– DRAFT –
VCWG Teleconference

ToddSnyder new from GS1

Manu: chairs asked editors to prepare FPWDs

kristina: to probably bring up next week

kristina: facetoface recap details and minutes are available
… content type discussion for vc datamodel and vc jwt prs have been merged and review continues
… holder bindings conversation, no official resolution but there is PR from Oliver - plrease review
… extension points, there are a lot, we need to make sure they are functional, the conversation is on going and we need to start looking toward feature freeze, no scope expansion after this point
… day 2 vc data integrity there was wording approved "stop working on vc-jws2020 and merge part of that work into vc-di-eddsa"

<Orie> technically the eddsa-2020 work item decisions wrt JCS are orthogonal to vc-jws-2020 decision

kristina: day 2 continuation on vc-jwt media types
… bringing clarity on pr44
… day 3 @context optional conversation, resolution was three steps, base data model agreement credential+ld+json
… second step other documents may supply other wording

<kristina> q？

stenr: vc face to face agenda... identified topics interest to working group, those topics were prioritized

kristina: @context resultion that passed was base media type is crdential+ld+json, @context is required in that base media type
… other media types must be able to tranform the base media type
…
… transformation must specifiy uni/bi directional, those transformation might not fall under this WG

kgriffin-gleif: Coming out of the F2F in Miami, there was discussion around VC-JWT around external proof format.

kgriffin-gleif: There was a desire from GLEIF for ACDC that felt analogous to that. The request from the room was concrete proposal and three additional supporters and add item before feature freeze.

kgriffin-gleif: We obtained 3 additional sponsors, where in the process would this go?

kristina: Please socialize that on the mailing list, we can put it on agenda in next WG call.

https://weboftrust.github.io/vc-acdc/

kristina: There are other work item proposals being circulated, we should take time during next call or special topic call for all of those proposals. Please socialize your proposal on mailing list.

VC Specifications Directory

kristina: are we readiy to talk about specification directories

Verifiable Credential Specifications Directory: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2023Feb/0015.html

manu: yes, we have been talking about registries, some concerns over registries being too centralized
… there is a proposal out there link above around VC specifications directory
… many months of arguements around what goes into, or how it goes into a directory
… this proposal is more light weight
… to get into the directory you PR to add to the regsitry
… provide (the right set) of fields, syntax checking fundamentally you can get into the directory by providing extenstions or if you extend any of the properties, or if you
… implement new crdentials
… if you have a spec and it works with VCs this is a good place to be
… if this becomes a work item, there would be a process for entering the directory, to remove extreme bad usage of the directory
… open to including as many as we can, omitting anything that would cause direct harm

<kristina> this issue would be related: w3c/vc-data-model#909

manu: concrete proposal, adopt this as a work item so we can aggrerate specifications

<Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to ask about ordering and control

JoeAndrieu: Question, around control mechanisms, are there any? once an entry is in, who owns it, who updates it

manu: the author would

JoeAndrieu: prefer to formalize authorization in the specification
… second question to provide mechanism to avoid gmaing of the directory (get their spec to the top)
… concrete ask, how do we provide control and ordering

<brentz> does this addition of ordering and control need to happen before the work item is adopted?

kristina: clarification around how you get into the directory

Orie: thanks for preparing the docuemnt, background on other spec registries
… no concrete proposal but plus one to manus comment on registries, we talked about relationship around regsitries with other groups ccg etc
… question would ccg be a home for this document vs this working group
… are we sure this is awork item for this group, could it be maintained by another gorup, is there a stragegic advantage for this group to do it

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask if these can be issues, or we need to resolve them before adopting the work item?

manu: first point, what happens to the cryptro suite in the ccg, should shut down, it was not maintained like it should have been
… there are benefits to doing wgvc vs ccg so we're making progess doing it here
… s econd item shut down the cyrpto suite in ccg
… third item is missing in manus mind :(

<Orie> Thanks Manu, thats what I was hoping to hear.

SamSmith: experiencing disputs with with did:keri plus one. if we are having a registry that is name squattable the request is to have conrete procedures, look toward IANA

kristina: can you please indicate if you want to accept this work item

brentz: hear concerns around how we go about doing this, this should perhaps be a work item first as a propsal and bring it in
… then raise issues

<Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to support keeping in VCWG for consensus reasons

JoeAndrieu: plus one adopting it...
… short version, if we hand over to ccg...

<JoeAndrieu> the right to change the rules

<JoeAndrieu> I'll say it here.

<JoeAndrieu> +1 to adopting this work item, and fixing the control and ordering questions through consensus

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask if we can make these issues or we have to resolve them before accepting item?

manu: can we convert the conversation to issues on the proposal

<JoeAndrieu> +1 to keeping it in VCWG because handing it to CCG also hands control over the directory rules, which would allow, IMO, too much flexibility to a different consensus process.

<brentz> add "using the shortname vc-spec-dir"

manu: draft proposal adopt this as a work item (this being VC speccs directory)

stenr: question on this, how to deal with collisions
… just add it to the list?

manu: suggestion is you just add it to the list, post finger wagging

<JoeAndrieu> A book store can readily sell different books with the same name.

kristina: any changes want to see to the proposal in irc

manu: brent suggestion of short name can be worked on before FPWD
… we don't have to make a short name decision now

<TallTed> "tentatively using the shortname vc-spec-dir"

manu: we'll do it before FPWD

brentz: short name, we'll work it out

<SamSmith> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html

<kristina> PROPOSAL: Adopt https://msporny.github.io/vc-specs-directory/ as the "VC Specs Directory" work item in the VCWG tentatively using the shortname vc-spec-dir, converting all concerns raised during the call to issues in the Github repository.

+1

<brentz> +1

<stenr> +1

<JoeAndrieu> +1

<ToddSnyderGS1US> +1

<Phil-T3> +1 to the creating VC Specs Directory proposal

<andres> +1

<dlongley> +1

<shigeya> +1

<tplooker> +1

<TallTed> +1

<Kerri_Lemoie> +1

+1

<SamSmith> See RFC 8126 section 9.5. Contact Person vs Assignee or Owner

<decentralgabe> +1

<smccown> +1

<SamSmith> +1

<Orie> +1

<dmitriz> +1

kristina: last call

kristina: the propsoal is resolved, there are no objections

RESOLUTION: Adopt https://msporny.github.io/vc-specs-directory/ as the "VC Specs Directory" work item in the VCWG tentatively using the shortname vc-spec-dir, converting all concerns raised during the call to issues in the Github repository.

kristina: do we need to run a propsoal around retiring the crypto suite at ccg

manu: will draft, he needs a minute

<stenr> Looking at https://w3c-ccg.github.io/ld-cryptosuite-registry/, right?

kristina: and we make the propsoal more specific with regard to reregsitering

<Orie> Also w3c-ccg/vc-extension-registry

kristina: anything that is duplicative can it only reside in the new directory

manu: no duplication, we will be redirecting

kristina: can we migrate?

<Orie> typically we do a "client side redirect" or a server side one if w3id.org is used.

manu: we'll redirect the whole registry, if they had an old one, they can register

yes, Orie is correct... we're talking about BOTH of those registries.

Orie: noting that there are two registries vc extenstion and crypto suite, are we retiring both

<kristina> draft proposal: The W3C VCWG requests that the Credentials Community Group redirect the entire existing Cryptosuites Registry and the Verifiable Credential Extension Registries to the newly adopted VC Specs Directory.

<kristina> proposal: The W3C VCWG requests that the Credentials Community Group redirect the entire existing Cryptosuites Registry and the Verifiable Credential Extension Registries to the newly adopted VC Specs Directory.

<Orie> +1

<stenr> +1

+1

<dlongley> +1

<Phil-T3> +1

<JoeAndrieu> +1

<andres> +1

<ToddSnyderGS1US> +1

<shigeya> +1

+1

<tplooker> +1

<decentralgabe> +1

<Kerri_Lemoie> +1

<smccown> +1

<brentz> +1

<dmitriz> +1

<TallTed> +1

<Paul_Dietrich_GS1> +1

RESOLUTION: The W3C VCWG requests that the Credentials Community Group redirect the entire existing Cryptosuites Registry and the Verifiable Credential Extension Registries to the newly adopted VC Specs Directory.

o/ \o/

kristina: no minus ones - proposal is resolved
… thank manu for the document
… please raise issues if you're worried about collisions etc
… and an editor give an update on which PRs more attention or special topic call

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

manu: vc dm has 17 prs open, please look at the top eight or more
… there are a number with do not merge, special call require

<kristina> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-integrity/pulls

<kristina> https://github.com/w3c/vc-di-eddsa/pulls

manu: start processing prs this weekend if the PR is older than seven days

kristina: can we have more than a week

manu: fourteen days had been given, what do we want additional

kristina: if people are OK with the warning on the call (seven days)

manu: if there are old PRs with no objections, it will be moved, recent ones with not much review, will not be merged

kristina: a lot of work items propsed, please exercise rational judgment!