14:53:10 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
14:53:14 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/09/04-vcwg-irc
14:53:14 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:53:15 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:53:19 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
14:53:19 <ivan> Date: 2024-09-04
14:53:19 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/326e4693-22a7-48ba-b083-3e74e79e6088/20240904T110000/
14:53:19 <ivan> chair: brent
14:53:20 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2024-08-21: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/326e4693-22a7-48ba-b083-3e74e79e6088/20240904T110000/
14:58:43 <brent> brent has joined #vcwg
14:59:59 <brent> brent has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2024-09-04: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/326e4693-22a7-48ba-b083-3e74e79e6088/20240904T110000/
15:00:02 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg
15:00:59 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #vcwg
15:01:03 <KevinDean> present+
15:01:27 <TallTed> present+
15:01:34 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
15:01:36 <brent> present+
15:01:44 <DavidC> present+
15:02:14 <manu> present+
15:02:25 <bigbluehat> present+
15:02:30 <hsano> present+
15:02:40 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
15:03:46 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
15:03:54 <selfissued> present+
15:03:57 <ivan> present+
15:04:19 <ivan> ppresent+ TallTed
15:04:28 <ivan> present+ TallTed
15:04:36 <Wip0> Wip0 has joined #vcwg
15:04:50 <bigbluehat> scribe+
15:04:55 <ivan> present+ Joe
15:05:03 <GeunHyung> GeunHyung has joined #vcwg
15:05:05 <ivan> present+ will
15:05:12 <bigbluehat> brent: welcome everyone
15:05:14 <ivan> present+ dlongley
15:05:23 <GeunHyung> present+
15:05:27 <bigbluehat> ... our agenda today is about TPAC, Controller Document, and VCDM wrap up
15:05:34 <selfissued> present+
15:05:40 <bigbluehat> ... Also, we have a special topic call tomorrow
15:06:02 <bigbluehat> ... at 2pm PT / 5 pm ET
15:06:18 <ivan> present+ GeunHyung_Kim
15:06:22 <bigbluehat> ... the time is to accommodate Tobias Looker from NZ
15:06:30 <ivan> present+ steele
15:06:31 <TallTed> please retitle that calendar entry from `Special Topic Call` to `VCWG Special Topic Call`
15:06:34 <bigbluehat> ... The topic is the Data Integrity issue Tobias raised
15:06:42 <bigbluehat> ... and the mitigations the group has taken
15:06:52 <manu> q+
15:06:52 <bigbluehat> ... and what else we might to do
15:06:56 <bigbluehat> ... Anything else?
15:07:08 <brent> ack manu
15:07:09 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #vcwg
15:07:19 <bigbluehat> manu: just a quick note that we put in a request for a TPAC breakout session
15:07:21 <manu> Expanding Verifiable Credentials: Future Standards and Innovations: https://github.com/w3c/tpac2024-breakouts/issues/37
15:07:28 <bigbluehat> ... we're trying to get an agenda together
15:07:48 <bigbluehat> ... topic is beyond our next rechartering
15:08:04 <bigbluehat> ... this group should have input if you want
15:08:21 <bigbluehat> brent: anything else for the agenda?
15:08:45 <bigbluehat> brent: first topic is TPAC
15:08:47 <brent> Topic: TPAC
15:08:49 <brent> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18As8BMku1s536XxrJNvKus-08w-bGc1bRqvqzrGPpE0/edit?usp=sharing
15:09:10 <bigbluehat> ... please note if you're attending on that spreadsheet
15:09:20 <bigbluehat> ... and if you'll be joining the dinner Monday night
15:09:39 <bigbluehat> ... if you're attending remotely, please let us know so we can provide links
15:09:57 <bigbluehat> ... Our TPAC time will only be haft the usual length since we're wrapping up
15:10:07 <JennieM> present+
15:10:10 <bigbluehat> ... we're also doing a 3rd session with the security group
15:10:28 <bigbluehat> ... if you have particular things you want on the agenda, please reach out to me or ivan
15:10:44 <bigbluehat> ... there's also a page where you can throw additional topic ideas
15:10:49 <brent> Topic: Controller Document
15:10:58 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/pulls
15:11:02 <ivan> present+ identitywoman
15:11:02 <bigbluehat> brent: we'll start at looking at pull requests
15:11:15 <manu> q+
15:11:20 <bigbluehat> ... there are 19 open pull requests
15:11:30 <brent> ack manu
15:11:44 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
15:11:47 <bigbluehat> manu: not sure the editorial ones need discussion
15:12:00 <bigbluehat> ...however, there are ones that are marked as needing discussion
15:12:34 <bigbluehat> brent: sounds good, we'll look at the "do not merge" group and "editorial" ones only if there are changes requested
15:12:50 <bigbluehat> ... our policy is to merge things after 2 weeks even without discussion
15:12:58 <bigbluehat> ... so, first, 91
15:13:07 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/pull/91
15:13:08 <manu> q+
15:13:13 <bigbluehat> ... most things should be on the PR
15:13:38 <bigbluehat> ... 91 is about making the Terminology Normative raised by Mike Jones
15:13:42 <brent> ack manu
15:14:03 <brent> q+ to say that we've never ever ever done this
15:14:06 <bigbluehat> manu: this is a regular request from Jeffrey Yaskin
15:14:18 <ivan> q+
15:14:22 <bigbluehat> ... the idea is that if it's not normative, something bad happens
15:14:24 <selfissued> q+
15:14:35 <bigbluehat> ... it's a philosophical question
15:14:47 <bigbluehat> ... our group says there must be MUST, SHOULD style language
15:15:01 <bigbluehat> ... traditionally, we don't have that in terminology sections
15:15:12 <brent> q+ to ask what the impact will be, if none than maybe who cares?
15:15:14 <bigbluehat> ... so we haven't marked them as normative as it does not effect tests
15:15:30 <bigbluehat> ... doing so has no effect, so I don't think we should do it
15:15:37 <brent> ack brent
15:15:37 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to say that we've never ever ever done this and to ask what the impact will be, if none than maybe who cares?
15:15:38 <bigbluehat> ... given it lacks RFC style language
15:15:58 <bigbluehat> brent: one, manu's right, we've never marked out terminology section as normative
15:16:14 <brent> ack ivan
15:16:19 <bigbluehat> ... on the other hand, if it changes nothing other than makes some other people happy, maybe we just do it
15:16:21 <soba> soba has joined #vcwg
15:16:33 <bigbluehat> ivan: consistency is important as manu has said
15:16:51 <bigbluehat> ... I always found more natural for this section to be normative
15:17:03 <bigbluehat> ... but on the other hand the group can decide
15:17:22 <bigbluehat> ... but I also agree with brent that it's harmless and removes contention
15:17:23 <brent> ack selfissued
15:17:37 <bigbluehat> selfissued: as I said in the issue, there are two different things
15:17:48 <bigbluehat> ... if it's normative, it's a matter of fact
15:18:01 <bigbluehat> ... it being normative doesn't require there being RFC language
15:18:02 <ivan> +1 to selfissued
15:18:33 <bigbluehat> ... there's a normative statement..."the entity identified by the id property in the controller document"--that's normative
15:18:46 <bigbluehat> ... I'm not OK saying that something false can be in the document
15:18:54 <manu> q+ to ask if we're adding tests for the terminology? What is the use of normative language if we're not going to test it?
15:18:58 <brent> ack manu
15:18:58 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask if we're adding tests for the terminology? What is the use of normative language if we're not going to test it?
15:19:07 <bigbluehat> ... we already use a normative terminology on JOSE/COSE
15:19:14 <selfissued> q+
15:19:18 <bigbluehat> manu: I'll repeat again, this will have zero effect
15:19:18 <ivan> q+
15:19:37 <bigbluehat> ... this will not effect anything. not tests. not implementations. none of that, so it's unnecessary
15:19:54 <bigbluehat> ... but if people really want to do this, we can, but it will have no effect
15:20:10 <ivan> q-
15:20:11 <bigbluehat> brent: I'm not interested in a philosophical debate
15:20:20 <bigbluehat> ... it seems like a simple course of action
15:20:24 <dlongley> +1 ok with the change
15:20:29 <bigbluehat> ... those who don't care can continue not carring
15:20:31 <ivan> +1 to brent
15:20:42 <ivan> q+
15:20:51 <bigbluehat> ... I think we can merge this since it will be harmless
15:20:56 <brent> ack selfissued
15:21:00 <brent> ack ivan
15:21:10 <bigbluehat> ivan: just emphasizing that we need to be consistent
15:21:19 <bigbluehat> brent: selfissued can you make the necessary PRs
15:21:23 <bigbluehat> selfissued: yes
15:21:28 <bigbluehat> brent: any formal objections?
15:21:48 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/pull/90
15:21:49 <ivan> q+
15:21:56 <bigbluehat> brent: 90 - refactoring
15:22:05 <brent> ack ivan
15:22:07 <bigbluehat> ... it's only been open a couple days, so not a lot of review
15:22:18 <bigbluehat> ivan: so, this is related to another PR
15:22:30 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/pull/90#issuecomment-2325588311
15:22:34 <bigbluehat> ... the one I sent in about the consistency of the whole section
15:22:51 <bigbluehat> ... in this PR, I propose a compromise or...an agreement, rather
15:23:02 <bigbluehat> ... that we restructure what is vocab specific and therefore general
15:23:11 <bigbluehat> ... and adding a separate section for JSON-LD
15:23:23 <bigbluehat> ... and put there the section that manu is proposing about context injection
15:23:39 <bigbluehat> ... that should make it clearer about needing context injection with JSON-LD
15:24:03 <bigbluehat> ... to make the pill sweeter if we agree, then I am happy to do a PR that combines these
15:24:38 <manu> q+
15:24:44 <brent> ack manu
15:24:50 <bigbluehat> brent: so ivan is proposing to combine these two  PRs
15:25:03 <bigbluehat> manu: not opposed to that
15:25:12 <bigbluehat> ... but we're starting to restructure DID Core...
15:25:39 <ivan> q+
15:25:42 <bigbluehat> ... we've told reviewers that this is just reorganizing, but that makes reviewers doubt that too much has changed
15:25:48 <bigbluehat> ... and that there may be new things here
15:26:23 <bigbluehat> ... like one could interpret a DID doc as RDF without going through JSON-LD is a new thing. We haven't talked about that before.
15:26:23 <brent> ack ivan
15:26:29 <bigbluehat> ... we just need to be careful
15:26:41 <bigbluehat> ivan: I could argue that there's no significant change
15:26:47 <bigbluehat> ... the context will be different
15:27:02 <bigbluehat> ... I relied on some things that you put into other PRs manu
15:27:14 <manu> q+
15:27:19 <bigbluehat> ... namely, that the controller document vocab would have it's own specialized context file
15:27:29 <bigbluehat> ... I'm not opposed to that, but also not sure it's necessary
15:27:36 <bigbluehat> ... but we do need to know from the WG
15:27:42 <bigbluehat> ... and it has to be clear
15:27:46 <brent> ack manu
15:27:54 <bigbluehat> manu: yeah, I think that's a discussion we haven't had yet
15:27:56 <bigbluehat> ivan: right
15:28:13 <bigbluehat> manu: there's confusion and disagreement around concrete serialization and media type
15:28:29 <ivan> q+
15:28:38 <bigbluehat> ... I was under the impression that we were saying that the controller document has a concrete representation
15:28:42 <bigbluehat> ... and a media type
15:28:49 <bigbluehat> ... I think those are needed discussions
15:29:02 <brent> ack ivan
15:29:20 <bigbluehat> ivan: maybe we say at least for the context file we get it into the PR and discuss it
15:29:29 <bigbluehat> ... I have no idea why we would need a media type
15:29:34 <bigbluehat> ... I don't see the need for it
15:29:44 <bigbluehat> ... the context is used by various applications (VC, etc)
15:29:49 <bigbluehat> ... the context file makes sense
15:30:03 <bigbluehat> ... the media type doesn't make any sense to me, but we can leave that for later
15:30:06 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/pull/84
15:30:16 <manu> q+
15:30:25 <bigbluehat> brent: changes on 84 are straightforward, so this can be brief
15:30:29 <manu> q-
15:30:30 <brent> ack manu
15:30:36 <bigbluehat> manu: agreed
15:31:17 <bigbluehat> brent: ivan do we need a separate conversation on 43?
15:31:34 <bigbluehat> manu: what else is in this PR?
15:31:54 <bigbluehat> ivan: I'm concerned about Jeffrey's comment and would like your thoughts on it first
15:31:57 <bigbluehat> manu: k. I can do that
15:32:14 <bigbluehat> ... ivan you also have modifications in 43 that removes the content digests from the contexts
15:32:20 <bigbluehat> ivan: k. I will take care of that
15:32:35 <bigbluehat> brent: sounds like 43 is covered, then?
15:32:37 <bigbluehat> manu: yes.
15:32:38 <bigbluehat> ivan: yes.
15:32:43 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/pull/42
15:32:48 <manu> q+
15:32:57 <bigbluehat> brent: controller overrides subject control
15:33:04 <brent> ack manu
15:33:14 <bigbluehat> ... JoeAndrieu was maybe going to do a quick read and leave some review?
15:33:27 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:33:31 <bigbluehat> manu: we just talked in the DID WG about this, but we didn't come to a conclusion
15:33:37 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:33:38 <bigbluehat> brent: happy to do a couple minutes now
15:33:43 <selfissued> q+
15:33:49 <bigbluehat> JoeAndrieu: yeah, we need to talk about it more
15:34:11 <bigbluehat> ... I do need to go through it and highlight language in the spec
15:34:14 <brent> ack selfissued
15:34:23 <bigbluehat> selfissued: Joe made some good language suggestions
15:34:31 <bigbluehat> ... I think we're closer on this than it may seem
15:34:40 <bigbluehat> brent: that's the PRs on the controller document
15:35:05 <bigbluehat> ... but before we move on, lets bask in the immense amount of work done on that document
15:35:09 <bigbluehat> ... good job editors
15:35:14 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc
15:35:34 <bigbluehat> brent: we're skipping the horizontal review issues
15:35:39 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/issues/54
15:35:41 <bigbluehat> ... and focus on discuss issuse
15:35:55 <bigbluehat> ... delete `@context` from examples
15:36:15 <manu> q+
15:36:18 <selfissued> q+
15:36:20 <ivan> q+
15:36:20 <brent> ack manu
15:36:37 <bigbluehat> manu: removing the `@context` from every other example feels arbitrary and confusing
15:36:49 <bigbluehat> ... we can have an example that shows you can do it either way
15:37:02 <brent> q+ to ask a dumb question
15:37:09 <bigbluehat> ... `@context` is a valid JSON key, so it doesn't change the document from being JSON
15:37:22 <bigbluehat> ... the challenge with removing it is what happens to the extensibility model?
15:37:31 <selfissued> https://github.com/openid/federation/issues/35 includes an example without @context
15:37:33 <bigbluehat> ... the only alternative I've heard is a centralized registry
15:37:46 <bigbluehat> ... which is something the DID WG did not feel was a good path forward
15:37:46 <selfissued> The following example provides a minimum conformant controller document containing a minimum conformant verification method as required by the algorithm in this section:
15:37:46 <selfissued> Example 16: Minimum conformant controller document
15:37:46 <selfissued> {
15:37:46 <selfissued>   "id": "https://controller.example/123",
15:37:47 <selfissued>   "verificationMethod": [{
15:37:47 <selfissued>     "id": "https://controller.example/123#key-456",
15:37:47 <selfissued>     "type": "ExampleVerificationMethodType",
15:37:48 <selfissued>     "controller": "https://controller.example/123",
15:37:48 <selfissued>     // public cryptographic material goes here
15:37:48 <selfissued>   }],
15:37:49 <selfissued>   "authentication": ["#key-456"]
15:37:49 <selfissued> }
15:37:58 <bigbluehat> ... so this raises the question of extensibility
15:37:59 <brent> ack selfissued
15:38:18 <bigbluehat> selfissued: example 16 doesn't have a `@context`
15:38:28 <bigbluehat> ... my suggestion was a straw man
15:38:31 <brent> ack ivan
15:38:36 <bigbluehat> ... I'm fine if we delete them from half of them
15:38:48 <manu> -1 for "half of them" -- again, it's arbitrary.
15:38:50 <bigbluehat> ivan: I do not think we should restart the JSON-LD or not conversation again
15:38:59 <selfissued> q+
15:39:02 <manu> +1 to Ivan - we can do that in the conformance section.
15:39:08 <bigbluehat> ... for the sake of simplicity, we just say `@context` is optional but keep it in all the examples
15:39:09 <brent> ack brent
15:39:09 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to ask a dumb question
15:39:24 <bigbluehat> brent: so, is `@context` a normatively required property
15:39:28 <bigbluehat> selfissued: no
15:39:37 <manu> q+
15:39:47 <manu> q+ to agree "minimal example" is enough.
15:39:52 <bigbluehat> brent: than maybe we just have one example with it in with all other required properties
15:40:07 <brent> ack selfissued
15:40:42 <bigbluehat> selfissued: per the chat, I just put a link to a rendering of the document that shows that a minimal document doesn't need an `@context`
15:40:54 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say whether or not it is normative should not be based on a random example
15:40:58 <bigbluehat> ... I don't want to confuse people that it's necessary
15:41:05 <brent> ack manu
15:41:05 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to agree "minimal example" is enough.
15:41:14 <bigbluehat> manu: to follow up on ivan and brent
15:41:32 <bigbluehat> ... example 16 is the minimal example, we can start with that
15:42:20 <bigbluehat> ... ivan also said for the sake of uniformity we can do the same thing we did with languages
15:42:48 <DavidC> q+
15:42:51 <bigbluehat> ... totally fine with having a couple examples not having `@context` in it, but I think removing it from half is arbitrary
15:43:14 <bigbluehat> ... for the people who don't want to use `@context`, we already have clear statements and examples that show it's not required
15:43:17 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:43:17 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say whether or not it is normative should not be based on a random example
15:43:37 <bigbluehat> JoeAndrieu: just because we have an example doesn't mean we have consensus on that example
15:43:56 <bigbluehat> ... there doesn't seem to be a technical argument for 50%
15:44:18 <bigbluehat> ... if there are specific ones where having it is confusing, we could address those
15:44:27 <brent> ack DavidC
15:44:41 <bigbluehat> ... I think this mostly hinges on whether we have a concrete serialization or not
15:44:47 <manu> q+ to ask if we're centralizing extensions now?
15:44:54 <manu> q-
15:44:57 <bigbluehat> DavidC: I think since it's optional only one example should have it and the rest not
15:45:13 <bigbluehat> brent: please add further thoughts on the issue
15:45:22 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/issues/66
15:45:44 <bigbluehat> brent: Mike Jones raised this issues about w3id.org
15:45:51 <selfissued> q+
15:45:58 <bigbluehat> ... we have had extensive conversations about this in the past
15:45:59 <ivan> q+
15:46:03 <manu> q+
15:46:06 <brent> ack selfissued
15:46:08 <bigbluehat> ... which makes this more a topic for w3m than for us
15:46:16 <bigbluehat> selfissued: I suggest not taking our time on this now
15:46:25 <bigbluehat> ... there's a conversation about this that may happen at TPAC
15:46:34 <brent> ack ivan
15:46:42 <bigbluehat> ... but manu provided enough context that made it clear that it's not our decision
15:46:53 <manu> q-
15:46:56 <IdentityWoman> IdentityWoman has joined #vcwg
15:46:58 <bigbluehat> ivan: it's not our decision and the decision has already been made by w3m
15:47:03 <IdentityWoman> present+
15:47:16 <bigbluehat> ... the decision was that w3id.org be used
15:47:18 <IdentityWoman> I got here late - when is the VCWG meeting during TPAC?
15:47:27 <bigbluehat> brent: you said a decision was made
15:47:42 <bigbluehat> ivan: the decision was that w3id.org could be used and leave it as it is
15:47:56 <manu> q+
15:48:08 <bigbluehat> brent: the conversation with w3m was an ask to make it an official w3c domain
15:48:29 <bigbluehat> ... but like selfissued said, there are conversations to be had at TPAC
15:48:33 <brent> ack manu
15:48:42 <bigbluehat> manu: just going to add some history
15:48:52 <bigbluehat> ... we did as w3c 10 years ago to run w3id.org
15:48:58 <bigbluehat> ... they said no, they were too busy
15:49:11 <bigbluehat> ... by now w3id.org has 9k+ redirects
15:49:20 <bigbluehat> ... I'd be in favor of the W3C taking this over
15:49:25 <dmitriz> s/we did as/we did ask/
15:49:35 <bigbluehat> ... but at the same time, this is completely orthogonal to this WG
15:49:57 <bigbluehat> ... we have hashes on all the contexts to avoid questions of origins of the documents
15:50:06 <manu> q+
15:50:09 <bigbluehat> brent: k. I'm going to remove both labels from the issue
15:50:24 <brent> ack manu
15:50:45 <bigbluehat> manu: I don't think we should leave this open. we have to close them all
15:50:46 <ivan> q+
15:50:58 <brent> ack ivan
15:51:13 <bigbluehat> brent: if we see that the decision hasn't been made at some point in the future, then we can close it
15:51:30 <bigbluehat> ivan: manu and I can talk to Ralph about it
15:51:41 <bigbluehat> brent: Mike Jones will want to be apart of it as well
15:51:52 <bigbluehat> selfissued: I'm heading to let my horses out of the barn
15:52:06 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/issues/50
15:52:24 <bigbluehat> brent: verification method definition is wordy
15:52:27 <manu> q+
15:52:39 <bigbluehat> ... selfissued suggested new wording to make it simpler
15:52:48 <bigbluehat> ... manu said it looses quality
15:52:49 <brent> ack manu
15:53:02 <bigbluehat> manu: selfissued has a suggestion at the very end that could work
15:53:17 <bigbluehat> ... this does need a review as it changes text around a key term
15:53:24 <bigbluehat> brent: sounds good
15:53:36 <bigbluehat> ... we're going to take a break from controller document
15:54:01 <bigbluehat> ... most of those PRs are going to be merged before we meet again
15:54:03 <brent> Topic: VCDM Wrap Up
15:54:14 <bigbluehat> brent: we currently have two open PRs on the VCDM
15:54:26 <bigbluehat> ... one is an editorial review section
15:54:32 <bigbluehat> ... it has nothing but positive reviews
15:54:44 <bigbluehat> ... it's a larger PR, but it will be merged soon
15:54:59 <bigbluehat> ... so if you care, please review 1554
15:55:06 <bigbluehat> ... The other is 1557
15:55:14 <bigbluehat> ... it's a very minor change and purely editorial
15:55:24 <bigbluehat> ... just FYI both will be merged soon
15:55:31 <bigbluehat> ... at this point we have 4 open issuse
15:55:38 <bigbluehat> s/issuse/issues
15:55:54 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1555
15:55:55 <bigbluehat> brent: we will look at 1555
15:56:02 <bigbluehat> ... a question from TallTed
15:56:03 <manu> q+
15:56:11 <brent> ack manu
15:56:18 <bigbluehat> ... can we say "patterns of use" instead of "usage patterns"
15:56:30 <bigbluehat> manu: I said last time I would. I just haven't gotten to it yet
15:56:34 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg
15:56:49 <bigbluehat> brent: thank you all for the conversation and bigbluehat for scribing today
15:57:04 <bigbluehat> ... see you on the special topic call at 5pm ET and 2pm ET tomorrow
15:57:20 <ivan> rssagent, draft minutes
15:57:39 <GeunHyung> quit
15:57:44 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:57:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/04-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
15:58:07 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
15:58:55 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
15:58:55 <RRSAgent> I see no action items