<scribe> Scribe: stonematt
burn: quick look at action items, TPAC agenda, TPAC content, PR review
any agenda suggestions?
crickets...
burn: any first time participants?
<burn> https://goo.gl/V4XTBT
burn: none this week.
<inserted> scribenick: manu
stonematt: A couple of
adjustments from last week - joint session was scheduled over
formal break.
... only time that they serve coffee -- we don't want people
coffee-less, so moved things around a bit.
... Shifted start time to 8:30am - extra 30 minutes in morning.
break at 10am to 10:15am... then head over to joint session for
75minutes.
... Then discussion about use cases / problem domains - led by
Joe... then lunch.
... Quite a bit of transition time from one room to another
between joint sessions, use cases, and lunch.
... We will get a full hour on use cases, we'll be flexible on
when we go to lunch.
... after lunch, we head back out to Allen Brown's discussion
about digitla contracts... moved claim/subject discussion to
Friday as a result.
... That was an open slot before, that's the net of changes
that we made this week.
dezell: I wanted to thank the WG for being flexible on this, our joint work is important.
stonematt: one other thing - PING placeholder is still sitting on Friday time slot... not confirmed yet, but will become open session if they don't pick that up.
<inserted> scribenick: dlongley
manu: We have a lot of joint meeting time/updating people time. I'm not seeing too much issue processing, which is fine, but I was just trying to understand if we're going to do issue processing. How much are we expecting to do? Are we just spending most of our time updating the membership on where we are?
stonematt: I think that's true on Thursday, on Friday ... we expect problem domains to be a working discussion. Friday will have terms and rights, zkp spec alignment, so on, those are all related to issues raised by the group. Last few sessions on Friday to fill as well, so there will be a bit of a balance. I'm willing to adjust if you think we're not seeing things we want to work on there.
<Zakim> burn, you wanted to say that all open slots are for issue processing
burn: Manu, we very specifically intended for anything left that is open to be for arbitrary issue processing.
<manu> +1 all sounds great, just wanted to understand the general "theme"
burn: We tried to take the big issue discussion we knew about and scheduled them but left the remaining time or just that -- more issue processing.
manu: That's great. The other thing I'm guessing is that having the prioritized list for processing issues would be great (from the editors). I will try to create that.
<manu> ACTION: Manu to create a list of prioritized issues for W3C TPAC processing.
DavidC: On Friday we have a topic on terms of use and rights ... is that the delegation issue or something else? I've sent some draft slides off to Chris.
stonematt: Context is authorization here -- role of VCs in authorization. Maybe we should rename that topic as such.
DavidC: I think Terms of Use is a large topic on its own and it got into authorization and delegation as well and I was wondering if they should be a separate topic if it's needed.
stonematt: 60 minutes may not be enough time to get through all that but all appropriate for our F2F. These PRs and issues have had lots of discussion. We should be open to is first figuring out what to cover in the first hour and then what to do to continue the discussion later.
<manu> DavidC: Ok
<Zakim> burn, you wanted to explain 'theme'
<inserted> scribenick: manu
burn: Manu, you had asked for a
theme - we were actually hamstrung a bit - with all the other
conflicting meetings, AC Meetings, coordination w/ WCIG - we
ended up needing less of a theme per day vs. named issues that
people were interested in done ASAP.
... I know it looks themeless and it is to some degree
themeless -- there should be plenty of time left for issue
processing.
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about "close"
<inserted> scribenick: dlongley
manu: I'm wondering if we need to start marking hard discussions on issues we're going to close. Things we won't respond to because we're out of time and we need to start wrapping things up. Prioritizing is good but it has a flip time, if we don't get to these issues we're going to close them for this version of the spec. Thoughts on putting aside time for that?
<inserted> scribenick: manu
stonematt: To clarify that positioning - we'll declare some as deferred - no objections to that suggestion.
burn: I was going to say
something similar - we'll need to call a halt - nothing new
goes in - one way to do that is to look at what we have tests
for.
... Matt and I will talk about this, allocate specific time in
agenda to discuss this... what we may limit. One of the ways we
can do that is to say "anything new has to come with tests" --
that's a strong limiter... we're trying to get to the first
CR.
... From that standpoint, we can start being hardnosed
immediately now
... Strong chair suggestions for closing/deferring early.
... That's an important part for what needs to happen at the
F2F meeting.
<stonematt> Scribe: stonematt
<burn> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uYpGnciqzR3g0cfrWRrhCoHhqV8VyBxPclqz3co3Oq4/edit#slide=id.p
stonematt: I just delete the detail agenda.
... in the slide deck.
... <agree>
burn: status of threat model slide?
BrentZ: I'll copy them in today
burn: test suite update
cwebber?
... please add slides. you can tweak them if you need to.
cwebber2: can I link to a PDF?
burn: prefer global deck, but PDF
is ok. (better that than nothing)
... we can also import PPT also
... friday - terms of use and rights
... David, will you work on this?
DavidC: yes, will work with chris on this.
<burn> +1 to summarizing agreements and disagreements
cwebber2: DavidC slides look good
as a representation of his positions. I'll also summarize what
the consensus points are and where the disagreements are. what
do you think about this?
... this will help frame the discussion at TPAC
DavidC: sure
burn: reminder that sooner is better. TPAC expects slides available 1wk ahead of discussion. Our discussion is Thursday, so this Thurs is key
DavidC: who is Liger?
dlongley: I'm Liger making comments...
<TallTed> it's helpful if you log in to Google before you make comments...
discussion about google attribution for comments for signed in and anonymous users
DavidC: PING update - made the
request for this time on Friday. not locked down yet
... haven't finished planning their agenda yet
... PING is focused on the new questionnaire
burn: hopefully they'll be
available for a future call, we'll probably need it
... future of working group charter
... chairs will make a few bullet points to frame the
discussion
... JSON-LD/JWT direction. ChristopherA thought this would be
discussed at rebooting, but it wasn't
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to throw COSE grenade into that particular discussion -- we did talk about JWT, JSON-LD, etc. at RWoT7
burn: open timeslot about ecosystems
manu: we did discuss in
Rebooting7,
... worked with sovrn and MSFT. have updates for the group
burn: that's good. plenty for this time slot. who can direct this session and put together a few slides
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note it isn't settled.
manu: just noting that nothing is settled. there are a couple of camps that aren't supporting the direction. there's a proposed way forward. reasons that some are or aren't using JWTs. I should not be the person to direct the conversation
burn: w/out ChristopherA here
it's hard to know what the current status is. there has been
some good discussion about current status and progress. manu
would be interesting if you can open with that update
... chairs will connect with ChristopherA
... manu would you add a placeholder slide to represent the
timeslot of "update" then "discussion"
... rest of time is reserved for open issues
... any comments on deck?
... any concerns getting updates by tomorrow?
<DavidC> https://support.google.com/docs/answer/2494888?hl=en
DavidC: if you invite people by name, they're comments will show up with proper attribution
<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
BrentZ: can we start at the bottom?
burn: sure
<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/214
manu: start w/ PR214
... what do we call the DID ledger? suggested "verifiable data
repository" - lots of discussion. need more people to comment -
at an impasse right now.
... another terminology morass
<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/217
manu: pr217: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/217
... not much debate at a high level/philosophical level
... some conflicts that need to be resolved
... need final review of images.
... asks lovesh to update images in another PR
... pr227
DavidC: manu waiting for your review
manu: ok
... pr229 delegation. up to DavidC to allow this language to go into the spec. if not, we need a counter PR
<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/229
DavidC: there's a lot of comments on it. I thought this one was going to be part o the discussion next week
<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/230
manu: not asking for a big change to the spec. I think this is ready to go. want to double check with the group before we pull it in
DavidC: I raised another issue to deal with the difference between mandatory and optional
manu: can we pull this in and deal with that issue separately?
DavidC: yes
manu: ok, I'll pull it in
... other PRs were pulled in this week.
burn: thank you
<manu> manu: Yaaay, Chris Webber for all the very hard work and amazing progress over the last 2 weeks!!!
cwebber2: things are good. all but 3 tests are implemented. about to push them out with some documentation. will make relevant slides for TPAC today
burn: thank you!
... anything else today?
... thank you cwebber2
... can you demo it at TPAC?
cwebber2: I won't be there
manu: Ganesh will be doing the presentation at TPAC
burn: thanks all!
... adjourned