19:00:41 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
19:00:41 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/11/03-vcwg-irc
19:00:47 <brent> zakim, start the meeting
19:00:49 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
19:00:50 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), brent
19:01:30 <brent> meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group
19:02:07 <brent> brent has changed the topic to: VCWG Agenda 2021-11-03 https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3d5ce945-c81a-4d63-9765-b2daeef605a7/20211103T190000#agenda
19:02:14 <brent> chair: Brent Zundel
19:02:30 <brent> present+
19:02:41 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #vcwg
19:02:42 <shigeya> present+
19:02:44 <brent> rrsagent, make logs public
19:02:52 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
19:02:52 <wayne> present+
19:02:56 <DavidC> present+
19:03:02 <shigeya> present+ shigeya
19:03:03 <brent> zakim, this is vcwg
19:03:03 <Zakim> got it, brent
19:03:36 <manu> present+
19:03:49 <wayne> scribe+
19:04:07 <dmitriz> present+
19:04:08 <wayne> topic: Agenda Review
19:04:09 <TallTed> present+
19:04:49 <dlongley> present+
19:04:51 <wayne> brent: agenda is talk about TPAC, recap of those meetings, update of v1.1, PR review, triage issues for v1.1 editorial issues
19:05:04 <wayne> brent: anyone have something to change or add to the agenda?
19:05:14 <brent> Topic: TPAC Review
19:05:16 <wayne> topic: TPAC Review
19:05:57 <wayne> brent: folks here were in TPAC last week. we spent 2 days meeting. day 1 was focused on a wish list for v2 and reviewing the charter to ensure they were in scope. invitation to review draft of charter.
19:06:28 <wayne> brent: day 2 was spent primarily in issue processing. had a good conversation about v1.1 vs v1.2, will talk about this soon.
19:06:29 <kdenhartog> kdenhartog has joined #vcwg
19:06:32 <kdenhartog> present+
19:06:53 <manu> q+ to mention mDL mention from Microsoft on charter.
19:06:58 <wayne> brent: also evaluated interest in driving forward existing issues in this charter or defer to next
19:06:59 <DavidC> q+
19:07:13 <brent> ack manu
19:07:13 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to mention mDL mention from Microsoft on charter.
19:08:30 <Logan_Porter> Logan_Porter has joined #vcwg
19:08:58 <greg> greg has joined #vcwg
19:10:02 <wayne> brent: welcome back to greg
19:10:28 <wayne> manu: (scribe malfunction) Microsoft mentioned they may be interested in pursuing mDL work within W3C, using HTTP API and other relevant components to demonstrate a full flow.
19:10:55 <wayne> Logan_Porter: from mattr, working with VCs
19:11:17 <brent> ack DavidC
19:11:31 <manu> manu: We might want to consider putting some of the mDL work for Web in scope for the charter, nothing official, just work on NOTEs and vocabularies and some liason activities.
19:12:01 <wayne> DavidC: i would have said yes to address 2 issues in v1.1 if i were at TPAC
19:12:38 <wayne> DavidC: with respect to mDL, i've been attending the meetings on and off for 2+ years. my strong belief is that we should work together, and v2 of mDL will support VC data structure within SC-17
19:12:55 <manu> q+ to note not suggesting we work against -- we work with, +1 to being complementary.
19:13:13 <brent> ack manu
19:13:13 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note not suggesting we work against -- we work with, +1 to being complementary.
19:13:17 <wayne> DavidC: working together is the far better strategy, especially because OpenID is the transport for the next version. there would be a lot of benefit if we work together and have the VC data model accepted as a formal for mDL
19:13:34 <wayne> manu: +1 to DavidC, definitely not working against. complementary to, and in support of mDL
19:13:58 <wayne> manu: as a WG, we can put some of the work in scope, but not make it an official standard thing, as to prevent miscommunication that it's unaligned
19:14:18 <wayne> brent: pleasantly surprising how compatible the two efforts are moving forward. any other TPAC comments?
19:14:19 <manu> +1 to brent
19:14:25 <brent> Topic: Current Status v1.1
19:14:37 <wayne> brent: over to manu
19:14:42 <manu> Latest status of v1.1 publication is here: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2021Nov/0002.html
19:14:48 <wayne> manu: latest status of v1.1 publication is here https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2021Nov/0002.html
19:15:30 <wayne> manu: they have pinned 5 versions of this email, we keep learning things about the 2021 process which just went live yesterday. we're the first through the 2021 process given our timing. there are a number of things that weren't clear, that we should've been doing over the past 2 years that we weren't doing.
19:16:10 <wayne> manu: we think we negotiated everything we have to do with the latest documents. the things that will be new to everyone in the REC update process is (1) when we publish the rec, we just publish it out there in place of the old rec
19:16:26 <manu> Example of Candidate Correction: https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/blob/main/REC/2021-11-09/index.html#c1.1
19:16:30 <wayne> manu: so when people go to the vc spec, they will see the v1.1. in that spec, there will be highlighted markers of the candidate corrections.
19:17:04 <wayne> manu: that should be proposed correction instead of candidate corrections. there are 8 different phrases we could use, i think we're using a proposed correction. instead of a proposed recommendation, we are doing a proposed correction.
19:17:29 <wayne> manu: that means the email must be updated. there are markers all throughout the document that say stuff like that. so that's new. in the future, they will require a diff between the old and new spec.
19:18:11 <wayne> manu: anything that is pulled in that could be a proposed correction, needs that section. the editors have to go in to manually add it today, meaning a lot more effort than before. there's no easy solution to this, and doing these types of proposed correction document is a difficult thing right now.
19:18:35 <wayne> manu: it's not as lightweight of a process that everyone thought it was supposed to be. it's out there and will be published november 9th
19:19:19 <wayne> manu: it will go out, and take the place in TR of the 1.0 spec, and we will have 70 days minimum before these things are actually ratified by the AC, so the AC can review and have formal objections. once that happens, we have to go back into the document, and remove all the cndidate correction language + diffs, into a normal spec.
19:19:32 <brent> q+ to say thank you
19:20:04 <wayne> manu: so DavidC that's why i wanted to mention the new process, because it makes it very difficult to do that. i think we're good, but just found one more thing that we need to fix, unless the publication team comes back another time with more items to correct
19:20:42 <DavidC> q+
19:20:47 <wayne> manu: i think we're good to go for a november 9th publication. brent, you may want to call for objections to see if people are okay with this approach. i don't think i changed anything of substance--i think it would be good to not have any surprises from the working group, so perhaps we should ask them if there are any changes we can talk through now.
19:20:49 <brent> ack brent
19:20:49 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to say thank you
19:21:36 <wayne> brent: thank you manu. the process certainly is heavy, and thanks for getting us to this point. part of the difficulty that manu and kyle have so adeptly handled is going to assemble our working mode moving fwd. we'll talk about this throughout the rest of the meeting.
19:21:37 <brent> ack DavidC
19:21:54 <manu> q+ what happens to existing PRs for 1.1
19:21:58 <manu> q+ to answer what happens to existing PRs for 1.1
19:21:58 <wayne> DavidC: what i need to understand is what happens to the existing PR for v1.1 not in the text manu has pointed to.
19:22:38 <brent> ack manu
19:22:38 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to answer what happens to existing PRs for 1.1
19:22:39 <wayne> DavidC: manu said that anything new will be exceedingly difficult. in that case, the outstanding PR needs to go in before the 9th of november. the other day, talking about the VC-HTTP-API working gorup, manu said there's no problem making changes in v1 through january.
19:23:03 <wayne> manu: let me try to explain. my understanding of the whole process has been changing every 2 days, because the process document doesn't outline everyting that comes into play.
19:23:48 <wayne> manu: we should merge in editorial things into 1.1 as soon as we can, which is almost immediately. these will go into the active working draft, so if people look at the editor's draft it'll be there. after january 14th, if those things are purely editorial, we will be able to publish those changes.
19:24:28 <wayne> manu: we have to freeze things for the AC to review then. if it is truly editorial, then it will get in there. what we learned was about how difficult it was to get things into the document as the AC was reviewing.
19:24:43 <brent> q+ to add my two cents and to ask what branch we will be working on
19:25:02 <wayne> manu: before, we decided 1.1 and 1.2 path, and then we decided not to have two branches. because there is only one path now, we cannot easily push out editorial changes into the space, until january 14th
19:25:14 <kdenhartog> q+ to mention v2 as an outlet as well
19:25:21 <wayne> manu: we can merge editorial changes into the 1.1 branch, and once jan 14th hits ,we can push it out as an editorial update and good to go
19:25:46 <wayne> DavidC: is 1.1 containing the normanative changes in there from 1.2?
19:25:47 <wayne> manu: yes
19:25:59 <wayne> DavidC: we should put in the changes this week then
19:26:01 <brent> ack brent
19:26:01 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to add my two cents and to ask what branch we will be working on
19:26:30 <wayne> brent: we can merge any PRs that are editorial and within scope of 1.1, we can merge into the v1.1 branch, and accumulate a body of editorial changes.
19:26:39 <wayne> brent: the TR space recommendation that is currently under review, we're not gonna touch that.
19:27:07 <wayne> brent: once the review period is over, regardless of the outcome, we will have the option of then merging the body of the editorial changes into the 1.1 branch. the work we're doing isn't going to be lost.
19:27:29 <brent> ack kdenhartog
19:27:29 <Zakim> kdenhartog, you wanted to mention v2 as an outlet as well
19:27:34 <wayne> brent: the PRs in the queue to merge into 1.1, we can refine those and merge in them in, but the precise time they will be published into PR space will not happen until jan.
19:27:54 <brent> s/PR space/TR space/
19:28:24 <wayne> kdenhartog: with the intent of doing a V2 spec pretty soon after, we hae to work through the chartering stuff. the intent of any of these substantive changes that are coming in is to have them fit into the pureview of the v2 scope. some of the more substantive changes we've been looking at, related to jwt work, we're talking about separating out the proof suites into separate documents about htem specifically
19:28:51 <DavidC> q
19:29:02 <DavidC> q+
19:29:05 <wayne> kdenhartog: so it could be useful to hold off on the jwt work, because we would want to see jwt into its own document. in that case it would make sense for those things to work together. while it's difficult for us to get stuff into 1.1, it's not the intent of the WG to stall the work, there's just a slight delay due to rechartering.
19:29:08 <brent> ack DavidC
19:29:31 <manu> q+
19:29:42 <kdenhartog> q+
19:29:51 <manu> q- later
19:29:53 <wayne> DavidC: that's fine, i don't mind a separate document for JWT next time around, but the situation we're in at the moment, is that the current JWT section in the spec lacks clarity, and the PR brings the clarity. in my opinion, it's imperative that those changes go in the 9th of november.
19:29:54 <brent> q+ to ask if David intends to formally object to v1.1
19:30:42 <wayne> DavidC: the key aspects of that PR must go into the spec by the 9th of november. people have been saying there's a lack of clarity, and there's no reason for that not to be included except for slow responsiveness.
19:30:47 <brent> ack kdenhartog
19:31:10 <wayne> DavidC: i feel very strongly about this, because we're doing a disservice to the world community withou the clarity
19:31:28 <wayne> kdenhartog: is this actually editorial?
19:31:48 <wayne> DavidC: the current spec doesn't say anything about how bearer credentials are dealt with. this PR clarifies what people can infer but may have inferred wrongly.
19:31:54 <wayne> manu: pull 828?
19:31:55 <manu> We are discussing https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/828
19:31:56 <wayne> brent: yes
19:32:12 <wayne> DavidC: the one to do with JWT is the important one, which adds text
19:32:13 <brent> ack manu
19:32:32 <wayne> DavidC: feedback from orie that this is really good
19:33:18 <wayne> manu: just on the responsiveness, you raised the PR days ago, responses from ted and markus on the day. i retargeted the branch, there were merge conflicts. orie said it was good but don't merge, 2 days ago, esp. with the removal of nonce
19:33:23 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/828/files#diff-0eb547304658805aad788d320f10bf1f292797b5e6d745a3bf617584da017051L3455
19:33:35 <wayne> manu: there is a change to normative language, like 3455, you're changing a MAY to a SHOULD
19:34:30 <wayne> manu: if you remove that line, i think it'd be editorial, and with that and merge conflicts fixed, we could see it in. please don't merge it before november 9th, but it's many hours of work for the editors. so either it's a normative change and that's problematic, or it's an editorial change and doesn't affect implementers.
19:35:13 <wayne> manu: we do get this into the publication, in the editorial version, as soon as the merge conflicts are resolved, we can merge that into 1.1 so it's live on the editorial branch. once jan 14th hits, it'll go out in the live version and get the changes you want in the spec in there.
19:35:19 <brent> ack brent
19:35:19 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to ask if David intends to formally object to v1.1
19:36:07 <wayne> brent: making an assertion and asking a response to you DavidC. i am asserting that further editorial changes will not be made to the document that is being reviewed by the AC. and having made that assertion, i must ask, in light of that, is it your intention to formally object to the document that is under review?
19:36:31 <wayne> DavidC: i'd like the changes in
19:36:41 <wayne> brent: if that doesn't happen, would you formally object?
19:36:45 <manu> q+
19:37:17 <manu> q+ to mention that this puts publication of v1.1 at risk given our charter expires at the end of the year.
19:37:18 <wayne> DavidC: i will discuss with the people who have asked for the changes and see if it's acceptable or not. i was in the fortunate position of understanding the JWTs because i was part of the VC drafting process. but the majority of the people implementing do not have the background and knowledge.
19:37:25 <wayne> q+
19:37:54 <wayne> DavidC: if they say they would like it in the document, i will object. it depends on what other stakeholders who have had problems figuring out exactly how to do it.
19:38:44 <wayne> brent: no one is saying we don't want these changes. it's about timing-wise
19:38:55 <manu> q+ to note what a formal objection will do wrt. publication.
19:39:36 <wayne> brent: either we ask our editors to spend hours and hours of work to merge in the changes outstanding, or publish what we have already documented on the 9th, while continuing to refine your PR, and as soon as it's ready merge into the 1.1 branch. as soon as review period over, and candidate merged into the rec, we can take that canddiate 1.1 branch and merge into the recommendation as needed.
19:39:48 <wayne> DavidC: will the draft be visibile to people?
19:40:08 <wayne> brent: yes, it will be possible to point to people to a published document that we can say will be coming on jan 15th
19:40:53 <wayne> DavidC: are you saying that the pointer in the document which manu pointed us to, which is w3c recommendation 9th of november, 1.1, where it says latest editor's draft, that will have the PR in it for JWT once it's been agreed to. is that right?
19:40:58 <wayne> brent: yes
19:41:01 <wayne> DavidC: so people will have that visible?
19:41:02 <manu> q-
19:41:16 <wayne> brent: yes, it won't be PR space
19:41:18 <kdenhartog> q+
19:41:19 <wayne> DavidC: that may be acceptable
19:41:21 <wayne> q-
19:41:35 <wayne> DavidC: i just want people to know it's not hidden, because it's important that people can see it
19:41:41 <wayne> brent: totally agreed, it's jsut about the timing & process
19:41:55 <wayne> DavidC: i don't want to give you hours of work, that's not fair. it's just sad that this wasn't done more quickly
19:41:58 <wayne> brent: no disagreement
19:42:03 <brent> ack kdenhartog
19:42:57 <wayne> kdenhartog: (no audio)
19:43:15 <wayne> brent: anything else?
19:44:52 <manu> q+ to making sure we're not representing other organizations (in general)
19:44:54 <wayne> kdenhartog: when you're in conversations with these people who may object, the solution we've put forward, can you be sure to mention that the text going into v1.1 editor's draft will be there. i'll put a link before closing the PR so it's easier for people to find in the editor's draft in the intermediary.
19:45:25 <brent> ack manu
19:45:25 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to making sure we're not representing other organizations (in general)
19:45:28 <wayne> DavidC: they will jsut need to see the v1.1, click the "latest editor's draft" and see it anyway. that's what brent said
19:46:34 <wayne> manu: quick reminder, it came from "i'm representing..." it's problematic to potentially cross anti-trust boundaries at W3C. big companies have been known to hire small companies to pack a room, not saying you're doing that, but it's really that kind of behavior that's frowned upon at w3c. these people can jump on the issue tracker and provide the feedback to this group, and they should not be doing it
19:46:40 <wayne> through you.
19:46:43 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
19:46:52 <wayne> manu: it makes it difficult to have a direct conversation with people who have the issue.
19:46:54 <brent> Topic: Review PRs
19:47:02 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
19:47:26 <wayne> brent: 3 prs as editorial, 3 prs not yet labeled
19:47:33 <wayne> brent: we'll focus on those, not the v2.0 ones
19:47:43 <wayne> brent: i'll follow the numerical order for this conversation
19:47:46 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/830
19:48:20 <wayne> brent: 830: adds a privacy consideration with issuer participation related to the possible privacy protections. encourage folks to jump in and review
19:48:24 <kdenhartog> q+
19:48:31 <brent> ack kdenhartog
19:48:47 <wayne> kdenhartog: no normative changes, makes sense
19:48:54 <manu> agree, it's editorial.
19:49:08 <wayne> kdenhartog: let's manage it as an editorial change into 1.1
19:49:19 <wayne> brent: any opposition to adding the v1.1 label?
19:49:57 <wayne> brent: if we have a issue already tagged eratta, we don't need to tag it as such. it's attached to 209f
19:50:07 <wayne> brent: s/209f/209/
19:50:17 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/829
19:50:29 <wayne> brent: next PR is 829, clarification about verifiability from charles lehner
19:50:39 <wayne> brent: don't see charles on the call today, but would encourage folks to review this PR
19:50:42 <kdenhartog> q+
19:50:49 <brent> ack kdenhartog
19:51:20 <wayne> kdenhartog: anytime those SVGs are included, that's a mistake as the SVG changes haven't been merged into main, we may work with ivan to clean this up prior to merge
19:51:36 <manu> q+
19:51:42 <wayne> brent: for other folks creating PRs, since we're merging into the v1.1 branch, rather than basing your changes off of main, base it off of v1.1
19:51:44 <brent> ack manu
19:52:00 <wayne> manu: once charles fixes the svg, it should be editorial
19:52:09 <wayne> brent: would anyone object to labeling this as v1.1 editorial?
19:52:25 <wayne> brent: next PR
19:52:31 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/828
19:52:52 <wayne> brent: david's PR, 828, you're welcome to walk us through this set of changes
19:53:16 <wayne> DavidC: i don't see the same text i saw when manu said it...the MAY/SHOULD is not visible to me
19:53:41 <wayne> brent: sharing my screen. on 3455, we have may going to should
19:54:14 <wayne> DavidC: this is the only one that is still contentious. i didn't think this was a normative change from the implementation perspective, therefore there's no mandatory requirement. ted, are you available to comment on this?
19:54:39 <wayne> DavidC: it was the fact that changing a MAY to a SHOULD, is that a normative change? it doesn't affect implementors
19:54:58 <kdenhartog> q+
19:55:03 <wayne> TallTed: it is a normative change but does not make an implementation of the MAY non-compliant.
19:55:11 <wayne> TallTed: it is normative, but does not force implementation change
19:55:26 <manu> q+ to say I don't know, we should ask.
19:55:27 <wayne> DavidC: so the real issue is: is this prohibited from the v1.1 editorial?
19:55:33 <brent> ack kdenhartog
19:56:13 <brent> q+ to say it may be argued that although it is a normative change, it might not be substantive, but folks would need to agree.
19:56:13 <wayne> kdenhartog: the precedent we've held throughout this WG is any change to normative text requires it to be a substantive change, based on my reading of the different classification of changes in the W3C process, so my preference is to leave it as a MAY for now, SHOULD later when it's easier
19:56:17 <brent> ack manu
19:56:17 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to say I don't know, we should ask.
19:57:08 <wayne> manu: the danger DavidC is that if we make that an editorial change, any W3C member can force us to put everything through a candidate correction, making all the editorial changes we've made under review, adding months to timeline
19:57:14 <wayne> manu: we should probably do MAY
19:57:32 <wayne> manu: we don't let any of the other PRs to touch normative language if they were editorial
19:57:49 <brent> q-
19:57:50 <wayne> manu: it doesn't make a difference at that particular line, the rest of the stuff is very easy, we can merge it sooner than later
19:57:58 <kdenhartog> q+
19:58:00 <wayne> DavidC: agreed, we will keep the normative text as-is
19:58:18 <wayne> DavidC: the other issue brought up by Orie, was removal of the nonce
19:58:35 <wayne> DavidC: there is no nonce as a JWT claim, it doesn't exist. there's no text anywhere in the spec
19:58:38 <manu> q+ to note that allows replay for JWT presentations.
19:59:00 <wayne> DavidC: we put the nonce in the VP claim
19:59:28 <wayne> brent: we are out of time
19:59:39 <manu> scribe+
19:59:44 <wayne> brent: the text of this conversation will go into the PR
19:59:55 <wayne> brent: you need to have the conversation w/Orie
19:59:58 <wayne> DavidC: already in the PR
20:00:09 <wayne> brent: the process of determining this is still ongoing.
20:00:27 <manu> brent: Agree that changing may to should is probalby not substantive, but don't know if we need to go down that road.
20:00:27 <wayne> brent: MAY -> SHOULD is arguably not substantive, but we're not sure if we want to go down that road
20:00:31 <wayne> DavidC: yeah rpobably not
20:00:40 <manu> brent: Thanks to everyone that came, still have v1.1. issues
20:00:52 <wayne> brent: you're all fantastic bye
20:00:54 <manu> brent: Hopefully we have a chance to look at that next time, thanks to wayne for scribing, see you next week.
20:01:16 <manu> rrsagent, draft minutes
20:01:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/11/03-vcwg-minutes.html manu
20:01:26 <brent> zakim, who is here
20:01:26 <Zakim> brent, you need to end that query with '?'
20:01:28 <brent> zakim, who is here?
20:01:28 <Zakim> Present: brent, shigeya, wayne, DavidC, manu, dmitriz, TallTed, dlongley, kdenhartog
20:01:31 <Zakim> On IRC I see dmitriz, greg, Logan_Porter, DavidC, TallTed, RRSAgent, Zakim, brent, juancaballero, shigeya, dlehn, stonematt, hadleybeeman, bigbluehat, cel, dlongley, tzviya, manu,
20:01:31 <Zakim> ... wayne, cel[m], agendabot, rhiaro
20:01:39 <brent> present+ logan
20:01:58 <brent> present+ Logan_Porter
20:02:09 <brent> present+ greg
20:02:30 <brent> zakim, end the meeting
20:02:30 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been brent, shigeya, wayne, DavidC, manu, dmitriz, TallTed, dlongley, kdenhartog, logan, Logan_Porter, greg
20:02:32 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:02:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/11/03-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim
20:02:36 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, brent; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
20:02:40 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg
20:02:43 <brent> rrsagent, please excuse us
20:02:43 <RRSAgent> I see no action items