14:56:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
14:56:14 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/07/13-vcwg-irc
14:56:26 <brentz> zakim, start meeting
14:56:26 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:56:27 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), brentz
14:56:41 <kristina> kristina has joined #vcwg
14:56:46 <brentz> meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
14:57:03 <brentz> Chair: Kristina Yasuda
14:57:13 <brentz> Date: 2022-07-13
14:58:36 <brentz> present+
15:01:03 <shigeya> present+
15:01:06 <kristina> present+
15:01:42 <dlongley> present+
15:02:17 <mprorock> mprorock has joined #vcwg
15:02:26 <phila_> phila_ has joined #vcwg
15:03:11 <dlehn1> present+
15:03:45 <mprorock> present+
15:03:57 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
15:04:22 <DavidC> present+
15:04:45 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
15:04:52 <selfissued> present+
15:05:07 <Joe_Andrieu> Joe_Andrieu has joined #vcwg
15:05:30 <justin_r> justin_r has joined #vcwg
15:05:45 <manu> present+
15:06:03 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #vcwg
15:06:12 <brentz> https://mit.zoom.us/j/99464040866?pwd=QUpZSnRZU3FWMmRjcE9ZWWhQZ1ViUT09
15:06:51 <manu> s/https\:\/\/mit.zoom.us\/j\/99464040866\?pwd\=QUpZSnRZU3FWMmRjcE9ZWWhQZ1ViUT09//
15:07:00 <manu> scribe+
15:07:34 <manu> Orie: Hi Orie Steele, from Transmute, DID Spec Editor, DID Spec REgsitries, post-quantum key formats.
15:08:03 <manu> justin_r: Hi, Justin Richer independent consultant, representing Avast here.
15:08:37 <TallTed> present+
15:08:40 <decentralgabe> decentralgabe has joined #vcwg
15:08:41 <manu> kristina: Our agenda today Participation renewal, Work Mode, and structure of deliverables.
15:08:48 <Orie_> Orie_ has joined #vcwg
15:08:50 <Orie_> scribe+
15:09:04 <Orie_> Topic: Introductions
15:09:16 <Will_Abramson> Will_Abramson has joined #vcwg
15:09:55 <manu> q+ to note DID Press Release Testimonials.
15:10:00 <Orie_> gabe: I'm gabe, I work at TBD/Block you may have seen our announcements about web5, interested in financial use cases, and json schemas
15:10:44 <Orie_> gregory: I work for protagecybertech, consulting with the canadian public sector, current interest is government consumption / production of verifiable credentials
15:10:56 <decentralgabe> definitely
15:11:11 <brentz> topic: participation renewal
15:11:14 <Orie_> Topic: Participation Renewel
15:11:29 <Orie_> kristina: deadline is july 28th, make sure to renew
15:12:16 <Orie_> brent: there are folks who are still determining status, make sure you resolve that.
15:12:25 <manu> q?
15:12:27 <Orie_> Topic: Work Mode
15:12:49 <gnatran> gnatran has joined #vcwg
15:13:08 <manu> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2022Jul/0000.html
15:13:29 <Orie_> manu: reminder that DID Core has been approved for REC, the W3C comms team has asked for testimonials, they are due in 2 days... if you have not gotten your testimonial in yet, the cut off is this friday
15:13:36 <kristina> q?
15:13:37 <manu> Get your testimonials in by this Friday July 15th
15:13:48 <brentz> ack manu
15:13:48 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note DID Press Release Testimonials.
15:13:48 <manu> Just respond to the email above to do so.
15:14:11 <Orie_> kristina: we ended last week on editorship
15:14:41 <brentz> q+
15:14:47 <Orie_> ... there have been some interested parties, do we want the concept of a "lead editor" or a group.
15:15:01 <manu> q+
15:15:11 <Orie_> ... it can help give the chairs and group a single directly responsible individual
15:15:24 <kristina> ack brentz
15:15:29 <Orie_> brent: to expand, there are a couple models we are looking at
15:15:57 <Orie_> ... previous vcwg and didwg we encouraged everyone to do PRs editors help merge and cleanup and maintain a single voice
15:16:12 <selfissued> q+
15:16:12 <Orie_> ... epub wg has the editors as the only folks who submit PRs
15:16:38 <Orie_> ... this gives the editors more ability to maintain tone, clarity... at an extra burden
15:16:47 <kristina> ack manu
15:17:08 <Orie_> manu: +1 to having a lead editor on each item, +1 to keeping things as we have, where anyone can raise a PR
15:17:30 <Orie_> ... we have benefitted from active contribution from a large group of people, it empowers people
15:17:44 <Orie_> ... I wouldn't want to see us pick 1 editor where only they open PRs
15:18:19 <Orie_> ... +1 for there being a single person responsible for moving the spec forward... it is more work for editors at the end
15:18:29 <Orie_> ... if you are signing up for the lead editor position
15:18:50 <Orie_> ... we have taken an algorithmic approach for who shows up as editors / authors at the end
15:19:05 <Orie_> ... typically editors have contributed ~25% of PRs in the spec
15:19:14 <Orie_> ... I like our existing process
15:19:18 <DavidC> +1 Manu
15:19:30 <Orie_> +1 Manu
15:19:34 <dlongley> +1
15:19:34 <kristina> ack selfissued
15:19:40 <brentz> +1 Manu
15:19:49 <Orie_> selfissued: I agree, anyone should be able to raise issues and PRs
15:19:55 <mprorock> +1 manu and selfissued
15:20:21 <Orie_> ... I am volunteering to be an editor, based on my experience with JWTs and registries
15:20:35 <Orie_> ... I've never worked in a group where there are "lead editors"
15:20:47 <Orie_> ... I assume there will be editors calls with chairs
15:20:57 <Orie_> ... I'm not in favor of having a lead editor
15:21:00 <mprorock> +1 editor / chair calls have been helpful in other WGs
15:21:02 <brentz> q+ to clarify lead editor
15:21:18 <Orie_> ... I would rather have all the editors feel the responsibility of contribution
15:21:21 <mprorock> +1 to set of editors as opposed to lead editor
15:21:29 <manu> To clarify, I meant "lead editor PER DOCUMENT" -- as in, we'll have lots of lead editors (for each document)
15:21:33 <mprorock> q+
15:21:36 <Orie_> ... I don't view the algorithmic approach as applying to editors as much as authors
15:21:40 <kristina> ack brentz
15:21:40 <Zakim> brentz, you wanted to clarify lead editor
15:22:09 <manu> -1 to lead editor across all documents... doesn't make sense for items that editors don't have specialization in.
15:22:14 <Orie_> brent: one thing we ran into with the did wg, we had a group, but a lack of a single DRI for making things got done, we struggled without someone in that role
15:22:25 <Orie_> ... it made some things harder
15:22:26 <manu> q+ to clarify using JWTs/DI as an example.
15:22:29 <selfissued> q+
15:22:30 <gnatran> +1 to a set of editors rather than algorithmic selection
15:22:49 <Orie_> ... the proposal is for items, we want a single person responsible per item
15:22:52 <decentralgabe> +1 having a DRI (directly responsible individual) = higher guarantee things get progressed
15:23:05 <Orie_> ... we def want multiple editors working together to act on the consensus of the group
15:23:18 <Orie_> ... do we want someone where "the buck stops here"...
15:23:35 <kristina> ack mprorock
15:23:53 <Orie_> mikep: regarding selfissued comment on contribution
15:24:44 <Orie_> ... should we distinguish between editors and authors, cleaning whitespace not the same as contributing... also managing consensus, doesn't always lead to direct PRs, but its still a lot of work
15:25:17 <Orie_> mprorock: being listed as an editor does not mean you are there to do anything but reflect the consensus of the group
15:25:21 <Orie_> selfissued: agree with that
15:25:27 <kristina> ack manu
15:25:27 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to clarify using JWTs/DI as an example.
15:26:09 <Orie_> manu: I just wanted to clarify, selfissued question to you... hypothetically, are you saying there will be 5 editors responsible for all documents (shakes head no)....
15:26:24 <Orie_> ... instead per spec, there will be a set of editors with experience
15:26:57 <Orie_> ... for example JWT spec, DI spec different editors, but anyone can open a PR on any document
15:27:11 <Orie_> ... but specific editors are responsible for moving the document forward
15:27:27 <Orie_> selfissued: I remain skeptical of the "lead editor" role
15:27:47 <kristina> ack selfissued
15:28:05 <mprorock> +1 mike - let's leave that to chair discretion over time
15:28:21 <Orie_> ... responding to brent, if one of the editor's isn't doing their job, the chairs are responsible for demoting editors
15:28:21 <kristina> q?
15:28:22 <manu> +1 to this should be performance based instead of an honorific
15:28:24 <phila_> q+
15:28:26 <Orie_> +1 selfissued
15:28:44 <manu> One of my primary concerns is "honorific editorship"
15:28:50 <Orie_> kristina: seems we have agreement, anyone can open PRs
15:28:57 <dlongley> +1 is performance-based, -1 "honorific editorship"
15:29:04 <Orie_> ... seems we don't have clarity regarding "lead editorshhip"
15:29:17 <brentz> q+
15:29:19 <manu> +1 to what Kristina just said
15:29:26 <Orie_> ... for algorithmic leadership, we want to re-address closer to document stages
15:29:30 <selfissued> Kristina's formulation works for me
15:29:35 <kristina> ack brentz
15:30:09 <Orie_> brent: as far as lead editor, sounds like we are going to have a group... with different editors per spec... chairs will monitor, and may ask for leadership as we go
15:30:20 <selfissued> q+
15:30:43 <phila_> q- later
15:30:54 <Orie_> ... as far as attribution, the chairs set editors, grant powers etc... there is a difference with the end, where we may expand that list... I am in favor of the algorithmic approach
15:31:22 <Orie_> ... knowing that attribution will be fair, is a motivating factor for contribution
15:31:25 <manu> ... and that's exactly why we have the algorithmic approach... to make sure we honor the work that people have done, even if they weren't named as an Editor/Author initially.
15:31:36 <manu> (but that's a decision we can make waaay later)
15:31:45 <Orie_> kristina: lets start with chairs appointing editors, and let leadership emerge
15:31:48 <mprorock> +1 manu
15:32:00 <kristina> ack selfissued
15:32:14 <Orie_> selfissued: brent some of what you said seems ambigious... what is the scope for editors?
15:32:28 <Orie_> ... I think we should have different editors for different deliverables
15:32:44 <Orie_> ... we should specialize editors with experience per spec
15:33:08 <Orie_> ... can we get a confirmation that there are different editors per deliverables
15:33:14 <Orie_> brent: yes, agree
15:33:20 <kristina> ack phila_
15:33:48 <manu> +1 to update the use case documents
15:33:57 <Orie_> phila_: I am offering to update the use case document last updated in 2019, volunteering kevin dean to help update that documetn (we want to)
15:34:03 <mprorock> +1 use cases (and implementation guidance)
15:34:09 <Orie_> ... GS1 offers to co-edit the use case document
15:34:12 <kristina> Topic: Structure of deliverables
15:34:22 <Orie_> Topic: Structure of Deliverables
15:34:36 <phila_> s/I am offering/Kevin Dean (GS1) is offering
15:34:37 <Orie_> kristina: I think we have consensus on seperate documents per deliverable
15:34:53 <manu> q+ to cover structure of documents given proposal I sent out 3 weeks ago to WG.
15:34:57 <Orie_> ... DI Doc, JWT Doc, Data Model Doc
15:34:58 <kristina> ack manu
15:34:58 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to cover structure of documents given proposal I sent out 3 weeks ago to WG.
15:35:20 <Orie_> manu: in general +1 to that... I sent out a planned document structure on what the deliverables could be like
15:35:31 <Orie_> ... it would be good to get to details, eventually
15:35:44 <Orie_> ... maybe we should gather more feedback?
15:35:50 <mprorock> +1 manu - but i think we hashed some of that out during re-charter
15:36:03 <kristina> q?
15:36:14 <brentz> q+
15:36:14 <Orie_> kristina: the charter clarifies this, I think we can proceed to clarify
15:36:16 <mprorock> q+ impl
15:36:21 <Orie_> ... concrete deliverables
15:36:22 <kristina> ack brentz
15:36:23 <mprorock> q+
15:36:26 <Orie_> q+
15:36:27 <mprorock> q- impl
15:36:39 <manu> q+ for concrete deliverables
15:37:06 <Orie_> brent: 1. VCDM (VC Data Model), 2. Securing VCDM -> VC JWT, Data Intrity
15:37:13 <selfissued> +1 to Brent's document set
15:37:14 <Orie_> ... any opposition?
15:37:15 <manu> +1 to at least that separation
15:37:17 <mprorock> +1
15:37:17 <Orie_> +1
15:37:24 <decentralgabe> are json schemas under (1)?
15:37:26 <mprorock> fine
15:37:29 <TallTed> s/Intrity/Integrity/
15:37:46 <Orie_> brent: we have conditionall normative deliverables all under "securing VCs umbrella"
15:37:47 <decentralgabe> ack
15:37:53 <Orie_> ... some of these are blocked
15:38:04 <selfissued> q+
15:38:19 <Orie_> ... VC JWP, JsonWebSignature2020, Koblitz, KoblitzRecovery, etc..
15:38:24 <mprorock> +1 jwp, jws2020
15:38:28 <Orie_> ... is this a set we want to focus on now?
15:38:39 <mprorock> q+
15:38:40 <manu> +1 to begin writing now (but not a super strong focus)
15:38:46 <Orie_> ... I am concerned that if we do too much we will spread too thin
15:38:53 <kristina> ack mprorock
15:39:37 <Orie_> mprorock: regarding starting on stuff now, we want to start to address crypto-agility now... feels like JsonWebSignature2020 might be good to start now... assuming editors are not strongly overlapping
15:39:46 <Orie_> ... also wanted to note the implementation guide
15:40:02 <Orie_> ... want to start imp guide, but some will need to wait for progress
15:40:03 <brentz> +1, we are first looking at normative
15:40:13 <kristina> ack Orie_
15:40:48 <kristina> scribe+
15:40:57 <manu> Orie: Some of this may have been covered, just wanted to make my position clear. I can offer to be editor for core data model spec, offer to be editor of JWT specific variant, and interested in JWS components.
15:41:11 <manu> Orie: If I had to only put myself in one item, it would be VC-JWT.
15:41:13 <mprorock> +1 orie as an editor
15:41:31 <manu> Orie: I think I can be useful and helpful on that. Wanted to make my preferences clear.
15:41:43 <kristina> q
15:41:44 <brentz> q+ sam
15:41:45 <kristina> q?
15:41:54 <kristina> ack manu
15:41:54 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to discuss concrete deliverables
15:42:00 <Orie_> manu: +1 to the refinement that brent put forward
15:42:10 <Orie_> ... i like the tracks
15:42:25 <Orie_> ... I think we should start in parallel, assuming we have enough editors to do things in parallel.
15:42:34 <Orie_> ... we don't want to overload a single editor
15:43:00 <Orie_> ... I am happy to do editorial on the VCDM, happy to be lead editor of Data Integrity spec, and 1-2 cryptosuites
15:43:15 <Orie_> ... thats probably what I can commit to
15:43:35 <Orie_> ... my concern about delaying is that we always run out of time, we should start in paralllel
15:44:06 <Orie_> ... given that our charter is really about getting the "securing part" right... I would like to see us focus on those 2 primary deliverables first
15:44:20 <kristina> ack selfissued
15:44:23 <Orie_> kristina: thanks for clarify and offerign to help
15:44:23 <selfissued> There will be a JSON Web Proofs BoF at IETF in Philadelphia on Monday, July 25 at 1:30pm.  The BoF description is https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bofreq-miller-json-web-proofs/, which includes links to a draft charter and a draft agenda.  Please participate!
15:44:43 <Orie_> selfissued: I wanted to advertise the JWP BoF at IETF 114
15:44:46 <mprorock> +1 BOF on JWP - could be very cool and timely
15:45:03 <Orie_> ... it was helpful to the IETF AD to help schedule the BoF based on our current charter
15:45:21 <kristina> there is also SD-JWT work in IETF oauth WG https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fett-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt-02
15:45:27 <Orie_> ... the WG to be reformed will be the JOSE WG at IETF <??>
15:45:39 <kristina> ack sam
15:46:09 <brentz> q+
15:46:21 <Orie_> SamSmith: I am new to this WG... is this the only things this WG is going to do? can we propose new work items for ACDC, KERI, Caesar
15:46:22 <mprorock> https://www.w3.org/2022/06/verifiable-credentials-wg-charter.html
15:46:30 <kristina> ack brentz
15:46:33 <selfissued> We are asking that the WG to be formed to be a reconstituted JOSE WG
15:46:35 <Orie_> ... what is the process for proposing new work items
15:46:57 <Orie_> ... the charter is not exhaustive, the WG can come to consensus on adding new conditional things
15:47:00 <mprorock> "Other cryptographic suites for NIST RSA, EASC DSA, SM9 IBSA, NIST post-quantum cryptography, or other externally standardized cryptographic primitives may be produced under the same conditions as the table above."
15:47:41 <Orie_> ... longer answer, in order to be released as a normative spec from W3C, all the dependencies must be from an "equivalent standards body" such as IETF, ISO, etc...
15:47:52 <kristina> q?
15:48:22 <Orie_> kristina: seems we agree to start on 3 main items, VCDM, VC JWT, VC DI
15:48:44 <manu> q+ on items to start with.
15:48:47 <Orie_> ... we don't seem to have agreed on which items to start with?
15:49:10 <Orie_> ... parallelism, and editors?
15:49:12 <SamSmith> SamSmith has joined #vcwg
15:49:15 <kristina> ack manu
15:49:15 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to comment on items to start with.
15:49:29 <Orie_> manu: yeah... folks will need to step forward and do the work
15:49:39 <Orie_> ... clearly we should start VCDM2.0
15:49:57 <Orie_> ... I also think we do need to focus on the VC JWT and VC DI stuff
15:50:00 <DavidC> q+
15:50:08 <selfissued> q+
15:50:12 <Orie_> ... these documents should start immediatly
15:50:23 <Orie_> ... cryptosuites seems dependent on that
15:50:32 <Orie_> ... seems they are a secondary priority
15:50:46 <Orie_> ... at least 1 suite per "securing the data model" spec.
15:50:51 <kristina> ack DavidC
15:50:52 <mprorock> +1 we really need some cryptosuites along side, especially items that can inform both JWT and LD Proofs
15:50:58 <manu> q+ to share diagram on what this /could/ look like.
15:51:07 <selfissued> I agree with Manu's characterization of the deliverables we want at minimum
15:51:23 <Orie_> DavidC: I announced to the OIDC last week, Spruce Inc and ourselves won a competition to do interop work on OIDC4VC with JWTs
15:51:35 <Orie_> ... we've been talking to OIDC about their existing test infra
15:51:47 <Orie_> ... interested in testing new features from OIDC4VC
15:52:21 <kristina> ack selfissued
15:52:24 <Orie_> ... in that vein, I was an author of the VCDM1.1 and willing to be author / editor of that document
15:52:32 <Orie_> selfissued: I agree with manu
15:52:51 <Orie_> ... we did have a volunteer for use case, where we have volunteers, i think we should start that work
15:52:53 <brentz> +1 Mike
15:52:56 <mprorock> +1 selfissued
15:53:00 <kristina> q?
15:53:04 <kristina> ack manu
15:53:04 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to share diagram on what this /could/ look like.
15:53:05 <Orie_> ... I would be willing to help with JsonWebSignature2020
15:53:19 <Orie_> manu: I wanted to share the diagram I shared a week ago
15:53:28 <Orie_> ... maybe this visual will help
15:53:59 <Orie_> ... see red, green and purple
15:54:05 <selfissued> Good diagram
15:54:10 <Joe_Andrieu> q+ to support update to use case document
15:54:22 <Orie_> ... since we have volunteers for use case, we should kick that off
15:54:28 <Orie_> selfissued: agree
15:54:38 <Orie_> manu: lets see how far we get with these items
15:54:49 <kristina> ack Joe_Andrieu
15:54:49 <Zakim> Joe_Andrieu, you wanted to support update to use case document
15:55:12 <Orie_> Joe_Andrieu: I am willing to help with use cases
15:55:24 <Orie_> ... I want talk about more non normative docs and the vc-api
15:55:25 <manu> potential organization of group deliverables (purely for informational purposes): https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2022Jun/att-0009/2022_VCWG_Specifications_Relationship_Diagram.pdf
15:55:32 <kristina> q?
15:55:36 <drummond> drummond has joined #vcwg
15:55:47 <Orie_> kristina: thanks joe, this has been a great conversation
15:55:48 <drummond> present+
15:56:05 <Orie_> ... if you are interested in editor ship, reach out to chairs
15:56:08 <Joe_Andrieu> present+
15:56:32 <kristina> q?
15:56:52 <Orie_> TallTed: W3 is aiming to change all calls to 55 minutes
15:57:01 <Orie_> ... please end on time
15:57:09 <brentz> fwiw, we always aim for 55 minutes.
15:57:09 <Orie_> kristina: see TPAC
15:57:12 <brentz> and we always go over
15:57:13 <Orie_> ... register, etc..
15:57:41 <kristina> zakim end meeting
15:57:48 <kristina> rrsagent, bye
15:57:48 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
15:59:22 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
15:59:22 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/07/13-vcwg-irc
15:59:34 <brentz> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:59:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/07/13-vcwg-minutes.html brentz
15:59:47 <brentz> rrsagent, bye
15:59:58 <brentz> rrsagnet, make minutes public
16:00:04 <brentz> rrsagent, make minutes public
16:00:04 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', brentz.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:00:31 <brentz> RRSAgent, make logs Public
16:00:40 <brentz> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:00:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/07/13-vcwg-minutes.html brentz
16:00:47 <brentz> rrsagent, bye
16:00:47 <RRSAgent> I see no action items