14:49:18 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
14:49:23 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/05/29-vcwg-irc
14:49:23 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:49:24 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:49:34 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
14:49:34 <ivan> Date: 2024-05-29
14:49:34 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3c7f5c66-5e34-468a-837e-2c2bf12de748/20240529T110000/
14:49:34 <ivan> chair: brent
14:49:35 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2024-05-29: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3c7f5c66-5e34-468a-837e-2c2bf12de748/20240529T110000/
14:54:16 <brent> brent has joined #vcwg
14:55:36 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
14:57:48 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg
14:58:23 <ivan> present+
14:58:50 <ivan> present+ hsano
15:00:56 <dmitriz> present+
15:01:04 <manu> present+
15:01:13 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
15:01:22 <seabass> seabass has joined #vcwg
15:02:26 <ivan> present+ brent
15:02:41 <ivan> present+ sebastian
15:02:44 <dlongley> present+
15:02:58 <ivan> present+ mahmoud, jennie, bigbluehat
15:03:22 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #vcwg
15:04:13 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
15:04:21 <ivan> present+ joe, kdean
15:04:25 <manu> q+
15:05:06 <ivan> present+ will
15:05:23 <ivan> scribe+ bigbluehat
15:05:23 <KevinDeanLegReq> KevinDeanLegReq has joined #vcwg
15:05:31 <Will> Will has joined #vcwg
15:05:31 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #vcwg
15:05:39 <bigbluehat> present+
15:05:41 <aniltj> aniltj has joined #vcwg
15:05:47 <ivan> present+ aniltj
15:06:04 <bigbluehat> brent: agenda today is concise: work items, PRs, and issue processing
15:06:05 <brent> ack manu
15:06:09 <TallTed> present+
15:06:13 <bigbluehat> manu: a couple agenda items
15:06:24 <bigbluehat> ... a PR on the charter to address JoeAndrieu's concerns
15:06:29 <bigbluehat> ... maybe a few minutes for that?
15:06:54 <bigbluehat> ... also since aniltj is here, perhaps he can say a bit about what he shared on the CCG yesterday
15:07:05 <bigbluehat> brent: that OK with you, aniltj?
15:07:08 <bigbluehat> aniltj: yes. happy to
15:07:10 <brent> Topic: CCG Recap
15:07:32 <manu> Slide deck from presentation to CCG: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2024May/att-0075/DHS.Technical.Implementation.Requirements-Decentralized-Identity-v1.0-SHARE.pdf
15:07:33 <decentralgabe> decentralgabe has joined #vcwg
15:07:39 <decentralgabe> present+
15:07:44 <bigbluehat> aniltj: I gave a presentation at the CCG yesterday about how DHS is implementing decentralized identity
15:07:53 <manu> Video recording for CCG presentation on DHS Requirements using W3C VCs: https://meet.w3c-ccg.org/archives/w3c-ccg-weekly-2024-05-28.mp4
15:08:03 <bigbluehat> ... we are focused on using the suite of W3C standards
15:08:08 <bigbluehat> ... including VCDM
15:08:22 <bigbluehat> ... we're using the Data Integrity specifications with proof sets
15:08:30 <bigbluehat> ... and cryptosuites like BBS+
15:08:40 <bigbluehat> ... and also using JOSE
15:08:54 <bigbluehat> ... the rationale is simple, we have a hard requirement for personal credentials
15:09:08 <bigbluehat> ... where we have additional privacy requirements
15:09:24 <bigbluehat> ... that requirement is satisfied by the Data Integrity specification
15:09:33 <bigbluehat> ... and the additional choices we are making there
15:09:53 <bigbluehat> ... we do also have a different scenario where we do not need selective disclosure
15:10:07 <bigbluehat> ... on the trade side, it's organization to organization
15:10:15 <bigbluehat> ... and the idea of a wallet is interesting there
15:10:35 <bigbluehat> ... we are also exploring the OID4* protocols for org to org communication
15:10:41 <PL-ASU> PL-ASU has joined #vcwg
15:10:48 <PL-ASU> present+
15:10:52 <bigbluehat> ... we are also exploring BitString Status List specification
15:11:00 <bigbluehat> ... and did:web for identifying organizations
15:11:25 <bigbluehat> ... and in the long term we hope to enable a capability for individuals to bring their own DID for personal identification
15:11:38 <bigbluehat> ... we will not have that on day one, but we want to learn our way there
15:11:51 <bigbluehat> ... and we're depending on many of the W3C standards
15:12:02 <bigbluehat> ... and happy to help move these toward formal standards as well
15:12:06 <ivan> q+
15:12:16 <brent> ack ivan
15:12:19 <bigbluehat> brent: thank you for compressing that 45 minute presentation to 5 minutes
15:12:29 <bigbluehat> ... it's recorded if you'd like to view more
15:12:32 <bigbluehat> ivan: is it public?
15:12:44 <bigbluehat> brent: yes, it's recorded in the CCG meeting
15:13:06 <bigbluehat> ... anything shared there--including our requirements document--are able to be shared publicly
15:13:16 <bigbluehat> s/brent:/aniltj:
15:13:25 <manu> q+
15:13:34 <manu> q-
15:13:36 <brent> Topic: Charter
15:13:38 <bigbluehat> brent: let's talk charter...
15:13:48 <bigbluehat> ... I'm going to drop a link to the PR
15:13:48 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pull/119
15:14:06 <bigbluehat> ... this PR is in response to request for changes from the group
15:14:12 <ivan> q+
15:14:12 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say Thanks. It covers my concerns
15:14:17 <bigbluehat> ... it clarifies the scope of the group
15:14:26 <brent> ack ivan
15:14:28 <bigbluehat> ... happy to take comments from the queue
15:14:42 <bigbluehat> ivan: it doesn't clarify. it adds something to the scope
15:14:55 <bigbluehat> ... previously we were not able to make class 4 changes
15:15:07 <bigbluehat> ... we did have one exception--serious security problems
15:15:42 <bigbluehat> ... so I have added another exception, that any of the features that are at risk in the VCDM, any of those can be picked up and added to the recommendation--if all goes well
15:15:50 <bigbluehat> ... I think that handles JoeAndrieu's concerns
15:16:00 <bigbluehat> ... to the group: please confirm that is the right list in the PR
15:16:06 <bigbluehat> ... and make sure I didn't forget anything
15:16:07 <smccown> smccown has joined #vcwg
15:16:22 <bigbluehat> ... I want to make it an explicit list, as the AC doesn't like open ended charters
15:16:30 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:16:30 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say Thanks. It covers my concerns
15:16:36 <bigbluehat> JoeAndrieu: thank you, ivan
15:16:52 <smccown> present+
15:17:30 <bigbluehat> ... one question, this would include making new standards track docs to deal with these standards track documents
15:17:47 <bigbluehat> ... I'd like the ability to create those specs during the 2 year charter
15:17:51 <bigbluehat> ivan: essentially that's correct
15:18:03 <bigbluehat> ... we've cut documents in two before, for example
15:18:05 <manu> q+ to ask a clarifying question wrt. the PR.
15:18:17 <bigbluehat> ... it's not explicit about how things are taken out or put in practically
15:18:28 <JoeAndrieu> Great. thanks for the clarification.
15:18:30 <bigbluehat> ... so if it's an addition to a spec or a new spec is not explicitly stated
15:18:36 <brent> ack manu
15:18:36 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask a clarifying question wrt. the PR.
15:18:45 <bigbluehat> ... so the answer to your question is "yes" that is possible to make new specs
15:18:52 <bigbluehat> brent: that's my understanding also
15:18:57 <bigbluehat> manu: and mine also
15:19:05 <bigbluehat> ... now to poke the charter bear a bit...
15:19:21 <bigbluehat> ... if I understand this correctly, we an publish VCDM 2.0 sooner than later
15:19:33 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
15:19:39 <bigbluehat> ... but our charter would let us add the at risk features to a v2.1 edition
15:19:49 <bigbluehat> ... which could put the features back
15:19:54 <bigbluehat> ivan: yes.
15:20:11 <bigbluehat> manu: from an editorial perspective, some of these features may be cut due to lack of implementation
15:20:26 <bigbluehat> ... but starting in January, those could get added back with proper implementations and tests
15:20:32 <bigbluehat> ivan: correct.
15:21:03 <bigbluehat> ... for those not familiar with "class 4" these have to be existing features stated as "at risk" in the documents
15:21:25 <bigbluehat> ... oh, and one more thing, the current charter which we are under now was extended to the end of the year
15:21:34 <bigbluehat> brent: great. are there any objections
15:21:43 <bigbluehat> ... please review the PR and comment there
15:22:01 <bigbluehat> ... it was opened this morning, so by our next meeting we will merge it assuming all are in agreement
15:22:06 <manu> q+ to ask about charter next steps.
15:22:15 <bigbluehat> ... and then we can move the draft charter forward for review
15:22:22 <brent> ack manu
15:22:22 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about charter next steps.
15:22:32 <bigbluehat> manu: what's the timeline?
15:22:35 <bigbluehat> ivan: ASAP
15:22:52 <bigbluehat> manu: this goes to W3M, then the AC, then the vote starts in July?
15:23:01 <bigbluehat> ivan: that sounds realistic...maybe a bit earlier
15:23:10 <bigbluehat> ... the changes are explicitly very small
15:23:25 <bigbluehat> ... the paragraph in the PR is the only meaningful change
15:23:34 <bigbluehat> ... the horizontal review folks did not have anything to add
15:23:48 <bigbluehat> ... with the AC, though, nobody knows
15:24:03 <bigbluehat> ... but assuming no objections, this new charter will take over in January
15:24:04 <manu> q+ to discuss "responsible security disclosure"
15:24:15 <brent> ack manu
15:24:15 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to discuss "responsible security disclosure"
15:24:16 <bigbluehat> manu: just a next topic request
15:24:23 <bigbluehat> brent: k. go ahead
15:24:28 <brent> Topic: security disclosure
15:24:28 <bigbluehat> ivan: hold up? new section?
15:24:36 <bigbluehat> ... thanks brent
15:25:05 <bigbluehat> manu: the editors of the Data Integrity have received a security disclosure which is still not yet public
15:25:28 <bigbluehat> ... the editors have already done a review, and the questions raised seem handled by the spec
15:25:46 <bigbluehat> ... however, since this is presented as a security disclosure, we will need to review it as a group
15:25:53 <ivan> present+ smccown
15:25:54 <bigbluehat> ... we should see it this week or next at the latest
15:26:00 <bigbluehat> brent: please watch the mailing list for that
15:26:05 <brent> Topic: Work Item Status Updates/PRs
15:26:11 <ivan> q+
15:26:13 <bigbluehat> ... and we'll put it on the topic list for a future meeting
15:26:15 <manu> q+
15:26:23 <brent> ack ivan
15:26:35 <bigbluehat> ivan: on the overview document, I put 2 PRs
15:26:48 <bigbluehat> ... I would like some review--mostly for linguistic issues
15:26:54 <bigbluehat> ... one is adding alt text to the diagrams
15:27:01 <bigbluehat> ... the others I have copied over
15:27:11 <bigbluehat> ... alt text is hard to write, so please review those
15:27:22 <bigbluehat> ... the other PR adds references to other documents we have
15:27:29 <bigbluehat> ... to make the overview more complete
15:27:53 <bigbluehat> ... I also got some feedback to have this document as an official document sooner than later
15:27:57 <manu> +1 to publish as a NOTE
15:27:58 <bigbluehat> ... to help review
15:28:08 <bigbluehat> ... and getting it to NOTE will let us version it
15:28:15 <bigbluehat> ... which will ease external communication
15:28:23 <bigbluehat> brent: do you want to review those PRs now?
15:28:34 <brent> ack manu
15:28:34 <bigbluehat> ivan: no, these mostly need grammar checking
15:28:44 <bigbluehat> manu: just a quick update across many specs
15:28:52 <bigbluehat> ... BitString Status List is now in CR
15:29:10 <bigbluehat> ... the Overview is an Editor's Draft
15:29:18 <bigbluehat> ... the Controller document is now an FPWD
15:29:34 <bigbluehat> ... for the Data Integrity specs, they are on a decent glide path, mostly editorial
15:29:51 <ivan> q+
15:29:54 <bigbluehat> ... however, there is the upcoming disclosure we'll be discussing
15:29:58 <bigbluehat> ... nothing much beyond that
15:30:12 <bigbluehat> ... for BBS we have upcoming implementers
15:30:30 <bigbluehat> ... Canadian and Swiss developers have stated they have code underway
15:30:58 <bigbluehat> ... we do have some issues to discuss
15:30:59 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1478
15:31:08 <bigbluehat> manu: this is the media type discussion
15:31:27 <bigbluehat> ... the group decided to push ahead on registering what was in the documents
15:31:39 <ivan> present+ davidc
15:31:46 <bigbluehat> ... we were supposed to hear back in  2 weeks...we got no feedback
15:31:58 <ivan> q+
15:32:03 <bigbluehat> ... there was an ask on the mediaman list if there was new guidance...there was/is not
15:32:05 <brent> ack ivan
15:32:14 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
15:32:21 <DavidC> present+
15:32:41 <manu> q+ to note that multiple suffixes is a bit of a side quest.
15:32:47 <bigbluehat> ivan: now that we are working on the charter, if we take out the multiple suffixes and things change at the IETF...
15:33:03 <brent> ack manu
15:33:03 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that multiple suffixes is a bit of a side quest.
15:33:04 <bigbluehat> ... we should put something in the charter so we can deal with that...if/when it happens
15:33:12 <bigbluehat> manu: it's a good question, ivan
15:33:22 <bigbluehat> ... I think we've wasted enough time on this topic
15:33:36 <bigbluehat> ... we've talked it to death...and it's not holding up any implementations
15:33:47 <bigbluehat> ... we can always expand the list of media types later
15:34:01 <bigbluehat> ... given how this has gone so far, it's only going to take longer
15:34:07 <bigbluehat> ... so I think we can deal with this later
15:34:14 <bigbluehat> ivan: than lets forget about it
15:34:19 <bigbluehat> brent: agreed
15:34:22 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1490
15:34:28 <bigbluehat> manu: the other one is the question around digest values
15:34:39 <bigbluehat> ... we have 3 options that have been put in front of the group
15:34:42 <manu> digest options: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1489#issuecomment-2134164168
15:34:54 <bigbluehat> ... A. use digestSRI
15:35:00 <bigbluehat> ... B. use digestMultibase
15:35:03 <bigbluehat> ... C. use both
15:35:09 <bigbluehat> ... all of these have objections
15:35:14 <bigbluehat> ... so we need to make a decision
15:35:51 <brent> q+
15:36:01 <bigbluehat> ... I'll note that the folks arguing for `digestSRI` want it to be base64url...but SRIs in browsers are not URL encoded, just `base64`
15:36:13 <bigbluehat> ... the same folks object to `digestMultibase`
15:36:21 <bigbluehat> ... pretty much no one wants both....
15:36:25 <brent> ack brent
15:36:27 <bigbluehat> ... so we need to have a path through these
15:36:54 <bigbluehat> brent: I believe the `digestSRI` stuff is in the spec because Mike Prorock wanted it because Mesur.io was implementing it
15:37:08 <bigbluehat> ... I've opened an internal conversation to ask about how we're using it
15:37:20 <bigbluehat> ... we're supporters of it currently, so would not want it removed
15:37:27 <bigbluehat> ... but I will gather more data
15:37:32 <manu> q+
15:37:34 <bigbluehat> ... any other thoughts on this PR?
15:37:34 <ivan> q+
15:37:37 <brent> ack manu
15:37:42 <dlongley> +1 to the PR ... approved already.
15:37:43 <bigbluehat> manu: it would be good to get feedback on the PR
15:38:06 <bigbluehat> ... I will note that multibase is definitely being used by DHS
15:38:27 <bigbluehat> ... among those were Drivers Licenses and Employment Authorization Documents
15:38:39 <bigbluehat> ... multibase stuff is also in production in TruAge
15:38:54 <bigbluehat> ... it is now very much defined in a specification and is in use in production
15:39:06 <bigbluehat> ... that's where we are with that technology
15:39:18 <bigbluehat> ... we would prefer to pick one, but not object if the group picked both
15:39:30 <bigbluehat> ... it's annoying if the group picked both, but still doable
15:39:39 <bigbluehat> ... and not hard to implement either one
15:39:58 <bigbluehat> brent: thank you, manu
15:39:58 <ivan> q+
15:40:04 <brent> ack ivan
15:40:11 <bigbluehat> ivan: this is a new topic
15:40:20 <bigbluehat> ... I don't have an opinion about digests
15:40:25 <bigbluehat> brent: issue processing?
15:40:34 <brent> subtopic: controller document
15:40:40 <bigbluehat> ivan: this is on the Controller Document
15:40:56 <bigbluehat> ... if we have any hope to get that done, we need to start horizontal requests...like...now
15:41:07 <bigbluehat> ... one thing we should make very clear...
15:41:32 <bigbluehat> ... we need to make the horizontal reviewers aware that this is not new content, but rearranging text from other documents
15:41:40 <bigbluehat> ... that should help review go more quickly
15:41:59 <bigbluehat> brent: not seeing Mike Jones on the call. manu can you do this one?
15:42:10 <bigbluehat> manu: concerned about my workload...but yes...I'll try
15:42:22 <bigbluehat> brent: I'm concerned (as ever) about manu's workload
15:42:33 <brent> Topic: VCDM Issue Processing
15:42:42 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Afuture+sort%3Aupdated-asc
15:43:14 <bigbluehat> brent: question is if we plan to do anything about these, and if so, when.
15:43:23 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1480
15:43:25 <manu> q+
15:43:37 <bigbluehat> brent: renderMethod is currently at risk
15:43:47 <bigbluehat> ... European community is using these already
15:43:48 <brent> ack manu
15:44:05 <bigbluehat> manu: there is a renewed...evolving interest in `renderMethod`
15:44:15 <aniltj> DHS is very interested in render method as well
15:44:17 <bigbluehat> ... there are two or three variations coming from Singapore
15:44:32 <dmitriz> DCC and ASU in the US are implementing renderMethod as well
15:44:36 <bigbluehat> ... there are some Australian and Canadian developers interested
15:44:43 <bigbluehat> ... these are all different approaches
15:44:52 <bigbluehat> ... so it's unlikely we can get a single example in the spec
15:44:55 <dmitriz> and can confirm that E.U. (the EU Learning Data Model team) is implementing renderMethod
15:44:59 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
15:45:02 <brent> q+ to clarify "removing"
15:45:12 <bigbluehat> ... so we should probably remove it from VCDM 2.0 and get activity going in the CCG
15:45:17 <brent> ack brent
15:45:17 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to clarify "removing"
15:45:33 <bigbluehat> brent: removing? what specifically? the feature? but keep the term, correct?
15:45:35 <bigbluehat> manu: yes.
15:45:44 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #vcwg
15:45:51 <ivan> q+
15:45:55 <bigbluehat> brent: good. so the term is there for use, but the contents are still undefined and under active development at the CCG
15:46:00 <brent> ack ivan
15:46:02 <bigbluehat> ... are there other actions here? or specific ones?
15:46:14 <bigbluehat> ivan: do we have a "next release" label? we should use that here
15:46:28 <dlongley> +1 that render method is a vital tool for helping issuers to present VC information to holders in digital wallets (digital wallets that will not necessarily understand every piece of information in a decentralized world)... but lots of different explorations right now, definitely need to reserve it.
15:46:34 <bigbluehat> ... when we go out to the AC for the vote, we should make sure that this is something we are happy to work on later
15:46:48 <bigbluehat> ... and want their input, but we do not think we can solve it in the next 6 months
15:46:53 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #vcwg
15:46:59 <bigbluehat> brent: any objections to adding the "next release" label to this one?
15:47:07 <bigbluehat> s/next release/future
15:47:19 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1479
15:47:20 <bigbluehat> ... next issue
15:47:27 <manu> q+
15:47:31 <bigbluehat> brent: consider recommending language maps
15:47:35 <brent> ack manu
15:47:38 <bigbluehat> ... please jump on the queue
15:47:55 <bigbluehat> manu: there's nothing preventing using them
15:48:11 <bigbluehat> ... I don't think we can get to consensus on it
15:48:16 <aniltj> q+
15:48:34 <bigbluehat> ... we reached back out with that as a comment, but haven't heard back
15:48:34 <ivan> q+
15:48:42 <bigbluehat> ... if we were to do that now, it'd be very last minute
15:48:44 <brent> q+ to suggest wording
15:48:50 <bigbluehat> ... so the ask could be, please experiment
15:49:02 <brent> q-
15:49:05 <bigbluehat> ... especially since language maps differ from what we recommend right now
15:49:26 <brent> ack aniltj
15:49:37 <bigbluehat> ... and can reconsider it if/when we get feedback showing it's a good way for handling I18N
15:50:02 <bigbluehat> aniltj: mostly want to say that this is a feature of interest to DHS because of our international audience
15:50:09 <brent> ack ivan
15:50:16 <manu> q+
15:50:28 <bigbluehat> ... as long as there is not anything preventing us from using these capabilities from JSON-LD, then we are satisfied
15:50:42 <bigbluehat> ivan: should we show that JSON-LD can do this in an appendix?
15:50:53 <brent> ack manu
15:50:59 <bigbluehat> manu: yes. we can do that in an appendix, and adding that would editorial
15:51:20 <bigbluehat> brent: so, add an editorial example of language maps to the spec
15:51:32 <PL-ASU> +1 to editorial example to the language map spec.
15:51:37 <bigbluehat> ... manu has assigned himself, but someone else please volunteer
15:51:55 <dmitriz> I can volunteer
15:52:24 <bigbluehat> brent: thank you all for volunteering!
15:52:39 <bigbluehat> ... I'm unassigning manu
15:52:52 <bigbluehat> ... and assigning dmitriz and Mahmoud
15:53:00 <bigbluehat> brent: k. we have time for one more topic
15:53:12 <bigbluehat> ... let's jump to 1485
15:53:12 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1485
15:53:16 <dmitriz> clarifying question - language map examples should go into their own appendix? Or just in the internationalization section?
15:53:17 <manu> q+
15:53:22 <brent> ack manu
15:53:24 <bigbluehat> brent: VC JWT examples are out of date
15:53:40 <bigbluehat> manu: good news is we released a new version of respec-vc
15:53:47 <bigbluehat> ... but the new jose/cose stuff is not in there yet
15:53:58 <bigbluehat> ... it should be a copy/paste into respec-vc
15:54:03 <decentralgabe> q+
15:54:09 <brent> ack decentralgabe
15:54:10 <bigbluehat> ... or decentralgabe can send a PR there
15:54:16 <bigbluehat> decentralgabe: it's on my list
15:54:28 <manu> q+
15:54:32 <brent> ack manu
15:54:44 <bigbluehat> ... and given the update to remove YAML from the jose/cose spec, it should be simpler to do now
15:55:01 <bigbluehat> manu: just to make sure we're aligned, what are you planning to implement?
15:55:11 <bigbluehat> ... VC-JWT, JOSE, COSE, something else?
15:55:45 <bigbluehat> decentralgabe: I was going to do all 3, but not automatically render them
15:55:59 <bigbluehat> ... I'll put up a PR
15:56:12 <bigbluehat> ... I'd prefer to start by fixing what is currently labelled VC-JWT
15:56:28 <bigbluehat> manu: you can pick which tabs to show per example
15:56:33 <bigbluehat> brent: with that, we are out of time
15:56:37 <ivan> s/VC-JWT/SD-JWT/
15:56:49 <bigbluehat> ... great consensus building. we love our volunteers
15:56:50 <bigbluehat> ... bye for now
15:57:02 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:57:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/05/29-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
16:10:34 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
16:10:34 <RRSAgent> I see no action items