14:47:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
14:47:11 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/04/24-vcwg-irc
14:47:12 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:47:13 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:47:19 <ivan> zakim, start meeting
14:47:19 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
14:47:19 <ivan> Date: 2024-04-24
14:47:19 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:47:20 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:47:20 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/0d074559-1457-4540-857b-24b1be7a8d7f/20240424T110000/
14:47:20 <ivan> chair: brent
14:47:20 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2024-04-24: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/0d074559-1457-4540-857b-24b1be7a8d7f/20240424T110000/
14:53:16 <brent> brent has joined #vcwg
15:00:40 <ivan> present+
15:00:46 <ivan> present+ brent
15:01:21 <ivan> present+ pauld
15:01:32 <ivan> present+ selfissued
15:01:36 <ivan> present+ tallted
15:01:51 <ivan> present+ anil
15:02:00 <manu> present+
15:02:16 <brentz> brentz has joined #vcwg
15:02:17 <ivan> present+ Jennie
15:02:21 <brentz> present+
15:02:31 <ivan> present+ davidc
15:02:38 <dlongley> present+
15:02:43 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
15:03:44 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg
15:03:52 <ivan> present+ dlehn
15:03:55 <dlehn> present+
15:03:55 <pauld_gs1> pauld_gs1 has joined #vcwg
15:04:13 <hsano> present+
15:04:28 <ivan> present+ pl_asu
15:04:28 <pauld_gs1> present+
15:05:00 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:05:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/24-vcwg-minutes.html TallTed
15:06:15 <aniltj> aniltj has joined #vcwg
15:06:37 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
15:07:14 <Phil> Phil has joined #vcwg
15:07:14 <ivan> present+ JoeAndrieu
15:07:33 <Phil> scribe +
15:07:38 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #vcwg
15:07:46 <TallTed> scribe: Phil
15:07:56 <ivan> scribe+ Phil
15:08:43 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #vcwg
15:08:45 <Phil> BrentZ: agenda listed
15:08:45 <manu> q+
15:08:53 <ivan> present+ bigbluehat
15:09:03 <brentz> ack manu
15:09:14 <brentz> Topic: Digital Credentials API
15:09:17 <Phil> Manyu: current discussion around the digital credentials API
15:09:44 <ivan> -> Proposed FedID WG Charter https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/2024/wg-fedid.html
15:10:05 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/450#issuecomment-2071044945
15:10:11 <Phil> Manu: suggested the credential API be included in the charter
15:10:27 <Phil> Manu: could be very positive if done right.
15:10:37 <brentz> Topic: TPAC
15:10:39 <brentz>  https://www.w3.org/events/tpac/2024/tpac-2024-hybrid-meeting/
15:10:39 <Phil> Brentz: Topic is TPAC
15:11:14 <Phil> Brentz: should we meet at TPAC, if so, what topics are most important to discuss
15:11:17 <manu> +1 for meeting at TPAC
15:12:15 <Phil> brentz:  by the time of TPAC we'll have had a number of specs in CR with implementer feedback, and thus a good time to discuss feedback, finalize testing and exiting CR, notes in progress and what is next for the VCWG?
15:12:39 <manu> q+ to agree with Brent, also strategy and future VCWG work, also don't conflict w/ DID Core and DC API :)
15:12:45 <brentz> ack manu
15:12:45 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to agree with Brent, also strategy and future VCWG work, also don't conflict w/ DID Core and DC API :)
15:12:45 <Phil> brentz: sufficient topics to validate having the meeting
15:13:29 <Phil> Manu: gather feedback before TPAC and discussing it there is a good use of the group's time.
15:13:44 <ivan> q+
15:13:58 <brentz> ack ivan
15:13:59 <Phil> manu: there are competing meetings that may be problematic but maybe impossible to avoid
15:14:48 <Phil> ivan: could separate the ID and VC working groups to avoid most of the conflicts.
15:15:35 <ivan> s/ID and/DID and/
15:15:40 <Phil> ivan: overlap with federated ID isn't sufficient to be a problem for the VC WG
15:15:51 <manu> q+ to bring PING and SecWG in?
15:16:03 <brentz> ack manu
15:16:03 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to bring PING and SecWG in?
15:16:19 <Phil> manu: would it be a good time to bring Ping or the Security Working group in for a discussion?
15:16:35 <ivan> q+
15:16:56 <brentz> ack ivan
15:17:03 <Phil> brentz: could see security folks involved that would be useful
15:17:35 <Phil> ivan: Could with advanced scheduling bring in Simona as well.
15:17:44 <ivan> s/Simona/Simone/
15:17:53 <brentz> Topic: Bitstring Status List CR
15:18:02 <brentz> https://w3c.github.io/vc-bitstring-status-list/CR/2024-05-09/
15:19:43 <brentz> PROPOSAL: Publish the Bitstring Status List v1.0 specification (https://w3c.github.io/vc-bitstring-status-list/CR/2024-CR1/) as a W3C Candidate Recommendation with a target publication date of May 9th 2024 and a CR period of 1 month.
15:19:47 <ivan> +1
15:19:48 <brentz> +1
15:19:48 <dlongley> +1
15:19:49 <manu> +1
15:19:51 <JoeAndrieu> +1
15:19:51 <DavidC> +1
15:19:53 <TallTed> +1
15:19:55 <Phil> brentz: any changes to this proposal from the group here? (note URL of bitstring status list is going to the same content)
15:19:56 <bigbluehat> +1
15:19:57 <hsano> +1
15:19:58 <JennieM> +1
15:19:59 <Phil> +1
15:20:03 <pauld_gs1> +1
15:20:25 <brentz> RESOLVED: Publish the Bitstring Status List v1.0 specification (https://w3c.github.io/vc-bitstring-status-list/CR/2024-CR1/) as a W3C Candidate Recommendation with a target publication date of May 9th 2024 and a CR period of 1 month.
15:20:50 <Phil> brentz proposal passes unanimously!
15:21:26 <aniltj> +1 for me as well.. (New member trying to catch up on process)
15:21:57 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
15:22:04 <selfissued> present+
15:22:30 <Phil> anil: introduces himself to the group from DHS and involved in many working groups. DHS is extensively using W3C Standards in their work.
15:22:35 <manu> Welcome Anil! :)
15:22:38 <brentz> Topic: Test Suites and CR Exits
15:22:40 <dlongley> Welcome!
15:22:49 <Phil> great to see you Anil!
15:23:49 <Phil> brentz: intend to have test suites for implementers to demonstrate features for the specifications, each with their own test suite. Topic to help understand status of text suites & what needs doing to exit CR?
15:24:05 <manu> q+ to ask about CR2 timing.
15:24:11 <brentz> ack manu
15:24:11 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about CR2 timing.
15:24:19 <bigbluehat> q+
15:24:32 <manu> q+ to ask about CR2 timing.
15:24:34 <brentz> ack bigbluehat
15:26:35 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
15:26:54 <Phil> benjamin:ECDSA test suite is ready (98% if not 100%) - the next test suite ECDM2.0 then BBS+ and a EDSA slight updates. Have test suite ofc. hours fortnightly 10:00 am EDT. More participation would help
15:28:04 <Phil> s/benjamin/biggluehat/
15:28:05 <hsano> s/ECDM/VCDM/
15:29:10 <DavidC> s/biggluehat/bigbluehat/
15:29:21 <Phil> bigbluehat:  have not seen JOSE/COSE or JSON Schema; plumbing set up for a MOCA based test suite infrastructure.
15:29:31 <aniltj> q+ test suites
15:30:02 <Phil> brentz: there are test suites in progress for JOSE/COSE but they haven't reached out to bigbluehat
15:30:05 <manu> q+ aniltj
15:30:10 <manu> q- test
15:30:13 <manu> q- suites
15:30:15 <ivan> s/MOCA/Mocha/
15:30:51 <Phil> bigbluehat: not implying their way to doing test suites are the only way, they just haven't heard from some that may be in development.
15:31:06 <brentz> ack manu
15:31:06 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about CR2 timing.
15:31:45 <brentz> q+ to respond to manu
15:32:06 <Phil> manu: another question - when do we go to a second CR?  As soon as each test suite has multiple implementations and 100% coverage we could say we're ready for a second CR.  Assumption nothing will change.
15:32:24 <ivan> q+
15:32:51 <Phil> manu: can do them one by one.  Painful for all concerned. But it works. Or queue up all the second CR for one final push.  But dependencies between specs becomes problematic
15:33:15 <Phil> manu: Open question on the strategy to get things done. Preference of the group?
15:33:17 <brentz> ack aniltj
15:34:04 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #vcwg
15:34:18 <brentz> ack brentz
15:34:18 <Zakim> brentz, you wanted to respond to manu
15:34:18 <Phil> anil: agree with the need for JOSE/COSE test suites. Use them for trade based credentials. Anil will ping the implementation teams if they can help support the test suites.
15:34:23 <selfissued> q+
15:34:46 <Phil> brentz: as with first CR transition the only rule for moving to CR2 is when the editors thing it time.
15:35:11 <manu> q+ to suggest "we'll be opportunistic about bundling CRs"?
15:35:44 <Phil> brentz: whether to do them at once or staggered is up to the group (there are 9 specs going to CR2)
15:35:45 <brentz> ack ivan
15:36:46 <manu> oh! I thought we had to do another transition request for CR2! Ok, that makes things way easier (except for Ivan and the webmaster) :P
15:36:49 <Phil> ivan: One misunderstanding - a second CR is NOT reviewed by W3C management. Only the Webmaster and Ivan have to review it. A second CR is relevant if there are normative changes. If only editorial we can ignore it.
15:37:45 <Phil> ivan: with Ivan's experience if before proposed recommendation and have had a long CR period we might be asked to do a CR snapshot because it's the last chance to review it, maybe horizontal review, etc.
15:38:43 <brentz> ack selfissued
15:38:45 <Phil> ivan: we might want to plan a CR review after TPAC - but there is no reason to rush into a CR because no normative changes of import made to the documents. Hence, not warranted to do a CR.
15:39:05 <aniltj> Thank you Mike :-)
15:39:16 <brentz> ack manu
15:39:16 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to suggest "we'll be opportunistic about bundling CRs"?
15:39:25 <Phil> selfiissued: pronounciation of JOSE (think San Jose)
15:40:34 <Phil> manu: hearing we should be opportunistic. will need CR2 for data integrity specs.
15:40:58 <Phil> ivan: no review needed if no normative changes
15:41:27 <brentz> Topic: Work Item Status Updates/PRs
15:41:37 <manu> q+
15:41:54 <brentz> ack manu
15:41:57 <Phil> brentz: if any work items need reviews now is the time
15:42:05 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1464
15:43:15 <Phil> manu: the big ones for VCDM 2.0 are the editorial changes from J. Askin's (sp) proposed changes.  Having more eyes on this would be helpful.
15:43:26 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
15:43:56 <Phil> brentz: reviews of VCDM 2.0 has received positive reviews
15:44:17 <Phil> manu: he will merge the VCDM 2.0 this weekend. Get your comments in!
15:44:22 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1476
15:44:48 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1476
15:45:19 <Phil> manu: it seems some level of disagreement on PR #1476
15:45:27 <ivan> present+ dmitriz
15:46:11 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/vc-use-cases/pull/154
15:46:36 <Phil> brentz: two lifecycle sections in the spec was moved, the second life cycles was going to be incorporated into the use cases document. Moving the second section to that place seemed unnecessary.
15:46:50 <manu> q+ to agree that moving both things out would be good.
15:47:16 <brentz> ack manu
15:47:16 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to agree that moving both things out would be good.
15:47:18 <Phil> brentz: David Chadwick noted there wasn't any ecosystem section in the spec but the current approach is not to include it and move forward.
15:47:20 <ivan> q+
15:47:59 <Phil> manu: agrees we don't need the above sections.  If something is missing we should have the discussion in the use cases document
15:48:01 <brentz> ack ivan
15:48:53 <TallTed> q+
15:49:01 <Phil> ivan: wondering whether it's worth having an overview document for all the specs we've done. For an outsider coming in, it appears extremely messy.  Some of the things moved to the use cases doc might better be in an overview doc.
15:49:04 <brentz> ack TallTed
15:49:37 <Phil> TallTed: Agrees an overview doc is called for. Still doesn't make sense to TallTed to consider lifecycle as as use case.
15:49:48 <DavidC> q+
15:50:00 <brentz> ack DavidC
15:50:29 <manu> q+
15:50:57 <TallTed> +1 nobody coming when v3 or v4 is "current" is going to look to v1 to learn the lifecycle
15:50:57 <manu> q-
15:50:58 <Phil> DavidC: the arguments for removing it are spurious. But people who come to VCDM v2.0 without reading earlier versions because so many newbies are coming to the v2 fresh.
15:51:07 <manu> q+
15:51:10 <brentz> ack manu
15:51:37 <Phil> DavidC: Value i leaving it in because there value  for it  in V1
15:52:46 <Phil> manu: maybe use cases is a temporary location for the lifecycle until we have an overview document. We have one from RWOT that may be usable.
15:53:32 <Phil> brentz: chair hat on -Brentz will do whatever the group wants to do. If we move forward would DavidC. object?
15:53:42 <Phil> DavidC: no he would not object.
15:53:43 <ivan> -> Example for a standards' Overview document for the OWL family https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
15:53:52 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1478
15:53:55 <selfissued> Are we going to talk about the media types issue?
15:54:03 <selfissued> Oh - good
15:54:14 <selfissued> q+
15:55:01 <Phil> manu: media types PR.... Should use /vp and /vc  - dont' know how long this last. Should go with clear media types and continue multiple suffix's discussion in parallel.
15:55:44 <brentz> ack selfissued
15:55:44 <Phil> brentz: change media types to something that we know will be approved with the intention of doing multiple structured suffixes until we know what IETF is going to do.
15:56:18 <manu> q+ to note the DEs take guidance from the multiple suffixes spec, also, it's a breaking change that no one has implemented.
15:56:38 <manu> q+ to note registration was rejected 3 years ago.
15:56:49 <Phil> selfissued: this is  a breaking change to many specs. It's a set of experts.  Selfissued would like to request registration to call the question.
15:56:56 <brentz> ack manu
15:56:56 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note the DEs take guidance from the multiple suffixes spec, also, it's a breaking change that no one has implemented. and to note registration was rejected 3
15:56:59 <Zakim> ... years ago.
15:57:44 <Phil> manu: we tried to do this 3 years ago and it was rejected that led to the multiple suffixes draft. It's a breaking change but it's been barely implemented, and we're in CR so we can make breaking changes now.
15:58:17 <ivan> q+
15:58:20 <dmitriz> @manu - what's the downside of just asking for registration? Stuff has changed in 3 years
15:58:31 <Phil> manu: deisgnated experts take advice from the spec which this case is the multiple suffixes spec which Manu is editor to. No timeline on getting this stuff resolved.
15:58:46 <brentz> ack ivan
15:58:46 <selfissued> q+
15:59:07 <manu> dmitriz -- it will be rejected, I can guarantee it. At the very least, *I* will object to it as the editor of the multiple suffixes draft.
15:59:26 <manu> I also expect the other DEs to reject it, having had this discussion with them for years.
15:59:45 <manu> I also expect the MEDIAMAN WG to suggest it be rejected, because it's actively used.
15:59:51 <Phil> ivan: we have a timing issue as well. We'll need to republish the CR right after TPAC which must have the final version of the media types. To do this change to start media type registration will take 3 months and he's in favor of doing this change right night.
16:00:00 <Phil> s/night/now/
16:00:03 <brentz> ack selfissued
16:01:09 <Phil> selfissued: good data that it was tried 3 years ago.  Not clear that the decision 3 years ago would be be the same now.  Designated experts have a 2 week response time so that's not a timing issue. Now we're basing our path forward uncertain data.
16:01:22 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:01:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/24-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
16:02:17 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
16:02:17 <RRSAgent> I see no action items