13:00:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
13:01:04 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/09/23-vcwg-irc
13:01:04 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:01:05 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
13:01:16 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
13:01:16 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2026Sep/0058.html
13:01:16 <ivan> chair: phila
13:01:16 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2026-09-23: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2026Sep/0058.html
15:00:22 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg
15:00:37 <phila> phila has joined #vcwg
15:00:44 <Antony> Antony has joined #vcwg
15:00:46 <phila> present+
15:00:51 <Antony> present+
15:01:10 <hsano> present+
15:01:10 <brent> brent has joined #vcwg
15:02:10 <wes-smith> wes-smith has joined #vcwg
15:02:18 <pdl-ASU> pdl-ASU has joined #vcwg
15:02:27 <pdl-ASU> present+
15:02:30 <dlongley> present+
15:02:42 <Elaine> Elaine has joined #vcwg
15:02:42 <michaelshea> michaelshea has joined #vcwg
15:02:44 <TallTed> present+
15:02:56 <Elaine> present+
15:03:04 <manu> present+
15:03:04 <michaelshea> present+
15:03:24 <brent> https://www.w3.org/register/tpac2026/registrants
15:03:30 <kezike> kezike has joined #vcwg
15:03:31 <brent> present+
15:03:43 <brent> scribe+
15:03:52 <ivan> present+
15:03:53 <kezike> present+
15:03:56 <brent> Topic: Introductions
15:04:07 <brent> Antony: Hello
15:04:22 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #vcwg
15:04:23 <michaelshea> zoom link?
15:04:34 <JennieM> present+
15:04:37 <ivan> rrsagent, who is here?
15:04:37 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'who is here?', ivan.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:04:46 <brent> phila: reviewing agenda, nothing one additional topic (DC-API)
15:04:47 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
15:04:47 <Zakim> Present: phila, Antony, hsano, pdl-ASU, dlongley, TallTed, Elaine, manu, michaelshea, brent, ivan, kezike, JennieM
15:04:49 <Zakim> On IRC I see JennieM, kezike, michaelshea, Elaine, pdl-ASU, brent, Antony, phila, hsano, RRSAgent, Zakim, TallTed, klea, simone, hadleybeeman, ivan, pchampin, jyasskin, shigeya,
15:04:49 <Zakim> ... manu, dlehn, dlongley, cel
15:05:08 <wes-smith> wes-smith has joined #vcwg
15:05:11 <brent> Topic: Task Force Updates
15:05:24 <ivan> present+ wes-smith
15:05:39 <ivan> present+ michaelshea
15:05:56 <brent> manu: DI, Barcodes, Bitsring, Forgery Defense are all making progress
15:06:16 <ivan> present+ Antony
15:06:45 <brent> ... One request: BBS specification at W3C is relying on IRTF Crypto forum. That spec is not progressing, not a lot of author involvement
15:06:52 <ivan> present+ jimr
15:06:54 <kezike> q+ to provide update for VCALM TF
15:07:43 <brent> ... this is a big risk for us. Greg is in the VCWG, has good relationships with the BBS Authors. Greg has volunteered to help push things forward.
15:07:59 <kezike> s/IRTF/IETF/
15:08:00 <brent> ... Could we resolve to ask the IETF to add Greg as an author.
15:08:05 <brent> qq+
15:08:18 <brent> ... everything else is going well
15:08:27 <manu> scribe+
15:08:28 <wes-smith> scribe+
15:08:33 <phila> ack brent
15:08:33 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to react to a previous speaker
15:08:36 <manu> scribe-
15:09:43 <wes-smith> brent: I agree that greg should be added as an author - this group passing a resolution asking the IETF to add someone as an author would be unusual, and I'm not sure that the IETF would know how to respond to such a resolution. Though not quite as decisive, it could be more effective to get the existing authors to add him as an author. Even
15:09:43 <wes-smith> without him added as an author, he can fill the role that he is currently filling.
15:10:02 <manu> q+
15:10:18 <brent> phila: I was a bit surprised to hear we might make a resolution for this
15:11:00 <wes-smith> ivan: I have not heard of this and of resolution, but I also have not run into this problem. What we could do is that the WG could agree that this is what needs to happen, but without passing a formal resolution, and with that we could talk to the liaisons to the IETF.
15:11:11 <brent> ivan: I'm not familiar, I don't know. What we could do is agree on what would be good to happen and talk to Simone and Philippe who are the liaisons
15:11:14 <JimR> JimR has joined #vcwg
15:11:31 <ivan> present+ dmitriz
15:11:40 <phila> ack manu
15:11:52 <wes-smith> q+ to note something else about the VCB/DI TF
15:11:58 <brent> phila: The liaisons should be brought into this conversation. It would be useful to have a resolution in the minutes.
15:12:26 <brent> manu: We need someone who can make changes to the specification in a timely manner. Greg is willing to do that.
15:13:05 <brent> ... It has more weight when we as a working group make the statement. Saying we want it to move forward and we want Greg added as an author.
15:13:19 <brent> ... Our ability to get BBS done is at risk.
15:14:00 <brent> phila: the motivation is clear, and we should take a resolution. That's not enough, we also need the liaisons involved.. I take the action to move it forward with Philippe.
15:14:10 <brent> qq+
15:14:15 <phila> ack brent
15:14:15 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to react to manu
15:14:31 <Elaine> Elaine has joined #vcwg
15:15:16 <wes-smith> brent: I think we should resolve to urge the IETF to move the BBS document forward and encourage reaching out to the authors and gain additional support. I would not be able to +1 a resolution directly calling for Greg's addition - that would be an overstep.
15:15:24 <ivan> +1 to Brent
15:15:26 <Antony> I'm author on an IETF draft, admittedly with zero other authors at present, so not experienced much. Perhaps a small and friendly step before a resolution or official channel, might be for Greg simply as an individual just to contact one or more of the authors and just ask if they're willing to add him as author. As Gret's already a contributor,
15:15:26 <Antony> this low-key approach maybe will get the job done!
15:15:56 <dlongley> +1 to saying we have a WG willing to help as an additional author.
15:16:02 <dlongley> s/WG/WG member
15:16:08 <brent> +1 to that proposal
15:16:32 <phila> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We urge the IETF to move the BBS spec (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-bbs-signatures/) forward by all means available. We have a WG member willing to help as an additional author
15:16:39 <ivan> +1
15:16:40 <michaelshea> +1
15:16:40 <TallTed> +1
15:16:41 <manu> +1
15:16:42 <JennieM> +1
15:16:43 <wes-smith> +1
15:16:43 <hsano> +1
15:16:43 <dlongley> +1
15:16:43 <brent> +1
15:16:44 <phila> +1
15:16:50 <Antony> +1
15:16:50 <pdl-ASU> +1
15:16:54 <kezike> +1
15:16:58 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
15:17:03 <phila> RESOLVED: We urge the IETF to move the BBS spec (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-bbs-signatures/) forward by all means available. We have a WG member willing to help as an additional author
15:17:07 <Elaine> +1
15:17:13 <phila> ack wes-smith
15:17:13 <Zakim> wes-smith, you wanted to note something else about the VCB/DI TF
15:17:37 <phila> ack kezike
15:17:37 <Zakim> kezike, you wanted to provide update for VCALM TF
15:17:57 <manu> q+ to speak to recognized entities TF
15:18:29 <brent> kezike: brief update on VCALM. Two things: first we are getting some review from internationalization. Second, big threat model update is in place.
15:18:39 <ivan> q+
15:18:51 <brent> ... keeping an eye out for the new Threat Model protocol, we will be moving to that.
15:19:06 <ivan> q-
15:19:13 <brent> phila: How likely you will be ready for VCALM to move forward at TPAC?
15:19:23 <manu> q+ to speak to CR by TPAC
15:19:32 <brent> kezike: Fairly confident, we're relying on getting timely review.
15:20:01 <phila> ack manu
15:20:01 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to speak to recognized entities TF and to speak to CR by TPAC
15:20:06 <brent> phila: We are hoping to move into CR with all specs at TPAC
15:20:29 <brent> manu: It is becoming unliekly that we will get to CR with anything by TPAC.
15:20:46 <brent> ... Threat model work and lack of reviews are both holding things up.
15:20:48 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to mention conversation with Simone
15:20:53 <brent> ... still need TAG reviews
15:21:09 <brent> ... without that we can't really move forward
15:21:59 <JimR> JimR has joined #vcwg
15:22:12 <brent> ... Recognized Entities is making progress. Privacy review is coming in. They are not resonating with using a threat model to develop Privcy considerations. Did get security review, lot's of work.
15:22:34 <ivan> q+
15:22:38 <phila> ack JoeAndrieu
15:22:38 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention conversation with Simone
15:22:43 <brent> ... I think there is a bit of uncertainty on exactly what good enough is with regards to the threat model
15:23:19 <brent> JoeAndrieu: Simone and I are engaged productively. Between us three, we can find a reasonable place to land.
15:23:34 <phila> ack ivan
15:23:40 <brent> ... there's a route we can get there with SING. Simone will help us talk with PING
15:24:22 <brent> ivan: Recognized Entities is also testing out a Vocabulary, that is available for review.
15:24:36 <JoeAndrieu> confidence-method has nothing significant to report. working towards starting horizontal review by TPAC.
15:24:43 <brent> phila: There iwll be more coming from GS1 for Recognized Entities.
15:24:43 <exe> exe has joined #vcwg
15:24:48 <brent> Topic: Blog Post
15:24:54 <phila> -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-vc-wg/2026Sep/0000.html Blog post
15:25:00 <wes-smith> wes-smith has joined #vcwg
15:25:09 <brent> phila: Not sure who's reviewed
15:25:10 <ivan> present+ exe
15:25:23 <JoeAndrieu> present+
15:26:17 <brent> wes-smith: Hopefully folks have looked at the draft. It is fairly short, arguing VC Barcodes is uniquely positioned to address attacks such as we've seen lately with millions of drivers licenses. Digital signatures and real-time revocation mechanisms are key.
15:26:44 <brent> ... It asserts that you should use VC-Barcodes to mitigate from attacks like this.
15:27:13 <brent> ... we've discussed with the comms team, they will have some review. Haven't heard anything from the group requesting changes.
15:27:51 <brent> ... can we resolve to publish modulo any changes requested by comms? This discussion is happening elsewhere so publishing soon is important.
15:28:13 <brent> ... also talking with comms team about publicizing the blog
15:28:17 <Elaine> Elaine has joined #vcwg
15:28:29 <manu> I have read it and looks good to me.
15:28:35 <brent> phila: does anyone have comments on the blog post?
15:28:37 <pdl-ASU> q+\
15:28:48 <JimR> I have also read it and think it is good as well.
15:28:49 <phila> ack pdl-ASU
15:28:55 <phila> ack \
15:29:31 <brent> pdl-ASU: I have read it. It seems a bit longer than it needs to be. I suggest an edit after the section that ends with "as Cyberattacks grow in frequency"
15:29:43 <brent> ... the text after that has a lot of repetition
15:30:04 <brent> phila: does that edit sound reasonable?
15:30:33 <brent> wes-smith: can we still resolve to publish today, even with those changes?
15:31:06 <Elaine> go for it Wes!
15:31:22 <brent> pdl-ASU: I will put suggested change in IRC
15:31:32 <wes-smith> wes-smith has joined #vcwg
15:31:53 <phila> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The VCWG seeks publication of the text in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-vc-wg/2026Sep/0000.html as a W3C blog post no later than Tuesday 29th September, modulo minor changes to be made following suggestions made during the meeting and any editorial changes required by the Comms team
15:31:55 <brent> phila: any comments?
15:31:57 <ivan> +1
15:31:58 <manu> +1
15:32:00 <phila> +1
15:32:00 <michaelshea> +1
15:32:00 <dlongley> +1
15:32:00 <wes-smith> +1
15:32:01 <JennieM> +1
15:32:03 <hsano> +1
15:32:04 <Antony> +1
15:32:04 <JoeAndrieu> +1
15:32:06 <Elaine> +1
15:32:07 <kezike> +1
15:32:07 <TallTed> +1
15:32:12 <pdl-ASU> End the post text at the line "W3C Verifiable Credential Barcodes are the solution - and the technology is
15:32:12 <pdl-ASU> open and free for all to use."  What follows then is the list of links and whatever minimum explanation of them is requireds
15:32:19 <phila> RESOLVED: The VCWG seeks publication of the text in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-vc-wg/2026Sep/0000.html as a W3C blog post no later than Tuesday 29th September, modulo minor changes to be made following suggestions made during the meeting and any editorial changes required by the Comms team
15:32:27 <TallTed> q+
15:32:29 <ivan> thanks to Wes for spearheading this
15:32:30 <brent> phila: thanks everyone
15:32:37 <phila> ack TallTed
15:33:09 <brent> TallTed: I will be making suggested changes during the meeting
15:33:28 <brent> Topic: Data Integrity re-structuring overview
15:33:58 <manu> q+
15:34:06 <phila> ack manu
15:34:48 <wes-smith> open and free for all to use.") are intended to be section headers, not core text - the minuted version has lost all formatting. Does that impact your request at all?
15:35:13 <ivan> q+
15:35:24 <brent> manu: This is all credit to Greg Bernstein. When we published DI 1.0 and the suites there was a lot of duplicate text. Greg re-factored all of that and unified. For example, the selective disclosure mechanism is now generalized and available for use by all of the cyphersuites.
15:35:48 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #vcwg
15:36:01 <Elaine> Elaine has joined #vcwg
15:36:35 <brent> ... There is also work around single individual hashing and selctive disclosure. There are a number of options to take, hashing together vs hasing individual items. The takewaya is this is good and important work that Greg has done. This will help future cryptosuite authors to re-use these common algotirhms.
15:37:06 <brent> ... had a discussion around cryptosute identifiers and where certain parameters will go, decided to put them in the identifier string.
15:37:28 <brent> ... also some BBS optionality stuff has been covered. It's in really good shape now.
15:37:30 <phila> ack ivan
15:37:32 <pdl-ASU> Wes Smith While I didn't realize that was a heading (W3C Verifiable credentials are the solution..."  I think that's a good closing sentence to the post. Followed by the URLs with whatever context for them is needed.
15:37:34 <brent> phila: all editorial?
15:37:39 <brent> manu:  yes
15:38:50 <brent> ivan: I want to emphasize something. The current documents are frightening to add new cryptosuites. With the new format, adding new crypto algorithms will be relatively easy.
15:39:20 <brent> ... outsiders will be able to create their own cryptosuites more easily and comprehensievly than before
15:39:29 <brent> ... this was agreat thing to do
15:39:53 <brent> Topic: TPAC, goals etc.
15:40:00 <brent> https://www.w3.org/register/tpac2026/registrants
15:40:01 <ivan> s/comprehensievly/comprehensively/
15:40:34 <brent> phila: There's a link of who has registered. We want as many as possible there. We are meeting Thursday and Friday.
15:40:52 <brent> ... Wednesday there are a bunch of breakouts. Lot's of initial proposals.
15:41:09 <brent> ... If anyone wants to suggest a breakout, now is the time.
15:41:43 <brent> ... They are always exciting. Threat modeling, for example could be a good breakout.
15:41:54 <pdl-ASU> Wes-Smith That's fine.  My suggestion is just that, a suggestion, in an attempt to make it a bit more succinct (aka shorter :-)
15:43:11 <phila> Joint meeting detauils https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/7f5ffe2d-c418-47f1-880a-36710212b347/
15:43:23 <brent> ... Need to report on joint meeting agenda planning meeting from yesterday. Lots of groups meeting together. There is a joint meeting Tuesday during TPAC.
15:43:49 <brent> ... this is an important route to make sure the work we are doing is recognized and used elsewhere.
15:44:15 <manu> q+ to speak to raising issues on DC API before W3C TPAC wrt. exclusion of W3C VCs from DC API work.
15:44:18 <brent> ... As far as I know no one here is involved in the DC API, and no one there is involved here.
15:44:32 <Antony> manu: related to earlier topic of Greg's editorial refactoring the two specs - another shoutout to Greg who opened the 'linkability' discussion here https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-integrity/issues/363. Will likely be useful to many.
15:44:40 <brent> ... this joint meeting is one way to address that.
15:44:47 <manu> s/manu: related/manu, related/
15:45:06 <phila> ack manu
15:45:06 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to speak to raising issues on DC API before W3C TPAC wrt. exclusion of W3C VCs from DC API work.
15:45:09 <brent> ... This is important to us and others need to recognize that. It is important to our companies.
15:46:18 <brent> manu: To make that concrete, I think this group should raise issues on the DC-API around the fact that is doesn't support VCALM and isn't headed in that direction. In implementations, the only thing that can be passed is ISO MDoc, though supposedly supported, W3C VCs aren't supported.
15:46:47 <brent> ... I can write up the technical concerns for interoperability to put before ths group. The goal is to raise these issues before TPAC.
15:47:06 <brent> phila: Do you want to draft them and discuss them here before raising them?
15:47:10 <brent> manu: yes
15:47:34 <brent> phila: in light of your workload, do you have time to get this together by next week?
15:47:38 <brent> manu: no.
15:47:55 <brent> phila: I can help as a chair and as GS1.
15:48:07 <brent> manu: maybe in a few weeks.
15:48:34 <brent> those registered to Joint PTAC meeting: https://www.w3.org/register/tpac2026/registrants#meeting-465
15:49:01 <brent> phila: important to note that these people are not opposed to us, they just don't know us.
15:49:35 <brent> ... hoping this can be a positive discussion. We are all W3C working groups and should work together.
15:49:55 <brent> ... It was a very positive call yesterday.
15:50:01 <wes-smith> q+
15:50:04 <brent> phila: any other business?
15:50:05 <phila> ack wes-smith
15:50:21 <TallTed> q+
15:50:30 <phila> ack TallTed
15:50:34 <pdl-ASU> q+
15:50:38 <brent> wes-smith: Am I blocking on reviews from anyone here? I'm in touch with Phil, anyone else?
15:50:46 <phila> acl pdl-ASU
15:50:47 <brent> TallTed: I will email you my suggestions
15:50:50 <phila> ack pdl-ASU
15:50:58 <brent> pdl-ASU: those changes look good to me
15:51:40 <brent> phila: If you are an AC rep, don't forget to get your Board votes in. Election closes tomorrow. I felt this was very important to do. The makeup of the board matters today.
15:51:48 <JimR> thank you all!
15:51:55 <brent> phila: Thaks all, thanks Brent, see you all next week.
15:52:11 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:52:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/23-vcwg-minutes.html phila
15:52:44 <Antony> Antony has left #vcwg
15:53:12 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:53:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/09/23-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
16:00:12 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
16:00:12 <RRSAgent> I see no action items