Meeting minutes
@brentz covers admin and agenda
<brent> Tracker Doc: https://
manu: reviews need to proceed with horizontal review - we are behind schedule
<manu> s/manu reviews/manu: reviews/
dmitriz: asked to review PR1629
Task Force Updates
<michaelshea> michaelshea+
wes-smith: progress on barcode spec, threat models is good
<denkeni> w3c/
<denkeni> https://
denkeni: issue whether to quote ISO or other policies
<ivan> qq
brent: guidance from council is to avoid it unless necessary - just because there's a cost doesn't mean others can't obtain it
ivan: is there a public text? answer is yes
<Zakim> kezike, you wanted to provide update for VCALM TF
kezike: VCALM - threat model merged / new test suite repo just merged in yesterday - over last month, worked to classify issues - will proceed with focusing on issues that are blockers for candidate rec
<manu> w3c/
<phila> I found the W3C Council Report on the Formal Objection to the use of Normative References to ISO/IEC 18013-7 Annex C in the Digital Credentials API specification which is at https://
manu: re vc data model - there's now a threat model - please review. Will speak to status list and some post quantum stuff. There's also a data integrity threat model that is hoped will work for other related specs. Large number of threats will layer on top of that base. The threat models have broken the preview mode. working with Ivan to fix
it.
<brent> FO Council Report related to referencing ISO specs: https://
dmitriz: render method - have compressed road map to get to horizontal review - consensus on 3 categories - asks group for feedback about meeting frequency which is currently every other week - proposes each week to get to review
<manu> Yes, let's please meet every week for Render Method -- we need more time on spec to get it to horizontal review.
olvisgil: regarding deliverables tracker - suggests new item - verifiable credential for payment rails
wrong person - olvisgil
group agrees every week is available for render method - dmitriz can update calendar
<manu> We really need to move the render method forward faster, would prefer not to delay until after August.
<dlongley> +1
@ivan: perhaps wait until September to change render method meeting frequency / group agrees weekly is needed sooner
Placing the new terms in vocabularies and context files
<brent> w3c/
brent: next topic new terms in vocabulary
<ivan> https://
ivan: number of TFs need update of context file - render method (already exists as a class), also confidence method Bitstring is here because there may be a new version due to barcode TF work. Current situation is that bitstring status list has its own vocabulary.
<manu> Agree with Ivan's proposal for render, confidence, bitstring... possibly disagree with forgery defense (should probably go in status), recognized entities (should probably go in VCDM), don't have a strong opinion about barcodes, but Wes might.
ivan: for forgery defence - follow the same model
<dlongley> forgery defense could also potentially go into the security vocab
<manu> agree ^
<dlongley> we've previously offered individual contexts and a "batteries included" context, i think we should probably keep doing that
@ivan: for recognized entities - should have separate context file not just build on VC / same with barcodes
ivan: other option is to fold into the rest of the VCDM - need to discuss and make a decision
@ivan: once decision is made, then can set up framing and then repository
brent: reviews manu's IRC comments regarding Ivan's proposal
dlongley: previously had individual contexts - useful for those who need them / not related to vocabularies - need to continue that conversation
brent: I will trust the experts on this
phila: checking in re longley - can have the individual contexts PLUS an overarching one?
dlongley: yes
@ivan: I am not sure about this because of messaging -
dlongley: agree with ivan on this piece - if creating specific credentials of different types - that's a new context / using components of existing spec is not
group - discussions will continue
deprecate digest sri - but parties are absent
DigestSRI
dlongley: believe we cannot use a copy of something that's in another spec without processing rules applying
dmitriz: goal for the PR was "now what?" - have reasoning for deprecating digest SRI / manu and shigeya prior conversation - no consensus and Shigeya's concerns are not addressed.
brent: if not resolved by TPAC - seek consensus there / doesn't feel urgent
<dlongley> hopefully a "this is deprecated and language that says other specs shouldn't use it, but it won't be removed, it will still be in the next context, etc." is a good compromise
ivan: brent is now the master of the process - which doesn't have the term "deprecate" as such. This is more like we have it - if you use it, has to be this way - but don't use it. The process is unclear.
dlongley: idea is to keep it in the next version of the context - keep it around but with clearer guidance
<ivan> re deprecation: https://
This is issue 1628
TPAC
brent: please register for TPAC / WG meetings thursday and Friday with Friday shorter / Will be a Tuesday joint session with payments and DC API - all invited
<brent> https://
brent: planning to talk about CR and about CR / if there are other topics, let Brent know
Request to amend short URL for confidence method
<denkeni> https://
<Zakim> Request, you wanted to amend short URL for confidence method
sorry - lost power
i am back
dlongley: maybe expand confidence method to include assurance levels - then does the name need to change / need to discuss in task force but there was no meeting last week
<denkeni> +1 to have more discussion in the task force
ivan: WG must have formal resolution to change short name / then need review as if it is an actual new working draft. Used to be a bigger pain. But now still needs to be done manually - requires actions by Ivan and the working group and editors. Extra work.
ivan: the title can be changed - it's the short name that's an issue
<Zakim> phila, you wanted to chip in if time allows
brent: new VC overview doc - please review / confidence method TF - come back with decision
<dlongley> +1 to phil, i feel similarly.
phila: confidence is too broad
<ivan> new version of overview
michaelshea: mike jones is listed as an owner for the CID repo / if not involved anymore, what needs to happen
brent: I will change it
<Olvisgil> Thank you so much!
brent: good work