14:42:30 RRSAgent has joined #vcwg-special 14:42:34 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/07/11-vcwg-special-irc 14:42:34 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:42:35 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan 14:43:20 Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Special Topic Call on Reviewing PRs 14:43:21 Date: 2023-07-11 14:43:21 chair: brent 14:43:21 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/f6342df0-f7b5-4fc9-babd-61e55dc5fc2f/20230711T110000/ 14:43:35 ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2023-07-11: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/f6342df0-f7b5-4fc9-babd-61e55dc5fc2f/20230711T110000/ 14:56:37 brent has joined #vcwg-special 14:59:21 hsano has joined #vcwg-special 15:00:14 andres has joined #vcwg-special 15:00:19 present+ 15:00:55 will has joined #vcwg-special 15:00:58 present+ 15:01:29 present+ 15:01:39 present+ 15:02:08 present+ pauld, gabe 15:02:16 decentralgabe has joined #vcwg-special 15:02:18 PL-ASU has joined #vcwg-special 15:02:22 present+ 15:02:27 present+ 15:02:55 present+ dlongley 15:03:43 PhilF has joined #vcwg-special 15:04:02 present+ 15:04:03 present+ 15:04:04 present+ orie 15:04:04 scribe+ 15:04:32 present+ hsano 15:04:36 present+ tallted 15:04:45 brent: today we will be going through various p.r.s looking to discover what changes can move these forward. 15:04:58 ... alternatively we will look to close them 15:05:24 Topic: PR reviews 15:05:25 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1100 15:05:41 ... this first one is media types + ld + json 15:05:57 ... buidling on some of the miami resolutions. Four requests for changes currently 15:06:08 oliver has joined #vcwg-special 15:06:11 present+ oliver 15:06:14 ... how can we move this P.R forward? 15:06:23 orie has joined #vcwg-special 15:06:25 present+ 15:06:31 q+ 15:06:40 ack PhilF 15:07:12 PhilF: kevin opened this P.R. Seems this P.R will not be able to move forward. No objections to closing 15:07:12 JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg-special 15:07:12 +1 PhilF 15:07:15 present+ jandrieu 15:07:27 brent: and objections to marking pending close? 15:07:55 ... no objections, labelling pending close. Will close in 7 days if no objections 15:08:22 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1101 15:08:53 present+ selfissued 15:08:53 ... this P.R is around trying to make miami resolution actionable 15:09:45 brent: within the next two weeks we will look forward to a replacement P.R from Mike Jones so we can close this one 15:09:50 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1142 15:10:13 brent: this next one is around adding confidence method as a reserved term 15:10:33 ... current understanding is this is blocked awaiting adoption from the CCG group to move this work forward 15:10:37 Per the last comment on it, I will remove the confidenceMethod part in a week or 2 if there is still not CCG adoption. 15:11:02 oliver: currently waiting for owners of this work in the CCG. Nobody has stood up to take on this work 15:11:19 q+ to ask why 2 weeks and not just before CR? 15:11:25 ... intend to wait two weeks, if noone willing to take this on then we should close this P.R in the VCDM 15:11:32 ack dlongley 15:11:32 dlongley, you wanted to ask why 2 weeks and not just before CR? 15:11:34 brent: started 2 week time out 5 days ago 15:11:53 dlongley: question around why 2 weeks timeout as opposed to just before CR 15:12:01 selfissued has joined #vcwg-special 15:12:03 oliver: I eould be supportive of this 15:12:18 present+ 15:12:21 s/eould/could/ 15:12:23 brent: goal of the shorter timeline is to not have P.Rs hanging around indefinitely 15:12:33 ... want P.Rs to be progressing, merging or closing 15:12:36 q+ 15:12:45 ack oliver 15:13:08 oliver: If we don't find anyone in two weeks, then we could create an issue to track this work 15:13:27 q+ 15:13:33 ack oliver 15:13:47 oliver: Need one person to be the main driver of this spec in the CCG 15:14:02 q+ 15:14:03 +1 to the issue compromise approach, clearly there's support for the work just people too busy right now. 15:14:08 ... have multiple copilots, but need a main driver that I can coordinate with 15:14:09 ack selfissued 15:14:24 selfissued: generally have policy to only put normative things in the spec 15:14:44 ... CCG work item does not qualify to add an identifier to our spec 15:14:57 ... CCG is not standards track 15:15:02 +1 selfissued, but the registration table is a cheat code :) 15:15:15 brent: recognise that, but this is about getting into the table of reserved properties 15:15:30 ... expect selfissued concerns to be addressed before CR 15:15:37 ... moving on 15:15:41 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1149 15:15:55 brent: graph node identifiers for registered claims 15:16:18 orie: P.R adds term defs for registered claim names consistent with IANA registrys 15:16:48 ... This will enable terms to be expanded with IANA term definitions 15:17:29 ... moved status list into v2 context, moved data integrity to make things easier. Follows that we would define these registered claim names in the v2 aswell 15:17:46 q+ 15:17:54 ack dlongley 15:17:59 dlongley: I have approved the P.R 15:18:06 s/aswell/as well/ 15:18:22 ... my understanding is current blocking is an example for the use of this 15:18:58 ... Help make sure we provide appropriate guidance to folks to avoid 1.1 mistakes 15:19:02 Do we have guidance on the DataIntegrity and StatusList parts, or is a different bar being applied here? 15:19:12 brent: TallTed can you speak to the change requests you would like 15:19:13 orie, totally different situations :) 15:19:20 disagree. 15:19:23 there are no conflicting properties there 15:19:29 TallTed: still reviewing the P.R 15:20:31 brent: my opinion as chair that if a P.R requesting changes to the spec. Can't just say you don't like it. If it doesn't prohibit you from doing what you need and doesnt break the internet. Then we should lean towards trusting intentions of those who raised P.R and let the work move forward 15:20:55 ... TallTed if you can take some time in the next few days to see if your request for changes have been satisfied. Same for manu, alhough not present today 15:21:13 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1163 15:21:22 brent: rationalise and clarify IANA considerations 15:21:57 TallTed: This P.R intends to add additional clarity to section headings and ordering 15:22:16 ... objection seems to be in relation to asthetic breakage of sidebar 15:22:17 I'm good with adding text under the heading, and changing the order... I don't like the messy sidebar. 15:22:42 ... the duplications can be eliminated by tweaking the headings 15:23:09 orie: fine with changing the order and adding clarifying text. Just don't like respec sidebars with really long headers 15:23:22 ... must have missed TallTed suggestion. Will take another look 15:23:42 dmitriz has joined #vcwg-special 15:23:47 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1172 15:24:24 brent: Add author and party to terminology and rewrite claim terminology. Raised by Reiks, not a member of the working group. But these are arguably editorial changes 15:24:40 ... P.R adjusts the definition of the claim 15:25:10 ... goes on to define party and makes changes about whether vc has been authored vs issued 15:25:13 q+ 15:25:19 ack orie 15:25:41 orie: not sure adding more roles helps with readability or clarity for implementers 15:26:06 ... reading some comment in relation to Presentation. Says something about holder is just another issuer when making claims about themselves 15:26:24 ... This makes sense to me 15:26:43 ... if we add this P.R. will have to go back to every place with issuer and holder and reevaluate this text 15:26:58 ... feel it will lead to confusion and extra text 15:27:03 q+ 15:27:06 brent: chair hat off. I share all those concerns 15:27:10 ack JoeAndrieu 15:27:19 JoeAndrieu: think there are interesting gaps we should clarify 15:27:36 for clarity in the minutes, i think the new role is "author" (i don't see any other new ones being added) 15:27:37 ... don't think we need to add more terms 15:27:54 ... have a notion that a device could be an issuer, holder etc. But not sure that fits with my mental model 15:28:08 q+ 15:28:18 ... issuer, verifier holder is legally congnizant entity that can take actions. Device is not this 15:28:19 ack TallTed 15:28:32 TallTed: the words JoeAndrieu just spoke concern me greatly 15:28:46 ... legally cognizable has not been part of our previous conversations 15:29:03 ... nothing in what we wrote before said they couldnt be machines 15:29:09 q+ 15:29:17 ack JoeAndrieu 15:29:42 JoeAndrieu: I think TallTed not entirely wrong. Think its about the ability to make a statement and what does that mean 15:29:43 q+ 15:29:48 q+ 15:29:56 ... people and corporations can make statements 15:30:06 ack TallTed 15:30:15 TallTed: okay, that applies to issuer perhaps. But not to holder or verifier. 15:30:26 q+ 15:30:39 ... neither one of those roles has anything to do with making a statement 15:30:55 ack brent 15:30:58 ... maybe the issuer, but dont suggest we go down that rabbit hole. 15:31:34 brent: some of earliest anon creds were by trusting computing modules. Issued by the device, to say something about the device. Strong example of issuer that is just a computer 15:31:36 ack JoeAndrieu 15:31:46 maybe this PR just needs to be pared back a little to get to consensus 15:31:49 JoeAndrieu: I think holders make statements when they make a presentation 15:32:03 ... highly relevant that the holder is signing the presentation 15:32:24 q+ 15:32:30 q+ 15:32:34 ack TallTed 15:32:40 ... for verifier I agree, they aren't making statements. But for me the verifier isnt the entity that is verifying business rules. BUt the entity writing the business rules. That entity is legally cognizable 15:32:41 +1 to the importance of the holder to be able state their claims about attributes of their capabilities in a self-issued credential. They are issuers in this context. 15:32:59 present+ identitywoman 15:33:02 ack brent 15:33:08 TallTed: do not fully disagree, but I do mostly. If we go down this road, we will need to be rechartered. Big, complex topic. 15:33:27 brent: suggestion to slim down the P.R from dlongley to increase chance of acceptance 15:33:30 ... moving on 15:33:49 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1182 15:34:43 brent: this P.R removes differentiation between JSONLD and JSON. Has relatively broad approval 15:34:55 ... minor changes from manu, that I agree with 15:34:58 identitywoman has joined #vcwg-special 15:35:12 ... not sure this P.R calls for much discussion, but open to any if there are some 15:35:45 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1183 15:36:41 brent: this clarifies the date time requirements for things like valid from and till. Provides a regex for validation. P.R has broad approval, awaiting a final thumbs up 15:36:51 ... from chair of the internationalization working group 15:37:02 q+ 15:37:03 ... open to comments 15:37:07 ack ivan 15:37:52 ivan: isnt it better to make this one and previous P.R. to say that as soon as submitter is finished they can merge the p.r 15:38:01 brent: not in the habit of doing this in the group. 15:38:23 ... happy to find a label/make a comment to that affect 15:38:48 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1186 15:39:15 brent: P.R seeks to address issue #860 15:39:33 ... provides normative guidance for holder claims in a presentation 15:39:51 ... a holder can elect to either produce a VC secured on its own and insert into vc array of the presentation 15:40:01 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/860 15:40:07 ... alternatively they can include an unsecured VC in the presented vcs. 15:40:36 ... as long as issuer field of the VC and the holder field of the presentation match. Then the issuer can have confidence that this is self attested claim from the holder 15:40:54 ... all comments have been responded to. Awaiting final review from TallTed 15:40:59 q+ 15:41:01 q+ 15:41:02 ... open to comments 15:41:02 +1 to that PR pertains to issue 860 15:41:06 ack andres 15:41:26 andres: made a comment about enabling forwarding of credentials 15:41:35 ... not sure how that would be possible using the self asserted type 15:41:54 q+ to say for that use case just sign the VC 15:42:06 ack oliver 15:42:08 ... maybe this isnt a use case that is as important to support 15:42:09 q+ 15:42:20 oliver: can see interop issues with this approach in the future 15:42:38 ... many other ways to achieve the same. Are we saying this is the only approach to achieve this 15:42:44 q+ 15:42:48 ack dlongley 15:42:48 dlongley, you wanted to say for that use case just sign the VC 15:42:52 ... nt sure this is the right approach. Not objecting, just a comment 15:43:06 dlongley: think forwarding use case can be solved by attaching a signature to the VC 15:43:16 ... using a SelfAsserted type is just a recommendation 15:43:29 s/nt sure/not sure/ 15:43:34 q- 15:43:53 ... think P.R is really around enabling the VP to be the securing for self attested claims 15:44:05 q+ 15:44:08 q+ 15:44:08 ... otherwise holder can just act in the role of issuer 15:44:28 ack JoeAndrieu 15:44:28 ... this adds a mechanism to secure using proof of the VP itself 15:44:54 JoeAndrieu: part of this shift has missed some of initial point from issue #860 15:45:16 ... this was about how you say these claims are about this specific thing right now 15:45:27 perhaps give the VP an ID and include that in your VC claims 15:45:30 ack PL-ASU 15:45:30 ... not sure how we address that 15:46:09 PL-ASU: this is in relation to the self asserted. The fact that there may be a circumstance where self-asserted claims do not want them to be forwarded 15:46:17 ack oliver 15:46:32 oliver: I heard that we have two different issues 15:46:58 ... JoeAndrieu wanted author of credentials about the VP and the ability to include those in a presentaiton 15:47:21 ... then there is the one about self asserted with proof from the VP used to secure 15:47:28 ... maybe we need separate P.Rs for this 15:47:53 brent: any concrete proposals or changes to this P.R is appreciated. Not sure how to act on the general guidance 15:48:21 ... responding to JoeAndrieu , should be easy to add a line to the sepc that addresses your usecase 15:48:55 JoeAndrieu: think that is pretty good. E.g. if it says if you are making a VP, you could have the ID of a VP that you then refer to 15:49:00 brent: okay I can make that change 15:49:12 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1189 15:49:24 brent: add section on media type precision. Some change requests 15:49:58 ... P.R adds guidance for implementers and users of spec for what they may do if they encounter diff media type / content 15:50:18 q+ 15:50:20 ... minimal processing guidlines to determine if contents conforms with VCDM 15:50:30 ack dlongley 15:50:34 q+ 15:50:34 q+ 15:50:36 dlongley: changes are applied. Approved now 15:50:39 ack TallTed 15:50:49 ack ivan 15:50:51 TallTed: appears to be same. Will double check but think it is ready to go 15:51:14 ivan: wondering whether it is appropriate to be as a normative section. This is guidlines for implementers 15:51:39 brent: note there is no normative language in the P.R 15:51:54 ivan: yeah but there is an algorithm. Normative sounding text 15:52:05 ... Not just about the SHOULD or MUST etc 15:52:14 ... not saying I am opposed, just asking the question 15:52:29 brent: any concrete changes? 15:53:02 ivan: changes would be to make it clearly informative. But just asking question currently 15:53:24 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1190 15:53:40 brent: P.R makes changes to the IANA considerations section 15:54:02 ... mentions application/vp+json alongside vc+json. 15:54:17 ... seems a very simple P.R. Expect to be merged soon 15:54:51 brent: encourage folks to take actions to move stuff forward. 11 P.Rs is slightly uncomfortable 15:54:59 ... thanks for attending 15:55:23 ... note that there are other P.Rs in other work items. Please review 15:55:43 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:55:44 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/07/11-vcwg-special-minutes.html ivan 15:56:02 zakim, end meeting 15:56:02 As of this point the attendees have been andres, will, brent, ivan, pauld, gabe, decentralgabe, PL-ASU, dlongley, PhilF, TallTed, orie, hsano, oliver, jandrieu, selfissued, 15:56:05 ... identitywoman 15:56:05 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 15:56:07 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/07/11-vcwg-special-minutes.html Zakim 15:56:13 I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 15:56:13 Zakim has left #vcwg-special 15:56:45 rrsagent, bye 15:56:45 I see no action items