<scribe> scribenick: dlongley

Agenda review, Introductions, Re-introductions

burn: There are no action items today. We'll skip that. We'll do our typical review of unassigned issues, just one new issue. The main two topics will be TPAC agenda, specifically with an eye for a lead for all discussion topics and then to go through PRs.
... We've had a slowly increasing list of PRs that need to be resolved, then an update on our test suite if we can get an update there.
... I believe we have one new person on the call today. Oliver, can you introduce yourself?

Oliver: I'm Oliver, I work for Consensys, uPort, I met a few of you at RWoT and I'm joining these calls to make sure uPort aligns with the VC data model and stuff you're standardizing, glad to be here.

Assign owners to unassigned issues

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+no%3Aassignee

burn: The new issue we have is:

https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/237

burn: Basically, this was in response to our request to try to understand what it is that has been needed for ZKPs to work within the VC framework. We've had a hard time understanding that precisely and this is some info from Mike to figure out those needs.

manu: I had asked Mike specifically for exact examples of what's in Indy and that's what he's done in the issue. The good news here is that we finally have something to work with, the bad news is that we're going to need a new signature suite to be written for the Indy-style signatures.
... Now that they'd provided this we know what to put in that spec and we'll be able to tell whether or not the VC data model works with what they've provided. The good news here is that I think it will fit the data model, but it will take several weeks to work through that stuff. Produce a new spec, do an analysis on the alignment.
... This is what we've been needing for a while now, so this is good.

Recruit TPAC Discussion Leads

<burn> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aYodpYXQg_C9zn3HcNQoMN2A_ESsArJaA4jl3x0cahE/edit#gid=975531401

stonematt: I know Manu and some of the Digital Bazaar team have had conflicts for the last few weeks so may not be up to speed with the agenda for TPAC. This is for Thurs/Friday for Oct 25-26. We've highlighted some conflicts that will be for those at TPAC. We've highlighted a few discussions that we thought DB might help lead the discussion for.
... Commercial update status and some subelements of the WCIG Joint session that I know Manu has responded to. We're looking for you guys to take those or not so we know if we're covered.
... Terms of Use/Rights is the third one. David Chadwick volunteers to help facilitate that discussion and he asked that Chris Webber assist with that discussion but he wasn't on the call last week so we made a note to get confirmation from him.

manu: We're canceling having the Veres One meeting, too many simultaneous meetings going on.
... We might do just a Wednesday breakout session for that.

<cwebber2> I'm happy to help facilitate in the discussion, though I'm not sure where/when it's taking place?

stonematt: Going back to Thursday then... I see Chris has volunteered on IRC, we'll make note of that. The 2018 commercial update status is paired with getting to CR. Those might blend together a little bit. The idea here is to say what's really happening in the VC space and what's the status of implementers, etc.
... Talk about rechartering, as well. We'll talk about where we are today and cover that at 8:30 but we'd like a report on implementation status.
... Manu did you just volunteer for that?

manu: Yes, I can contact all of the organizations that we know are using some variation of VCs, they may not be completely aligned with the spec but there is strong intent to use it and I can report out on that.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about test suite + vcs.

stonematt: I think that's right, one of the discussion during rechartering ... the organic emergence of standards is to have implementers be active.

manu: Yes, the other challenge we have is that we don't have a test suite yet we can't definitively say if any companies are conformant. We're way behind on test suite and implementations at this point it's going to lead to a charter extension if we don't get our act together on that. I realize that we're largely trying to do the test suite implementation, it would be fantastic to get others to step up and help with that.
... We understand priorities and will try to make progress on that before TPAC.

stonematt: I'm hearing a call to action for the chairs, maybe in the next meeting to have a more robust test suite discussion. Do we need call time for that?

manu: Frankly, we need someone to step forward and help Chris write the test suite. It's not talking, it's doing. We need some company here to put a developer forward to help with the test suite. Digital Bazaar is shouldering that burden, Lucas has volunteered but we're not seeing progress on the test suite and it's an existential threat to the group.

stonematt: Is anyone on the call able to say they're in and will help on the test suite?

Yancy: I'm willing to help with the test suite, I had more time when I volunteered a week ago but didn't get feedback on questions I had. It looks like things are clearing up for me again later this week but it would certainly help to get some feedback from others who have worked on the test suite.

manu: I failed to mention you had volunteered, thank you, Yancy. I think you, me, and Chris Webber need to get on a call and start making progress.

stonematt: That was a nice tangent discussion, that will help us get going on this really important topic over the next month while we prep for TPAC, only 3 weeks away, time is ticking down, can feel pressure of the meeting hovering over us a little bit.
... We have a couple of open slots, thank you for volunteering that, Manu.
... On both Thursday and Friday -- we have open slots. The idea for this is to leave some space for items that might come up earlier in the day so we can say let's talk about that later/tomorrow. Gives us a little flexibility to spin off and do some topic we didn't identify prior to the meeting. Maybe work on a proposal or do some test suite work that comes up.
... Our intention is to leave flexibility for things like that in the schedule or accommodate long running discussions.
... If there is anything missing that you'd really like us to talk about, now is the time to get it on the schedule, please raise your hand now.

<Zakim> burn, you wanted to sync with David Ezell

burn: We need to sync with David Ezell... David I wanted to point out that just like you said 10am on Thursday we have a joint session with WCIG. At 1:30 Allen Brown is giving his presentation on Digital Contracts. If that time hasn't changed for you that would be good for us, we'd like to come and join and listen in.

dezell: Sure, I'll put that one our Wiki. I know Allen is giving that talk at X9 or at least a rendition.

<burn> our Google agenda is at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aYodpYXQg_C9zn3HcNQoMN2A_ESsArJaA4jl3x0cahE/edit?ts=5b7c306f#gid=975531401

dezell: First of all, thank you, Dan and Matt for working that out with Ian. I really wanted this joint session and having you step into the breach really got it done. We have a topic which I think Manu is interested in, I know you've been really busy, Manu.
... That is Digital Offers -- which is sort of a cross over between payments/commerce and credentials.
... I think going forward it will be even more important and I had offered extending out joint meeting for 15 minutes to get an update.
... From Linda Toth ... but we're only meeting Thursday. We're compressed down.
... Can we address this topic after the meeting, I'd like to hear from Manu on thumbs up/thumbs down on that.
... Do you think Digital Offers during that meeting is a good/bad thing?

manu: If it's Digital Offers and we're talking about getting the VCWG in there to talk about it that would be a really good thing. Once this group understands what's happening with Digital Offers this group will understand why it's really important. Whereas the WCIG may not get VCs to the degree we do.

dezell: Can we extend that session by 15 minutes to accommodate that?

burn: The challenge, if you notice, if that we have 2:30-3 is completely free but that's when the AC meeting starts and we expect to lose a good number of people. If the people who are critical won't be at the AC meeting we can handle that.
... And stretch up to the hour.

dezell: We probably shouldn't take your group time doing this but we should talk.

stonematt: Let's try to connect outside of the call time. Let's try to work it out.

dezell: I'll drop our agenda into IRC.

<dezell> https://www.w3.org/WebCommerce/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_Oct2018

dezell: Quick question -- Ian said to me that Manu would be organizing this session, you sound way busier.

manu: Yeah, but I already signed up for it so I plan to organize it, I have a fairly good idea of who needs to say what and at what time ... easier to do that than transfer the knowledge.

dezell: Trying to get you out of the hook.

manu: I appreciate it.

stonematt: One other comment to make is one the status -- we had a question from Kaz to publish this publicly vs. just in the google sheet. At some point we'll put it online as HTML. We'll try to get these questions nailed down so we can publish it.
... One of the other items we had discussed last week, was the PING placeholder, any update, David Chadwick?

DavidC: Clare and I went through the answers to PING that I wrote last year and revised it and sent it to the group. This week we'd ask you to look at it and we'll sent it to the Ping group next week.
... I started drafting our response ... while they talk about the Web privacy model there is no document that exists for that and they are currently working on it. They've pointed me at two documents, one is the questionnaire and we've already referenced that and there is another doc on privacy and we'll look at that and response.
... So we'd be asking for a meeting at TPAC to finalize this.

<ClareNelson> +1

stonematt: That seems like a reasonable approach, do you know if they have a similar placeholder in this time slot?

DavidC: When we presented this to them a month ago they didn't think there was a need for a meeting. But that's possibly because there's nothing to work on so I'd like to get a solid draft to them before TPAC so there's something to talk about.
... What I can do is send the plan to them, rather than send the actual draft, etc. right after this meeting and say the time slot we're proposing is 11:30 on Friday. And if that's not convenient to them they could suggest another time slot and we could move things around.

stonematt: That's a good idea. If we're going to have a no go on this time slot it would be easier for us to juggle times now rather than later, I would appreciate that if you don't mind.

DavidC: Ok, after we're finished I'll email them with the plan and time slot.

stonematt: I think we've all thought that's a good use of our time previously to meet with Ping

<Oliver> We had no time to consolidate comments to the privacy document. Are fine by accepting comments until the end of this week?

<manu> +1, we should meet with PING.

<ClareNelson> +1

stonematt: Everyone still in favor with coordinating face time with PING?

<stonematt> +1

<dlongley> +1

<stonematt> +1 to coordinate with PING

DavidC: All their efforts are focused on fixing up the questionnaire and not focused on responding to use and that's why I'm proposing doing a draft for them.

stonematt: Thanks for that.

manu: David you might have already covered this so I apologize if this is repetitive, but one of the strongest push backs that the VC had when we charted was around privacy. That was a big point made among the membership, I'm concerned that if we don't get feedback from PING then people could use that as a reason not to progress the work.
... It may look strange if someone does the privacy review, but if PING signs off on it, then that's one thing.
... If you've had a talk with PING about that and they will have their WG come to consensus on it that would be good.

DavidC: Yes, I've had that email with them and I'm a member of the PING WG anyway.
... They know that's coming.

manu: There may be some folks in that group that are staying quiet but they disagree, have you gotten them to commit? The plan is great, but concerned about the commitment.

DavidC: I don't know about those who are being silently resentful. I have gotten immediate responses for where to go for privacy docs.

manu: Ok, thanks.

stonematt: Any objections to moving on?

none

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note response to us is important.

Data Model PR review

burn: That was really good, diverged but relevant for the PING meeting, critical timing wise, thank you everyone.

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls

<manu> HUGE thank you to DavidC for pushing the PING review forward!

<dlongley> +1

burn: Thank you David!

<stonematt> +1 to DavidC for driving the PING coordination/Discussion

burn: We can walk through them but I want to ask first, Manu, if there are any we can move quickly.

manu: No, I'm still catching up.

burn: Ok, starting with the oldest: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/210

stonematt: I made a couple of edits to the PR, according to the last notes for approach.
... I think I have responded to the group and there's a couple of easy conflicts to resolve but as soon as I get thumbs up I can make those resolutions and pull it in.
... I can make adjustments and pull it in, looking for thumbs up from the group.

burn: Any comments on this one? Any objections to Matt applying the final suggestions before pulling it in?

none

burn: Ok, go for it, Matt.

stonematt: I'm on it.

<burn> ACTION: matt will apply David Chadwick's changes and then merge

Oliver: Is this an optional feature?

<manu> Awesome, thanks so much for pushing this forward stonematt !

stonematt: It's optional and in the advanced concepts section. It indicates the type of refresh service and a pointer, can be in VC or VP and issuer has some control over where to put it and can of course not include it at all.

burn: Next is: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/214

manu: I prefer we come back to it, it changes core language in the spec and we have to be careful.

burn: next is https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/217
... https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/227

DavidC: I asked for review from Dave and Manu, Dave has given me his review. I wanted Manu's review so I don't have to do two updates. So if Manu can review and add any suggestions, I'll do an update.

<burn> ACTION: manu to provide requested review of 227

manu: I apologize for not getting to it, am setting aside time over the weekend to review all the PRs.

burn: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/228

manu: Just wanted to +1 this one.
... Daniel Hardman put in a good, concise PR, this one is easier.

<dlongley> +1 from me

manu: Modulo some minor editorial things that doesn't change the meaning of what Daniel is saying.

burn: Does that have to happen before that goes in?

manu: No, we can merge and then we can make those.

burn: Then I will hit the button now.
... https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/229

stonematt: I think one of our last discussions where we spent time on this ... Chris you had the task for splitting the PR.

cwebber2: Ack, it's on my radar.

discussion about Chris's long range radar

burn: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/230
... Chris, can you look and see what you think might need to happen?

cwebber2: Looking...

manu: I think the PR looks good, the only thing I'm concerned about ... we made this discussion about the difference between a regular credential and verifiable credential, VCs must have proofs on them. I think the PR is good and we need to say VerifiableCredential, but my only concern is that people may use them on non-proofed data.
... We may need some spec text that says something is typed as a VerifiableCredential but that doesn't have a proof on it when verifying.

cwebber2: My main point was that we should be consistent, but it may be that a more reasonable approach would be to make everything say "Credential" and it's the existence of the proof that makes it verifiable.

manu: That was the intent before but the counterargument is that people have been confused by "Credential". There's this strong typing argument that David Chadwick has been making that you dont' have to infer by looking for a proof.
... Maybe we still keep "Credential" in the vocabulary but you don't expose that. Those types of credentials are a corner case that we want to support but not something we want to mention in the specification.
... If we have agreement on that then we pull in the PR.

DavidC: If we look at the actual text... line 1637, you'll see this is about embedding a VerifiableCredential under a VerifiablePresentation but it says Credential but I think it should say VerifiableCredential, that's the one that should change more than the type. Type credential PrescriptionCredential seems ok ... the proof will be inside that outer type.

manu: The proof shows up in both places. The argument I'm making ... now we're having a discussion about this PR so maybe it's not ready. We may confuse things by talking in detail about credentials without proofs on them. Fundamentally most of the use cases we have aren't about that. Maybe we should make a conscious decision to talk about doing non-verifiable credentials but don't provide examples and only talk about verifiable credentials in the spec.

DavidC: I'd be happy about that. Clare and I had a separate discussion about the trust model and that entered into the discussion there ... talking about how the verifier can trust it. You said some time back about another way to trust and I said you need a trusted channel then. This wording confused Clare.
... Maybe we can remove it from the trust model as well.

manu: I wouldn't go that far, we don't want to go into detail on this.

<Zakim> cwebber, you wanted to ask about does that mean that the VerifiableCredential must have a proof then

burn: Chris is on queue and let's wrap this up.

cwebber2: I think this needs more work. Various points made than I was expecting and I'll try to capture them on the PR.

burn: Thanks.

<TallTed> TallTed: it seems to me that a VerifiablePresentation could well include [Unverifiable]Credential(s) along with VerifiableCredential(s) ... just to note another wrinkle

burn: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/235
... This requires Tzviya's work ... and she said she'd handle it before the end of Sept.

stonematt: There's a PR from her 2 days ago and it might be that.

manu: I was going to say that the other one had language that we wanted to pull in. Daniel, I think, didn't quite understand which part the accessibility folks were talking about and he addressed something different that should still be addressed and Tzviya is addressing the other thing. I say keep both PRs open.
... In the worse case I can pull in Daniel's stuff that we shouldn't lose.
... Let's keep both open.

burn: Plan is to keep both open.
... https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/236

stonematt: This is ready to go.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to reject :P

manu: We should do it the other way.
... I think one was wrong but I think you picked the wrong one. Those of us who do work on airplanes can't do editing if it isn't relative.
... Switch both to relative, thanks!

stonematt: Ok, I'll do that.

burn: Thanks everyone.

<kaz> https://www.w3.org/2018/10/TPAC/schedule.html#Thursday

AOB

kaz: Sorry to be late
... I quickly skimmed the minutes and wanted to add some clarification
... The purpose of my asking for possibility of the HTML version of the TPAC agenda was that we're encouraged to add a link to our agenda page from the TPAC agenda page above

burn: Yes, Matt you and I can coordinate offline by email.
... Thanks everyone!

<kaz> [adjourned]