<scribe> scribenick: bigbluehat

introductions

Michael_Shea: I'm hear in listening mode. Been here for 6-8 months as part of the community
... but wanted to reach out to hear more on these calls
... and to learn more about what's being done here

ChristopherA: where are you from Michael_Shea ?

Michael_Shea: from Canada, but living in Vienna

burn: anyone else new on? how 'bout reintroductions
... anyone interested in being reintroduced

ChristopherA: my name is Christopher Allen
... when I joined the VCWG I was part of ___, but have not been there for the last 9 months
... I'm now working on Blockchain Commons
... working to build a not-for-profit
... I'm also the co-chair of the Credentials Community Group
... and have been helping drive the DID standard for a long time
... and I'm excited about VC work making it to CR

<agropper> Christopher, me too with a public benfits corp bootstrap

F2F planning/decision

burn: if you've just arrived, please add yourself with `present+` and your name with underscores

<burn> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2019Jan/0001.html

burn: there's an email thread which basically said we'd like setup another face-to-face
... as well as extend the charter by 6 months
... we're discussing a F2F in the April/May timeframe
... normally there's an expectation of 8 week notice

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to outline options.

burn: so that would put us at earliest in March

manu: so, Rebooting Web of Trust 8 is in Barcelona after Mobile World Congress
... March 1-3rd
... that is a weekend...Friday through Sunday
... we could potentially tack on a VCWG F2F on that Monday and Tuesday
... which would mean folks wanting to do both would get to do both
... and have a single set of travel
... so that seems pretty attractive as an option
... but we lack a venue
... we have a free venue for Rebooting
... we could request a couple more days
... and if that happens, then we'd only have to worry about food
... it feels like something we could accomplish
... I'd recommend that we make a commitment first to meet in Barcelona
... and then work out the details after that
... there are many venue options we've already analyzed when searching for a spot for Rebooting 8
... down side is some companies here will probably have to put up some money for food and possibly venue
... if we don't jump on the Barcelona chance, though, we'll all likely spend far more money and time figuring out a completely separate location

ChristopherA: I'd love to see you all at Barcelona
... the only thing folks should be aware of is that folks are heading to the RSA conference the following Monday
... so be aware that are some folks who will have a conflict
... but it does sound like getting a couple more days would be easy
... and the backup option is inexpensive

<Zakim> burn, you wanted to request commitment on both location and dates

ChristopherA: so I'm confident we can make Barcelona work

burn: so, the main thing we need to decide immediately are both the location and the exact dates
... with those in place, we can start to make announcements about the event
... usually flight planning is the trickiest part
... we will need at least 2 days of content/work
... and folks will always try to leave early--like 2pm
... which means it ends up only being a day and a half
... something to keep in mind
... over the past day or so during this discussions, I've not seen any objections
... anyone have any questions/comments/suggestions before we try Manu's proposal?

<burn> PROPOSAL: VCWG F2F Meeting in Barcelona for March 4th and 5th

burn: ok. I am writing the proposal right now in IRC

<manu> +1

<DavidC> +1

<ChristopherA> +1

<dmitriz> +1

<agropper> +1

<tzviya> +1

<ken> +1

<burn> +1

<terbu> +1

<bigbluehat> +1

<Allen> +1

burn: only seeing +1's so far
... and those pluses also seem to include the most active participants

ChristopherA: just wanted to add that we might want to offer some guest options if possible

<TallTed> +0 this travel not possible; will do my best to attend by wire

ChristopherA: which is how I got started

<manu> +1 to invite guests that may join the work long term.

ChristopherA: especially folks who attend rebooting who would want to stay and listen in

tzviya: I think inviting Rebooting folks is a good thing

<Zakim> burn, you wanted to answer Christopher

tzviya: but we also need to be clear about the IP and confidentiality related agreements

burn: we do strongly encourage observes in general
... but they basically cannot contribute unless they've filled out appropriate documents
... but even those Matt and I will be paying attention to
... we'd love to have visitors and will work to help them be aware of the IP and confidentiality concerns

ChristopherA: understood

burn: great suggestion, though!
... so we have decided on a location and dates
... and now we'd like to get volunteers for the various portions of the event
... which means, someone to hunt down a location, food costs, and what if anything attendees will need to pay or companies sponsor

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to request that RWoT folks do that...

manu: I'm OK with delegating the management of that to someone on our team
... along with the folks at Rebooting
... we will be doing other conversations around planning Rebooting 8, and can make this part of those conversations
... but having folks ready and willing to help with the food logistics especially would be helpful

burn: I'd love someone to volunteer on this call if possible
... venue is most important

<manu> We'll volunteer a DB person...

burn: food can be worked out closer to the event
... ok. we'll continue to nag for volunteers until someone gives in

Updated test suite

burn: but I think we have enough volunteers today to get things moving
... so, there are some position issues with certain github repos, but I'll let manu lead the conversation on this part

ChristopherA: just a quick note to say Thursday evening is when folks should plan to get into their hotel rooms
... because Mobile World Congress folks will have them booked until then

<manu> So, book for February 28th - be in Barcelona then if you want to do RWoT8 /and/ VCWG F2F 2019

ChristopherA: so if you're interested in coming, be aware of that date

burn: thanks. Manu, tell us about the test suite

<manu> Here is some background on the VC Test Suite: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2019Jan/0012.html

manu: so, it seems the URL permission thing got resolved
... there's background info there
... we had a testsuite before
... that Chris Webber had built in Lisp and Racket
... but sadly too few people know that stack, so we've had too few contributions
... I attempted to, but wasn't able to sort it out
... so we've rewritten it in JavaScript
... and we've since worked to match the latest state of the docs
... and we're focusing purely on document conformance
... so your application must generate a document that is conformant--and we test against that document
... it checks for correct URIs, etc.
... the good news is that it's now in a language more of us can contribute to
... bad news is we're at only 50%
... however, we hope the lower contribution bar should help more folks contribute
... and that we can close that gap quickly
... we've got enough of the testsuite written at this point to feel like it's heading the right direction
... it's also setup to handle JWT and ZKP testing

<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite

manu: we are also able to generate implementation reports from the test suite
... any implementer can run the test suite
... it'll output a JSON file
... which they can store in the test-suite as a report

<manu> https://w3c.github.io/vc-test-suite/implementations/

manu: here's an example report
... if you scroll all the way to the bottom
... you'll see outputs from 3 different fake implementations
... I did a bad one, a good one, and a VCGS impelementation
... the thing on the left is the conformance condition
... and then how each implementation did with those conditions
... the work remaining is filling out the rest of the tests
... is anyone else having trouble hearing me?

<DavidC> I can hear Manu very clearly

manu: so, that's it
... we have a test-suite
... it generates reports
... and now we need about 40 more tests written
... but they should be easy and take only about a day of labor

burn: huge thank you for this manu !
... not only structuring this for easy contribution

<DavidC> +1

burn: but also for building the tooling to generate the report output
... my hat goes of for that work

manu: so, I forgot to mention that it's setup for asynchronous contribution
... we don't have to wait for everyone to run the whole test suite
... it will simply show that the test wasn't run
... the code that generates the implementation report
... outputs that they simply didn't run the test

burn: the reason this is valuable is that we only need 2 implementations of each feature
... implementations don't have to implement 100% of the things

terbu: so in regards to JWT, do the tests expect a JWT as input?

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to respond to Oliver

terbu: or do I need to convert the JWT to JSON-LD first and then send it in?

manu: thank you for asking!
... I'm expecting that you will write the JWT tests
... it should be just like testing anything else in the test suite
... we may have to pass a flag to say we're testing a JWT
... so that you know which output to expect
... in one case it'll be a JSON-LD doc and in the other it should be a JWT
... the only complexity there is figuring out what flags you're going to pass to the generator
... and then in the test suite itself you'll need to pull in a JWT library to test that you have a legit JWT
... otherwise the code is just Node.js JavaScript
... so copy/paste an example and then test the JWT output when it comes back
... there's also new stuff in the spec around ZKP's
... so those will also need building as you see fit.

ken: if we have something we expect to be given to the test-suite, do we just write another test for that?

manu: you'd write a sort of a bridge to sovrn etc that does that magic, and then comes back with the file to do the follow-on document test
... we're testing against a schema essentially

ken: you're basically checking the format of the document to make sure it's conforming

manu: yes. everything that your program generates should be a valid credential
... anything misshapen should simply fail
... or clearly be invalid

<dlongley> note that the ZKP harmonizing work we did make the ZKP credentials look just the same except as any other for the proof (they do always have a credentialSchema but non-ZKP ones may as well)

burn: anyone with questions, please queue up
... in the last 20 minutes we've had a couple more call-ins
... please let me know your names
... since there's no rush to queue up, we'll keep going
... now is the right time to be adding test
... those who've joined this part of the conversation, please reach out to manu
... get at least one in there as a sample
... it makes it easier for others who want to contribute

PR review

burn: ok. next, last official topic for today is PR review

Publish Working Draft

burn: we're working toward publishing a recommendation
... we have not recently published a working draft
... WD's get a fixed publication date
... and consequently can get more concrete review
... first question is are there any objections to publishing a Working Draft
... I want to explain the a WD does *not* imply concensus
... if there are things we don't agree on, that's OK
... any concerns about publishing a WD?
... and to address manu's question about Echidna, we've reached out to W3M, but haven't yet gotten the help we need
... but we are continuing to reach out
... and this is really just for a single WD publication
... and eventually we do hope to have Echidna in place
... so, the date for the publication could be at any point you feel the document holds together
... email kaz and CC Matt and myself
... and kaz can do the rest
... if you can do today, that would be excellent

manu: sure. today or tomorrow should work
... and I think publication days are usually thursday or friday

burn: kaz can also correct the date
... the content just needs to be good

manu: I'll target the 15th then

burn: you did create a static one, so email kaz about how you did it
... so let me do the formal proposal here

<burn> PROPOSAL: publish a WD of the VCWG Data Model spec

<ChristopherA> +1

<tzviya> +1

<DavidC> +1

<burn> +1

<bigbluehat> +1

<TallTed> +1

<manu> +1

<dmitriz> +1

<terbu> +1

<dlongley> +1

<ken> +1

RESOLUTION: publish a WD of the VCWG Data Model spec

burn: ok. thank you everyone

PR Review

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

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to update on PRs and CR-blockers.

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

manu: thanks to everyone who worked on the recently merged PRs
... huge thanks to Grant Noble--who I think is in Australia, so doesn't usually join us
... because of that work, the spec is in a much better shape than it was a month ago
... I'd be comfortable with taking this into CR
... there's still a good bit in the advanced section--all non-normative stuff--which needs address, but that can happen even post-CR
... I did a pass through our CR issues this morning
... and I don't currently know of any major CR blockers at the moment
... if anyone knows of any, please let me know
... I did not close a number of CR issues
... because there are still things that need to be done for them

<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3ACR-blocker

manu: here's a list of CR blockers that are still open
... things like the JWT encoding/decoding things are unclear
... not a big thing, but does need addressing
... only document conformance matters--that's what's behind most of this work
... also making the test-suite match the spec is a bit of a dup with 317
... both of those should be closed around the same time along with 331
... clarification of extensibility still needs to be added to the guidance document--again more non-normative stuff to be written.
... for ZKPs, there's a "version of test-suite working"
... I didn't close that because I'm waiting on ZKP focused folks to let me know they're happy with the test-suite work
... and then lastly the typos
... Claire did a huge review, and I sent an SOS out to get help getting those all fixed
... so, mostly small stuff and non-normative stuff remains
... we are still waiting on Ganesh
... we are still waiting on his lifecycle PR
... but he's on vacation atm, but he'll be addressing it when he's back

<Zakim> burn, you wanted to suggest new CRs for remaining bits

manu: any questions?

burn: the suggestion was...well, question was might it be helpful to replace these issues with more narrow ones?
... we can still mark them as CR-blockers
... but it would make closing these larger issues and pointing to the smaller ones a clearer progression hopefully

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to rather not do that because we already have checklists.

manu: so. I'd rather not do that because we already have checklists for these
... so I fear it'd just make more work than necessary
... I'm confident these are close
... usually just one more checkbox
... and mostly things the editors can handle
... really it's just waiting on the editors to finish stuff

<TimTibbals> +q

<terbu> I will provide a PR tomorrow, or by Friday latest to resolve issue #336

manu: what would be a huge help is someone writing the implementation note

TimTibbals: I've seen several things listed in the January edition that seem open
... and I'm not seeing them all addressed here

manu: yeah. that's another good next step
... I have looked through those
... and most of them do also seem editorial
... things we're really concerned about for CR are functionality related changes

<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues

manu: so, there are 4 new issues
... there's a really great review that came in
... but we can count that as a CR review
... the other 3 are all editorial afaict
... noting the time, I'd suggest we take a look at the things TimTibbals mentions to be sure they are not CR blockers
... and then the next steps are to get the implementation guidance content written
... and then move these other editorial things to a close
... and move to CR
... but with a very clear notice that we're likely to need another CR

<Zakim> burn, you wanted to explain concern with current issue list and to talk about unassigned issues

burn: so, couple things
... we did not go through unassigned issues
... next week we plan to go through those and get them assigned
... the other thing I wanted to note
... it may seem obvious to manu, but others may still have thoughts about what else needs doing
... so please everyone speak up if there's something you feel needs doing

manu: right. so totally agreed. my expectation is that once all the CR blocker issues are closed, we're going to go into CR
... including issues we have looked at yet
... if someone feels they've filed something recently that isn't marked as a CR-blocker, please mark it that way now

tzviya: was just going to add that someone besides manu needs to read through this top to bottom

<manu> +1 to tzviya

<Zakim> burn, you wanted to mention VCWG explainer

tzviya: someone with good experience with this work would be a great fit for that reading

burn: agreed. we've also not had a TAG review of this document
... tzviya wrote up a great explainer draft to send to the TAG
... Matt has just started a new job...which I'll let him describe
... but he and I plan to get the TAG review started soon

<tzviya> VC Explainer https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/blob/gh-pages/VCDMExplainer.md

burn: and we'll coordinate with manu on that
... thanks to everyone for their work on this!
... bye all!