phila: right, so, there's various TF resolutions to public input docs from the CCG as FPWDs 15:36:29 ... generally speaking, what would happen in such a transition is - this group would have at least a week to look at the docs, 15:36:47 ... these publications, although they're driven by a relatively small group of people working on the doc, they're made in the name of the full group 15:36:59 ... so whether or not your name is explicitly on the doc, as a participant of the WG, you're tied to the documents 15:37:17 ... so I think it's particularly important on various transition milestones (FPWD, CRs, etc) -- it needs to be a full WG decision 15:37:32 ... the reason I'm happy to shortcut this, in this particular case -- the docs we're talking about have been public for a very long time 15:37:44 ... they've been published by the CCG, they've been in the charter, etc, for a long time 15:37:53 ... so it's not like it's new text that just came into being 15:38:29 ... so, if we don't decide to publish FPWD, it'll be May before it happens 15:38:46 ... I'm well aware that if you're in a group like this, it's easy to be intimidated (lots of middle aged men, native speakers, strong opinions) 15:39:06 ... especially if you're a person who's naturally client. you may be wondering "can I argue with people?". Answer: yes, you can, please do 15:39:12 ... we will do everything we can to make you feel comfortable 15:39:22 ... the person with the loudest voice does not necessarily know more than you 15:39:24 +q 15:39:41 ack PatStLouis 15:39:44 ... please know that it's safe to make your opinion known, nobody is going to laugh or denigrate you. that's absolutely not how we work, and we wouldn't put up with it 15:40:14 PatStLouis: thank you for saying that. as somebody who's used to be very quiet in social settings, it's hard to voice your question, but many people will benefit from it 15:40:29 ... so, it resonates a lot 15:40:37 phila: thanks. So yes, whatever your background, if you have a question, just q plus in the chat 15:40:42 ... we want to hear from you 15:40:59 present+ 15:41:02 ... the Code of Conduct is there, but it's also deeper than that. your view is important. 15:41:20 ... ok, so, by publishing these docs as First Public Working Draft, that's a statement from everyone, from the whole group 15:41:52 q+ 15:41:53 q+ 15:42:00 ... my proposal (due to the fact that these docs have been out there for a long while now) is to accept these as input docs 15:42:02 ... any comments? 15:42:11 manu: thanks Phil, I'm very much aligned with everything 15:42:29 ... the other thing I want to make clear -- we don't have to agree with everything in FPWDs 15:42:35 ... it's just a statement "hey this is the general direction we're going with, what does the wider world think?" 15:42:43 ... but doesn't mean we agree with every word or sentence in there 15:42:55 +1 to the working draft being a statement of intent, not formal agreement 15:42:59 ivan: to go into details on FPWD publication thing 15:43:00 kezike has joined #vcwg 15:43:10 q+ to agree with ivan (probably) 15:43:14 q- later 15:43:16 ... for the Barcode doc, the title says "v.0.8" 15:43:24 ... I think we should publish it as v1.0 15:43:29 ... in my view 15:43:35 ... VCALM is fine, it's already 1.0 15:43:43 DPPSusanne has joined #vcwg 15:43:44 ack ivan 15:43:44 ... in both docs, we have to decide on the "shortname" 15:43:59 ... we have already shortnames "vc-barcode" and "vc-vcalm" 15:44:14 not vc-vcalm -- just vcalm 15:44:14 ... er sorry, just "vcalm" 15:44:29 ... but I wonder if we should include the version number in the shortname 15:44:35 not "vc-barcode" ... "vc-barcodes" :) 15:44:50 ... I realize that previously, for 1.0, we had version-less shortname. and I want to avoid that 15:44:59 ack manu 15:44:59 manu, you wanted to agree with ivan (probably) 15:45:21 manu: +1 to ivan's suggestions, we should have a dash version number in the shortname 15:45:26 DPPSusanne has joined #vcwg 15:45:43 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The WG endorses the resolutions passed by the barcodes and data integrity task force, and the VCALM task force (see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2026Apr/0028.html) 15:45:44 manu: I want to make sure we get the shortnames right. it's "vc-barcodes" with an s, and "vcalm" 15:46:00 phila: given what you just said, do you want to amend the text of the resolution? 15:46:25 Elaine has joined #VCWG 15:46:27 ... ok, manu or ivan, please create the text for the resolution that includes the shortnames 15:46:39 ... next, I want to talk about a new subgroup/task force, about Vocabularies 15:46:47 subtopic: Entity Recognition 15:46:48 q+ 15:46:53 ... oh but first let's talk about Entity Recognition TF 15:47:06 ... there was a long discussion about the task force name itself. (and the document title, and the Shortname) 15:47:12 ack ivan 15:47:15 ... we're not quite ready, still discussing 15:47:28 ivan: just reminding - we have a resolution from the Barcode Group, about the DI and Cryptosuite publishing 15:47:37 ... we have to have separate explicit resolutions for each doc 15:47:43 phila: right, that's the bit manu is working on 15:47:46 Subtopic: Vocabulary 15:47:53 phila: ok, so I want to talk about the yet-to-be-formed Vocab TF 15:48:09 ... several people joined W3C to work on that 15:48:31 ... Susanne, plus some other people not on the call currently, 15:48:44 ... Susanne, do you want to say a few words? 15:48:57 Susanne: thank you. what we need is to put together a base Passport vocabulary 15:49:08 ... for various products, certificates 15:49:16 ... Digital Product passport 15:49:17 +q 15:49:22 ... and conformative credentials 15:49:31 ... derived from Digital Product Passport 15:49:40 ... we have restrictions from all over the world 15:50:06 ... VCs luckily became one of the formats that Digital Passports can be issued in, so we need to work out the vocab / semantics 15:50:22 ack PatStLouis 15:50:29 phila: one of the people in the Entity Recognition TF was Steve Capell, who was the leader in the UN protocol work 15:50:50 PatStLouis: so the UNTP spec already has some terms / vocab for related things 15:51:04 ... is this something we want to redefine at W3C, or can we reuse UNTP? Or give to UNTP to publish? 15:51:10 ... basically, I don't want to split the work 15:51:13 ... or step on toes 15:51:41 Susanne: I've also been working with UNTP for the past few years. The only home we had for VCs for Digital Passports was UNTP for a while, 15:51:50 ... of course we don't want any divergence between us here and UNTP 15:52:40 phila: agreed. I want to point to an example of your concern being addressed (the thing you're worried about DIDN'T happen) 15:52:50 ... and that's the https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/ spec 15:53:08 ... what it says is "use Dublin Core" or similar existing vocabularies, and only define new things 15:53:23 ... so that's my expectation here too. what the W3C work will say is "you see the existing UNTP work, use that" 15:53:55 phila: the other thing I want to ask people about is -- 15:54:06 Topic: GDC 2026 15:54:20 https://globaldigitalcollaboration.org 15:54:27 maybe 15:54:29 ... is anyone going to GDC 2026 in Geneva in Sept? 15:54:35 Susanne: is that the Identity Conference? 15:54:46 phila: it's the Global Digital Collaboration conf, lots of work on wallets, credentials, etc 15:54:49 Maybe - I went to the first. Still determining if I can make the next. 15:54:51 ... it was in July last year 15:55:03 I may or may not. 15:55:06 Susanne: I'm not sure, I will look 15:55:14 q+ 15:55:17 phila: ok, just wanted to mention it, it looks important 15:55:17 ack JoeAndrieu1 15:55:24 ack JoeAndrieu 15:55:27 JoeAndrieu1: it was pretty amazing last years, lot of perspectives from parties around the world 15:55:35 ... I have a potential conflict, so I'm a 'maybe' right now 15:55:37 Topic: Resolutions 15:55:39 DPPSusanne has joined #vcwg 15:55:49 phila: ok, let's talk about the resolutions, over to ivan and manu 15:56:09 +1 15:56:11 PROPOSAL: Publish the VC API for Lifecycle Management v1.0 specification (https://w3c.github.io/vcalm/) as a First Public Working Draft using 'vcalm-1.0' as the shortname. 15:56:11 DPPSusanne has joined #vcwg 15:56:11 +1 15:56:14 ... these are the things that were passed by the relevant Task Forces yesterday, so this is to ratify 15:56:15 +1 15:56:15 +1 15:56:16 +1 15:56:16 +1 15:56:17 +1 15:56:18 +1 15:56:18 +1 15:56:18 +1 15:56:18 +1 15:56:19 +1 15:56:21 +1 15:56:24 +1 15:56:25 +1 15:56:27 +1 15:56:29 +1 15:56:29 +1 15:56:41 phila: thank you, manu, consider that one done! 15:56:42 Parth has joined #vcwg 15:56:43 RESOLUTION: Publish the VC API for Lifecycle Management v1.0 specification (https://w3c.github.io/vcalm/) as a First Public Working Draft using 'vcalm-1.0' as the shortname. 15:56:49 PROPOSAL: Move the Verifiable Credential Barcodes v1.0 specification https://w3c.github.io/vc-barcodes/ to First Public Working Draft, with short name "vc-barcodes-1.0". 15:56:51 +1 15:56:52 +1 15:56:53 +1 15:56:53 +1 15:56:54 +1 15:56:54 +1 15:56:54 +1 15:56:54 +1 15:56:55 +1 15:56:55 +1 15:56:55 +1 15:56:56 +1 15:56:56 +1 15:56:56 +1 15:56:58 +1 15:56:58 +1 15:56:59 +1 15:57:01 +1 15:57:12 phila: as always, don't feel pressured on this, speak up if dont agree 15:57:13 elnar has joined #vcwg 15:57:20 RESOLUTION: Move the Verifiable Credential Barcodes v1.0 specification https://w3c.github.io/vc-barcodes/ to First Public Working Draft, with short name "vc-barcodes-1.0". 15:57:27 PROPOSAL: Publish the Verifiable Credential Data Integrity v1.1 specification (https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-integrity/), Data Integrity ECDSA Cryptosuites v1.1 (https://w3c.github.io/vc-di-ecdsa/), and Data Integrity EdDSA Cryptosuites v1.1 (https://w3c.github.io/vc-di-eddsa/) specifications as v1.1 First Public Working Drafts with short names "vc-data-integrity-1.1", "vc-di-ecdsa-1.1", and "vc-di-eddsa-1.1" respectively. 15:57:30 +1 15:57:30 +1 15:57:31 +1 15:57:31