19:00:47 RRSAgent has joined #vcwg 19:00:47 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/10/06-vcwg-irc 19:00:55 zakim, start the meeting 19:00:55 RRSAgent, make logs Public 19:00:56 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), brent 19:01:08 meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group 19:01:14 chair: Brent Zundel 19:01:55 present+ 19:02:58 brent has changed the topic to: VCWG Weekly Teleconference 19:04:37 dmitriz has joined #vcwg 19:05:18 rgrant has joined #vcwg 19:06:29 kdenhartog has joined #vcwg 19:06:32 present+ 19:06:38 present+ 19:06:39 present+ 19:06:41 present+ 19:06:43 present+ 19:10:02 scribe+ 19:11:27 https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/blob/kdh/rec-snapshot-10062021/REC/2021-10-05/index.html 19:12:02 present+ 19:12:10 brent: if we resolve as a group we will transition in a week and notify the group by email that they have a week to object, i believe will meet process and the narrow window to publish 19:12:43 ... Between the 6th and 20th of December is window to publish. If reach resolution today, we should reach the center of that window just right. 19:13:04 ... The agenda today is straightforward. Apologies for the lack of content in the agenda reminder email. 19:13:08 present- MacTed 19:13:11 present+ 19:13:20 ... The W3C tools were down; I couldn't use them to construct the agenda. 19:13:36 ... The agenda is to look at a proposal to submit the substantive changes, and all editorial changes thus far agreed upon... 19:13:52 ... as a set of candidate changes as an updated recommendation for the Verifiable Credentials Data Model. 19:14:11 ... As time remains after that, we will triage issues, and address editorial changes if time after making a resolution about substantive ones. 19:14:29 ... Does anyone have qestions or comments; desires for changes to the agenda? 19:14:33 topic: vote on candidate changes 19:15:04 ... I will begin to construct a proposal; we can tweak the language as a group. 19:15:58 ... Here is a rough draft of the initial proposal. I know it needs more. The link is not pretty. I think we need to add language around ... 19:16:58 i think we want to say that the text at that link will be at a static link and it's what's at that link that we will ask review of 19:17:02 ... the "according to the process for revising a recommendation" - the reason for being a little less specific and pointing to process... I don't know if any other spec has gone through this the way we are doing it... so we've had to reach out to find out what process requires for creating a static copy... what the process has to be... like for pointing out errata - all of that is pretty new 19:17:43 q+ 19:19:13 dlongley: What we have is an issue that what we are voting on is at [Kyle's link], but the content will be made static using the usual process, and that link is what will be made public in the request for review. 19:19:35 ack dlongley 19:20:13 brent: [Reads proposal]. Does anyone want to propose changes to that before we put it to the group? 19:20:27 TallTed: Is that going to persist indefinitely? 19:20:33 brent: Is which ...? 19:20:44 TallTed: The static thing at that link, the HTML preview 19:20:56 kdenhartog: No, it won't; that branch will be deleted... 19:21:12 TallTed: I'm suggesting we need to put in a link to where it will be, in the minutes... 19:21:34 ... There's no other way for people who are reading the minutes to know what we are talking about. 19:21:58 q+ 19:22:02 ... It could be a static file in our repo, or anywhere in W3C space... FWIW, the W3 systems should be up now (It was taken down for a day.) 19:22:13 brent: We do have a somewhat better link... 19:22:32 s/taken down/down due to cloud infrastructure provider issue/ 19:22:36 ... I wish Ivan were here, I don't know where... 19:22:49 PROPOSAL: No sooner than 2021 10 13 we will submit a request for wide review of the candidate changes represented at the link: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/tree/main/REC/2021-10-05. The content for review will be made static using the regular publishing process and changed modulo that process for revising a recommendation 19:23:03 ... I've swapped out the link so that we have something more firm to point to. 19:23:20 ... Does this ease your concerns, Ted, or should we revise further? 19:23:34 TallTed: As long as that will be persistent, for people coming along in the future. 19:23:37 +1 19:23:39 +1 19:23:40 +1 19:23:40 +1 19:23:41 +1 19:23:45 +1 19:23:45 brent: I think so. And I did it as a proposal. So go ahead and vote. ^ 19:24:02 +1 19:25:19 RESOLVED: No sooner than 2021 10 13 we will submit a request for wide review of the candidate changes represented at the link: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/tree/main/REC/2021-10-05. The content for review will be made static using the regular publishing process and changed modulo that process for revising a recommendation 19:26:09 +1 19:26:21 topic: issue triage 19:26:32 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aopen+-label%3A%22substantive+change+v1.2%22+sort%3Aupdated-asc+-label%3Av1.1+-label%3Adefer-v2 19:26:57 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/823 19:27:06 brent: This link should give us any issues not marked with a ... label 19:27:20 q+ 19:27:30 ack kdenhartog 19:27:59 kdenhartog: I'm not certain... we brought up an issue on BBS+, planned to link to it but couldn't find it... 19:28:30 ... I will link to that. +1 to dmitriz's suggestion... not sure though because nonce is related to proof property - need to double-check on specificity, for specific suites... 19:28:33 ack dlongley 19:28:37 ... could result in additional text 19:28:57 dlongley: I think they are largely asking questions - but ultimately about a property that is not part of the VC data model - it's part of the proofs 19:29:05 q+ 19:29:09 ack dmitriz 19:29:11 ... When VCWG recharters ... we might cover this, or defer to other specs 19:29:24 q+ 19:29:39 dmitriz: We do mention challenge in the Verifiable Presentation section. 19:29:48 ... Unless I'm looking at the wrong version and we took it out... 19:29:57 ... I'm wondering if that might be the place to contrast challenge and nonce. 19:29:59 q+ 19:30:04 q+ 19:30:04 ack brent 19:30:16 brent: We had a similar issue in the Presentation Exchange spec... 19:30:49 or maybe it would be good to add language to the VC Implementation guide? 19:31:06 https://identity.foundation/presentation-exchange/#presentation-request 19:31:24 ohhh, this is the section I meant. It IS in the implementation guide https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-imp-guide/#presentations 19:31:33 ... We recognized that alongside the presentation definition object, a verifier might want to specify the challenge or nonce. We put some generic language there, that might be appropriate here 19:31:36 ack dlongley 19:32:07 dlongley: We could certainly put something informative in the spec... but I don't know if that would resolve this person's issue... they are looking for something more concrete... 19:32:29 ... We are looking to add that to the next charter, with specific details. 19:32:47 ack kdenhartog 19:33:10 kdenhartog: This would require changes to the context, which we've traditionally declared defer-v2 19:33:16 DavidC has joined #vcwg 19:33:20 present+ 19:33:28 ... I think we should defer it, not a handwavy approach 19:33:37 present+ bumblefudge 19:33:44 ... It is close to authentication protocols - might need to put that in scope - but more controversial - in the charter 19:33:57 +1 to defer v2 and question labels 19:34:03 +1 19:34:07 brent: Label "defer v2 and "question"? 19:34:23 s/"defer v2/"defer v2"/ 19:35:53 brent: [Describing the resolution for David and Juan who just joined the call] 19:36:04 topic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Av1.1+sort%3Aupdated-asc 19:36:15 topic v1.1 issues 19:36:33 topic: v1.1 issues 19:37:06 brent: All these issues we anticipated would be editorial. Understanding editorial changes don't require the same review period. 19:37:09 q+ 19:37:14 ack kdenhartog 19:37:36 kdenhartog: Shall I close all the ones that have PRs open? 19:37:42 brent: I don't have a problem with that 19:37:55 kdenhartog: (Some were not closed automatically that should be have been) 19:38:11 DavidC: It's more than that... 19:38:36 brent: If in your editorial purview you feel the PR that was merged properly addresses the issue, then make that statement and close it. 19:38:39 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/209 19:39:16 brent: I vaguely remember this conversation... several years ago. We talked about it a few months ago 19:39:48 q+ 19:39:49 ... At the time I was confident I could write a PR to address this, but now reviewing it I no longer recall... 19:39:58 ack kdenhartog 19:40:31 kdenhartog: ... We left it more vague... questions about pseudonymity... a cover clause to abstract around ZKPs... 19:40:33 q+ 19:40:38 ... that the issuer must give you something you can derive from 19:40:41 ack dlongley 19:40:59 q+ 19:41:03 dlongley: I think that is good and helpful... Letting people reading the spec know that if the issuer is not cooperating to do this, then you don't get it. 19:41:16 ... The issuer has to offer you this feature, and not try to backdoor recreate correlation or collision 19:41:29 ... The notion is that there is some trust in the issuer to cooperate in this scheme for it to work. 19:41:31 This is the statement in the spec, that I think generally covers this: "The verifiable credential MUST contain a Proof, using the proof property, so that the holder can derive a verifiable presentation that reveals only the information than the holder intends to reveal." 19:41:37 ... I think this should be stated in the spec 19:41:45 ack TallTed 19:42:02 TallTed: I recall the issue was about active participation by the issuer, rather than about making a derived credential of a credential one has in their hand 19:42:05 q+ 19:42:17 ack dlongley 19:43:08 dlongley: One attack: even if the issuer is following these protocols... if the issuer is creating a different public key for every user they issue a credential to, they re-introduce a way to correlate and track users. 19:43:22 q+ 19:43:23 ... Issuer should opt in, and must also decide not to track you 19:43:26 ack kdenhartog 19:43:28 q+ 19:43:52 kdenhartog: I see that, think it could be added to the privacy section, not tie specifically to ZKPs only 19:44:08 ack 19:44:11 ack brent 19:44:14 ... There are other ways an issuer could create pseudonymity... active issuer policies 19:44:38 thanks brent 19:44:40 +1 kdenhartog's described editorial addition, whether done by kdenhartog or brent 19:44:40 brent: I'll put a PR in, and we'll see if it's acceptable 19:44:49 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/734 19:45:15 brent: Have fields for locale-specific information been checked? This is a comment from the Internationalization folks that came in after the Candidate Recommendation wide review period. 19:45:22 ... The issue speaks for itself. 19:45:48 q+ 19:45:55 ack TallTed 19:46:07 ... Would anyone like to volunteer to review the spec, or to write a PR to address this? 19:46:29 q+ 19:46:31 TallTed: There's no standard for this. "name" and "address" - leave it t that 19:46:38 ack DavidC 19:46:41 s/it t that/it at that/ 19:47:06 DavidC: It doesn't matter if the address is specific to a country if it says what the country is in the address, because it's destined for that country. 19:47:23 ... In our examples we could have addresses, India, Thailand, ... 19:47:29 q+ 19:47:30 ... Address for England has to be an England address, etc. 19:47:34 ack TallTed 19:47:37 q+ 19:48:09 TallTed: The point of their comment is that there are subfields listed, street, city, province, postal code, etc. UK address breakdown does not work in US address breakdon. The breakdown is the problem. That is where it breaks down ;) 19:48:15 q+ 19:48:16 ... So just say name, and "address". 19:48:21 ack dmitriz 19:48:50 dmitriz: +1 to what Ted said. We should change out detail tags with a single address field, like already modelled 19:48:52 q+ 19:49:04 also +1 to non-schema address examples 19:49:06 ack brent 19:49:22 brent: I agree, solution would be to make examples less specific rather than more specific 19:49:27 ack cel 19:49:30 scribe+ 19:49:46 I can volunteer to make that change 19:49:58 cel: I was going to say I'm familiar with that use of the country as the separater, buty don't know the standard for that 19:49:58 q+ 19:50:05 q- 19:50:06 ack kdenhartog 19:50:30 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/734 19:50:35 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/751 19:51:07 q+ 19:51:21 ack cel 19:51:52 cel: I looked at this and started trying to write something to address it. It was too difficult, but I could post what I have or link to it. 19:51:53 https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/#dfn-verify is what the spec says today 19:52:00 TallTed: comment that on the issue 19:52:17 cel: thanks, i'll do that 19:52:36 brent: We do have a verify definition, but look forward to comments from cel, but don't see reason to take away Manu's assignee status there. 19:53:01 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/781 19:53:47 kdenhartog: I have a partially written branch on this... will get around to it. 19:53:59 ... Trying to editorialize what was stated in that CCG thread, and put it in an appendix 19:54:47 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/733 19:54:57 DavidC: [offered to help with 781] 19:55:00 q+ 19:55:07 ack kdenhartog 19:55:24 kdenhartog: I'm pretty sure we addressed this in two PRs, but need to check that. One is marked pending close... 19:56:01 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/721 19:56:15 brent: Kyle, can you give us an update here? 19:56:30 kdenhartog: For this one, I believe there is some work in progress for getting these updated; 19:56:42 ... the problem is the way we are updating these SVGs I don't think went all the way to meeting it. 19:56:57 ... There are some optimized, some unoptimized. I don't have the original images that were used to generate. 19:57:04 ... I don't know how Charles was generating them... 19:57:20 ... Another issue is to make it more accessible - those two could probably be combined and done at the same time. 19:57:34 s/Charles/chaals/ 19:57:43 ... If someone has those images, please post them 19:57:56 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/732 19:58:27 " 19:58:41 brent: [reads title "4.1 Link to going anywhere that makes sense"] 19:59:07 kdenhartog: Context URLs are failing... that's the empty folder. 19:59:26 ... I think we need Ivan's help with this 19:59:42 ... The basic problem is the ids are not linking to the human-readable descriptions 20:00:12 brent: Thank you everyone 20:00:34 ... Chairs and editors will make transition request 20:00:52 zakim, who is here 20:00:52 brent, you need to end that query with '?' 20:00:55 zakim, who is here? 20:00:55 Present: brent, kdenhartog, cel, rgrant, dlongley, dmitriz, TallTed, DavidC, bumblefudge 20:00:57 On IRC I see DavidC, kdenhartog, rgrant, dmitriz, RRSAgent, Zakim, TallTed, brent, tzviya, rhiaro, stonematt, bigbluehat, wayne, hadleybeeman, cel, dlongley, manu, dlehn 20:01:18 zakim, end the meeting 20:01:20 As of this point the attendees have been brent, kdenhartog, cel, rgrant, dlongley, dmitriz, MacTed, TallTed, DavidC, bumblefudge 20:01:20 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 20:01:20 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/10/06-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim 20:01:23 I am happy to have been of service, brent; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 20:01:28 Zakim has left #VCWG 20:01:30 rrsagent, bye 20:01:30 I see no action items