14:37:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
14:37:58 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/07/01-vcwg-irc
14:37:58 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:37:59 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:38:15 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
14:38:15 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/d811d954-dd65-4cce-844a-53dfd95e75c7/20260701T110000/
14:38:15 <ivan> chair: brentz
14:38:15 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2026-07-01: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/d811d954-dd65-4cce-844a-53dfd95e75c7/20260701T110000/
14:38:18 <ivan> regrets: phila
14:58:42 <phila> phila has joined #vcwg
14:59:43 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg
15:00:26 <IvoLadenius> IvoLadenius has joined #vcwg
15:00:33 <ivan> s/regrets: phila//
15:00:38 <ivan> present+
15:00:44 <ivan> present+ phila
15:00:53 <hsano> present+
15:01:00 <ivan> present+ michaelshea
15:01:06 <ivan> chair+ phila
15:01:12 <IvoLadenius> present+
15:01:26 <ivan> regrets{
15:01:29 <michaelshea> michaelshea has joined #vcwg
15:01:36 <ivan> regrets+ brentz
15:01:44 <ivan> chair: phila
15:02:09 <ivan> present+ Blomqvist
15:02:15 <wes-smith> wes-smith has joined #vcwg
15:02:36 <ivan> present+ wes-smith
15:02:43 <pdl-ASU> pdl-ASU has joined #vcwg
15:02:47 <pdl-ASU> present+
15:02:59 <ivan> present+ TallTed
15:03:18 <ivan> present+ joe
15:03:31 <Eva> Eva has joined #vcwg
15:04:25 <ivan> present+ kezike
15:04:26 <dlongley> present+
15:04:38 <ivan> present+ carolynn
15:04:59 <ivan> present+ elaine
15:05:11 <Carolynn> Carolynn has joined #vcwg
15:05:14 <ivan> present+ ted
15:05:50 <kezike> kezike has joined #vcwg
15:06:07 <ivan> present+ dlongley
15:06:09 <kezike> present+
15:07:07 <phila> Topic: Task Forces update
15:07:34 <ivan> present+ Henrique
15:09:29 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
15:09:33 <JoeAndrieu> scribe+
15:09:35 <hsxavier> hsxavier has joined #vcwg
15:09:44 <Elaine> Elaine has joined #vcwg
15:09:45 <JoeAndrieu> phila: task force check ins
15:10:17 <JoeAndrieu> ... posted about the doc. its getting responses
15:10:27 <JoeAndrieu> phila: anyone else from task forces?
15:10:39 <JoeAndrieu> phila: moving on
15:11:04 <phila> Topic: Housekeeping
15:11:05 <JoeAndrieu> phila: housekeeping. Several documents we are maintaining as a group, not assigned to any particular task force
15:11:09 <phila> Subtopic: CID
15:11:11 <phila> https://github.com/w3c/cid/issues
15:11:26 <JoeAndrieu> phila: the issue list for CID doc, there are 17 open issues and two PRs
15:11:37 <JoeAndrieu> ... Joe added on a couple months ago.
15:11:51 <dlongley> scribe+
15:11:52 <JoeAndrieu> ... Do we care? Do we have the capacity to handle that?
15:12:05 <dlongley> phila: You raised issues in the recent past, can you say your views of CID?
15:12:10 <dlongley> JoeAndrieu: Good question.
15:13:45 <JoeAndrieu> phila: the only way, IMO, for that to move forward is new editors. Mike Jones, Drummond, Christopher Allen, Markus, the people involved aren't as involved any more.
15:13:50 <dlongley> scribe-
15:13:56 <JoeAndrieu> ... unless we get someone to step up, I'm not sure how we handle it.
15:14:22 <JoeAndrieu> ... I don't think we can formally deprecate, but that doesn't mean it has to be high priority
15:14:45 <ivan> present+ dmitriz
15:14:52 <JoeAndrieu> ... For this one, CID, we recognize its important. I wish we had time to do it, but we haven't.
15:14:54 <ivan> q+
15:15:03 <phila> ack ivan
15:15:06 <JoeAndrieu> ... So until we have an editor or otherwise it becomes important, it'll just sit there.
15:15:25 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: are there any issues that point to a bug?
15:15:40 <JoeAndrieu> ... our hands are tied a bit
15:15:48 <JoeAndrieu> phila: there is one issue, #166
15:15:50 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #vcwg
15:15:51 <phila> Issue #166 https://github.com/w3c/cid/issues/166
15:15:55 <JennieM> present+
15:15:56 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
15:16:06 <JoeAndrieu> ... That one is marked as possible errata. Raised by possible errata
15:16:20 <dmitriz> my question would be -- are there ANY implementations of CIDs in VC libraries currently? like, do we know of any software that issues or verifies CIDs?
15:16:23 <JoeAndrieu> ... There are a lot listed as class 2 and class 3
15:16:44 <JoeAndrieu> ... so pchampin has raised a couple errors
15:16:58 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: if it's class 2 we can handle it, but someone needs to
15:17:04 <dlongley> CID is now a base document for DIDs, IIRC.
15:17:31 <JoeAndrieu> ... I'm surprised. There were some alternatives in those digests. The editing process was doing it automatically.
15:17:47 <JoeAndrieu> dlongley: I'd have to look into that more closely
15:17:59 <dlongley> q+
15:18:00 <JoeAndrieu> phila: seems like this is important
15:18:04 <phila> ack dlongley
15:18:31 <JoeAndrieu> dlongley: I'm trying to remember the context. We moved a number of things into the CID, then started relying on CID, specifically for DIDs, as a profile of CID
15:18:32 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #vcwg
15:18:41 <JoeAndrieu> ... So I do think maintenance is important.
15:18:50 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to suggest transfer
15:18:53 <phila> ack JoeAndrieu
15:18:53 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to suggest transfer
15:19:02 <dlongley> scribe+
15:19:43 <dlongley> JoeAndrieu: I agree with Dave Longley, we did bake this in -- we did have the DID spec depend on CIDs. I think the right thing is to figure out how to transfer it. That might depend on a future rechartering. It feels like the folks working on the spec need it to be maintained.
15:19:44 <dlongley> q+
15:19:47 <ivan> present+ bigbluehat
15:20:01 <phila> ack dlongley
15:20:09 <JoeAndrieu> phila: I thought about the DID WG, but it is also resource constrained
15:20:36 <JoeAndrieu> dlongley: there are some definitions in CID that are used in Data Integrity
15:20:59 <phila> q?
15:21:10 <JoeAndrieu> ... not clear if its any easier for either DIDWG or VCWG to manage that. Maybe what we should need is a third group focused on data integrity
15:21:13 <TallTed> q+
15:21:17 <phila> ack TallTed
15:21:19 <JoeAndrieu> phila: seems unfortunate.
15:21:32 <JoeAndrieu> TallTed: part of the challenge is how these documents came to be.
15:21:54 <JoeAndrieu> ... we initiated some of these in this group. We initiated the CID document because at that time the DIDWG didn't allow it.
15:22:03 <ivan> q+
15:22:15 <JoeAndrieu> ... And we realized we needed to revise. But the hand off didn't happen. That's what I recall.
15:22:35 <phila> ack ivan
15:22:41 <JoeAndrieu> ... We originated stuff for other groups that couldn't take it on.
15:22:51 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: Ted is correct, but incomplete.
15:23:14 <JoeAndrieu> ... one of the problems was that there was a normative dependency suggested, which was opposed.
15:23:31 <TallTed> +1 ivan's recollection of JOSE-COSE complicating matters is correct
15:23:35 <JoeAndrieu> ... so we created CIDs to avoid this (JOSE COSE) dependency on Data Integrity
15:23:58 <JoeAndrieu> ... So... merging things into DID document might lead to ugly discussions that will take us back to that political debate from years ago.
15:24:12 <JoeAndrieu> ... So, the CID document probable needs to stay with us.
15:24:21 <JoeAndrieu> phila: We have a problem, then, that needs to be resolved
15:24:51 <JoeAndrieu> ... First question: does anybody have the time to look that those issues and consider putting their hand up as editor, noting that we can only make Class 1 and Class 2 changes.
15:25:11 <JoeAndrieu> ... only maintenance changes. Not deriving a whole new set of things. So, a relatively small ask.
15:25:26 <JoeAndrieu> ... If anyone has the time & interest to learn how to edit a spec, this might be a good fit.
15:25:42 <JoeAndrieu> ... Everyone in the group with experience is happy to help. This could be a good starter editor role.
15:26:00 <JoeAndrieu> ... Now would be a great time to raise your hand.
15:26:33 <JoeAndrieu> michaelshea: I'm interested, but I'll need guidance on what's the right answer to the issues
15:26:47 <JoeAndrieu> phila: You will get plenty of feedback and help
15:27:01 <ivan> q+
15:27:04 <JoeAndrieu> michaelshea: I have not edited before
15:27:07 <phila> ack ivan]
15:27:36 <bigbluehat> q+
15:27:41 <phila> ack ivan
15:27:46 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: For Michael, I repeat a question: Benjamin, isn't it true that the hash digest values in documents were automatically created by some magic, rather than manual?
15:27:59 <phila> ack bigbluehat
15:28:04 <JoeAndrieu> ... Because there is an incorrect value. So can we figured out why?
15:28:23 <JoeAndrieu> bigbluehat: I'm not the one to generate those, but I'm happy to research and figure it out.
15:28:53 <JoeAndrieu> ... This is in the CID spec?
15:29:16 <JoeAndrieu> phila: To recap: the CID document is one that we have for legacy reasons. But nobody is chartered to look after it.
15:29:32 <JoeAndrieu> ... It exists because of a bunch of compromises, but its on our plate.
15:29:40 <JoeAndrieu> ... No task force is focused on it
15:30:04 <JoeAndrieu> ... But is seems other documents need to refer to it. So we should look after it, as much as our charter allows (class 1 and class 2)
15:30:25 <JoeAndrieu> ... We are greatful for Michael Shea to take a look
15:30:35 <ivan> q+
15:30:35 <JoeAndrieu> ... This might become his first editor role
15:30:39 <phila> ack ivan
15:30:58 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: I was wondering, are the multikeys part of this spec or are they just examples?
15:31:24 <JoeAndrieu> ... one thing that came up in DI Task force, related to multibase.
15:31:27 <dlongley> q+
15:31:34 <phila> ack dlongley
15:31:39 <JoeAndrieu> ... if we need multi-key definition added, that's a bit more work.
15:31:49 <JoeAndrieu> dlongley: yes, the multikey is in the CID spec
15:31:58 <JoeAndrieu> ... that should just be a few additions to a table
15:32:21 <JoeAndrieu> ... Thats one of many things that are in the CID spec and relied on elsewhere
15:32:48 <JoeAndrieu> phila: Dave, would you consider those Class 1/2 change or are we straying into Class 3.
15:33:04 <ivan> +1 dlongley
15:33:11 <JoeAndrieu> dlongley: it's true that there are new things in our new specs. it's just a question of where they go.
15:33:25 <JoeAndrieu> phila: is the DID WG expecting to recharter?
15:34:11 <JoeAndrieu> ... ok, That's CID. That was one of seven that the group is meant to be maintaining
15:34:33 <phila> Subtopic: Bit String Status List
15:34:41 <JoeAndrieu> ... The next topic: bitstring status list
15:34:46 <phila> https://github.com/w3c/vc-bitstring-status-list/issues
15:34:57 <JoeAndrieu> ... This is important. It went to rec not that long ago. Nine open issues.
15:35:37 <JoeAndrieu> ... One is broken links. Manu opened one. A bunch of what look like minor things. Except for Kyle Den Hartogs from last spring
15:35:59 <JoeAndrieu> ... So what we must do? Can do? What is reasonable to do?
15:36:11 <JoeAndrieu> ... Mike Prorock and Mahmoud are no longer active.
15:36:21 <JoeAndrieu> ... Dave and Manu are, but they have a lot of work on their plate.
15:36:33 <JoeAndrieu> ... Dave, does that issue list fill you with dread?
15:36:54 <ivan> present+ jennie
15:36:54 <JoeAndrieu> dlongley: It doesn't fill me with dread, but I also don't have the couple of hours to take a review on
15:37:07 <JoeAndrieu> ... Looks like mostly editorial.
15:37:24 <JoeAndrieu> ... Kyle's suggestion would be a bigger lift. We'd need someone to step up for that.
15:37:31 <JoeAndrieu> ... Doesn't look horrible, just clarifications and clean up.
15:37:45 <JoeAndrieu> phila: I can't see anything jumping out saying "You need to fix this right now!"
15:38:00 <JoeAndrieu> ... tempted to tag them all with next iteration
15:38:24 <JoeAndrieu> ... Does anyone disagree that this needs immediate attention?
15:38:31 <JoeAndrieu> dlongley: I don't think there are any emergencies
15:38:37 <JoeAndrieu> +1 to no emergencies right now
15:38:58 <JoeAndrieu> phila: Is there an unofficial way to say "we're a bit busy, but we aren't actively working on this spec"
15:39:04 <JoeAndrieu> ... can we put something like that on the ReadMe
15:39:23 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: If that's the reality, there is no shame to saying that we are focused on other things
15:39:35 <JoeAndrieu> phila: Thing is, if someone does find something serious, we can act on it.
15:39:46 <JoeAndrieu> ... but if its something that can wait, we're going to wait.
15:40:13 <JoeAndrieu> ... So, I'll look at the issues in more depth and triage, with a note on each explaining where we are at.
15:40:32 <phila> Subtopic: VCDM 2.1
15:40:35 <JoeAndrieu> ... The big one is VCDM 2.1
15:40:48 <JoeAndrieu> ... This is something we're going to have to think about.
15:41:03 <ivan> q+
15:41:06 <JoeAndrieu> ... Ten open issues and one pull request. Some issues are Class 4. Some class 2.
15:41:14 <JoeAndrieu> ... We published an FPWD
15:41:22 <phila> ack ivan
15:41:27 <JoeAndrieu> ... had some discussion about deprecating DigestSRI
15:41:42 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: this is a place where the class story is irrelevant.
15:41:56 <JoeAndrieu> ... this will have to go through the normal approval process
15:42:07 <JoeAndrieu> phila: the editors here are Manu, Ted, and Ivan.
15:42:30 <TallTed> q+
15:42:34 <JoeAndrieu> ... active members of the group. There are active issues. and An active PR (the DigestSRI deprecation)
15:42:41 <JoeAndrieu> phila: Ted how are you on this?
15:42:45 <phila> ack TallTed
15:42:58 <JoeAndrieu> TallTed: My listing there is more work that has been done that prospective edits in the future
15:43:21 <JoeAndrieu> s/that prospective/than prospective/
15:43:25 <JoeAndrieu> phila: Ivan?
15:43:45 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: Same problem. My hands are full. But I know the Manu is overrun, but this is a case where Manu has to run that.
15:43:58 <JoeAndrieu> ... He's probably the only guy who has a view of the entire document to manage this.
15:44:23 <JoeAndrieu> ... Ted did a bunch of editorial changes. I did a bunch in specific sections. But this is where Manu has to speak up
15:44:30 <dlongley> q+
15:44:32 <JoeAndrieu> ... That's the document where I would be uneasy touching
15:45:09 <phila> ack dlongley
15:45:09 <JoeAndrieu> ... This isn't going to go away. This is 2.1.
15:45:26 <JoeAndrieu> dlongley: the other comment I want to make, the document is largely complete and designed to be extensible.
15:45:37 <JoeAndrieu> ... The design is to put specifics in other documents.
15:45:46 <JoeAndrieu> ... So that's a pressure release valve.
15:45:56 <ivan> q+
15:45:59 <phila> ack ivan
15:46:22 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: To take renderMethod and confidenceMethod, we have an open issue. IMO, those things should be removed from VCDM altogether.
15:46:28 <JoeAndrieu> ... There are things that we can take out.
15:46:29 <dlongley> +1 for using the extension model and simplify the VCDM
15:46:39 <JoeAndrieu> +1 to lean into extensions
15:46:50 <JoeAndrieu> phila: this is one where we need Manu's time
15:46:57 <pdl-ASU> +1 for taking out the things active TFs are doing good work on.
15:47:01 <JoeAndrieu> ... I'm sure he would welcome additional help.
15:47:16 <JoeAndrieu> ... If you'd like to be a co-editor, this is another opportunity for folks to volunteer
15:47:34 <phila> Subtopic: Implementation Guide
15:47:35 <JoeAndrieu> ... The implementation guide. #9 on the agenda today
15:47:42 <phila> https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide
15:47:55 <JoeAndrieu> ... This is one that currently has 17 open issues. These are historic.
15:48:22 <JoeAndrieu> ... Going back to previous charter. PRs that exist. One from JonnyCrunch, from 7 years ago tomorrow.
15:48:39 <JoeAndrieu> ... Clearly this is not under active development. but we refer to this document in the VCDM
15:48:59 <JoeAndrieu> ... And at least two from this year. Going back to '23
15:49:08 <JoeAndrieu> ... So, who on earth is going to have time to spend on this.
15:49:24 <dmitriz> how important is it to the group?
15:49:25 <JoeAndrieu> ... Original editor:  Andre Sandberg(?)
15:49:57 <ivan> s/Sandberg(?)/Sambra/
15:49:58 <JoeAndrieu> s/Sandberg/Sambra
15:50:17 <JoeAndrieu> phila: we need someone to write the book about VCs
15:50:32 <JoeAndrieu> phila: no one is going to look at this any time now
15:51:00 <JoeAndrieu> ... I'm just going to add a note in the read me saying that this is not under active development
15:51:21 <JoeAndrieu> ... I'm currently in a middle of creating a Word Doc version of VCDM 2 that will go to ISO.
15:51:37 <JoeAndrieu> ... I noticed lots of references within VCDM2 that point to implementation guide.
15:51:57 <JoeAndrieu> ... I'm not saying we have time to do it, but is not unimportant. People rely on implementation guides.
15:52:04 <JoeAndrieu> ... It is needed.
15:52:20 <JoeAndrieu> ... So we might have to come back to this, after we finish the work we are actively working on now.
15:52:36 <JoeAndrieu> ... but maybe later this calendar year, once we get some of our specs to CR
15:52:43 <ivan> q+
15:52:46 <phila> ack ivan
15:53:11 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: I am busy doing a 1.1 version of the overview, that folds in all the documents that we've been working on
15:53:23 <JoeAndrieu> ... maybe readable in a few weeks
15:53:31 <phila> subtopic: VCDM test suite
15:53:54 <JoeAndrieu> phila: That currently has a number of open issues. 17 open issues.
15:54:05 <JoeAndrieu> ... some go back a couple years. Newest is less than a year old.
15:54:33 <JoeAndrieu> bigbluehat: A lot what's going on now, in terms of PRs, is dealing with the bitrot that happens.
15:54:40 <JoeAndrieu> ... upgrading dependencies.
15:54:49 <JoeAndrieu> ... Related is the canivc dashboard.
15:55:08 <JoeAndrieu> ... That is gradually moving to W3C as a new open source project.
15:55:20 <JoeAndrieu> ... That is a predominant interface for making sure that you pass and promoting that you pass.
15:55:26 <dlongley> https://canivc.com/
15:55:53 <JoeAndrieu> ... The specs have driven the test suites. The hope is that coupling the dashboard with canivc would let us keep an eye on this whole set of things
15:56:07 <JoeAndrieu> ... The state of play for July 2026 is that we are prepping the house for that migration.
15:56:26 <JoeAndrieu> ... Trying to get all the dependencies are up to snuff for when new tests come in.
15:56:44 <JoeAndrieu> ... The bigger piece  of work is comparing the new spec to see what tests might need to be added/removed/updated.
15:56:59 <JoeAndrieu> ... Hopefully with the dashboard moving to W3C will encourage others to contribute
15:57:09 <JoeAndrieu> ... It a useful thing and we'd love people to join us.
15:57:30 <bigbluehat> q+
15:57:32 <JoeAndrieu> phila: Is *the* test suite aware of what's happening with renderMethod, confidenceMethod, etc?
15:57:38 <phila> ack bigbluehat
15:57:57 <JoeAndrieu> bigbluehat: I kind of feel they have two options. All TR specs must have two implementers and the test suite is how we prove that.
15:58:11 <ivan> q+
15:58:29 <JoeAndrieu> ... So where those tests live is not subjective. Must be a w3c repo, but a test suite can address multiple specs. But how we mix it in might become cumbersome.
15:58:47 <JoeAndrieu> ... We have tried to make the core of the test suite a template so you can make new test suites simply
15:58:55 <phila> ack ivan
15:59:09 <JoeAndrieu> ... Other task force specs like rendermethod is radically different
15:59:22 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: no problem with the same test suite for multiple specs
15:59:36 <JoeAndrieu> phila: thanks everyone.
16:00:14 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:00:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/07/01-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
16:00:30 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
16:00:30 <RRSAgent> I see no action items