14:14:44 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
14:14:48 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/09/11-vcwg-irc
14:14:48 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:14:49 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:15:13 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
14:15:13 <ivan> Date: 2024-09-11
14:15:13 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/9bfb4063-230b-4f59-b14c-fbf670b8a51b/20240911T110000/
14:15:13 <ivan> chair: brent
14:15:14 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2024-09-11: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/9bfb4063-230b-4f59-b14c-fbf670b8a51b/20240911T110000/
14:18:56 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
14:20:36 <steele> steele has joined #vcwg
14:37:05 <steele> steele has joined #vcwg
14:43:13 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
14:56:16 <ivan> present+
14:56:19 <brent> brent has joined #vcwg
14:58:03 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
14:58:23 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
14:58:40 <DavidC> present+
14:59:31 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg
15:01:34 <ivan> present+ brent,  kevindean
15:01:42 <ivan> present+ hsano
15:02:17 <ivan> present+ JoshThomas
15:02:22 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
15:02:28 <ivan> present+ will, selfissued
15:02:46 <ivan> present+ JoeAndrieu
15:03:25 <ivan> present+ manu
15:03:36 <dlongley> present+
15:03:46 <ivan> present+ wesley
15:03:55 <wes-smith> wes-smith has joined #vcwg
15:04:00 <ivan> present+ TallTed
15:04:07 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #vcwg
15:04:17 <KevinDean> present+
15:04:54 <ivan> present+ bigbluehat
15:05:08 <ivan> q+
15:05:10 <TallTed> it would be good to remove `Special Topic Call tomorrow: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3c87d835-a876-4e1a-b850-262cef2f4f75/` from *today's* event, as it was relevant *last week*
15:05:28 <ivan> scribe+ wes-smith
15:05:30 <Wip> Wip has joined #vcwg
15:05:36 <Wip> present+
15:06:35 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to ask about TPAC dinner (and for the URL)
15:06:46 <ivan> ack ivan
15:07:02 <ivan> present+ RobDeFeo
15:07:17 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
15:07:47 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:07:47 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to ask about TPAC dinner (and for the URL)
15:08:00 <selfissued> present+
15:08:11 <brent> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18As8BMku1s536XxrJNvKus-08w-bGc1bRqvqzrGPpE0/edit?gid=179611341#gid=179611341
15:08:12 <wes-smith> JoeAndrieu: want to sync about dinner for TPAC, get headcount and make reservation
15:08:18 <manu> q+ to add  EUDI timelines wrt. VCWG to agenda?
15:08:23 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #vcwg
15:08:25 <brent> ack manu
15:08:25 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to add  EUDI timelines wrt. VCWG to agenda?
15:08:44 <ivan> present+ jennie
15:08:50 <wes-smith> manu: want to discuss European digital wallet work with the group and how it impacts our standards work
15:09:13 <wes-smith> brent: if you are here for the first time and want to introduce yourself please do so
15:09:34 <wes-smith> RobDeFeo: not my first time but not fully joined, hi everyone, one of the integrators of this work
15:09:36 <manu> q+
15:09:54 <brent> ack manu
15:09:57 <wes-smith> brent: will talk today about TPAC, VCDM, EUDI wallet, controller document
15:10:09 <wes-smith> manu: welcome RobDeFeo to the group
15:10:20 <brent> Topic: TPAC attendance
15:10:30 <brent> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18As8BMku1s536XxrJNvKus-08w-bGc1bRqvqzrGPpE0/edit?gid=179611341#gid=179611341
15:10:37 <wes-smith> brent: if you haven't yet please sign up for TPAC attendance
15:10:58 <wes-smith> ... for those attending, reminder that masking policy is no requirement for common areas, and up to working group for working group areas
15:11:08 <wes-smith> ... if anyone would prefer that the group meet while masked please reach out to me
15:11:16 <wes-smith> ... otherwise there will be no mask requirement
15:11:35 <wes-smith> ... thanks to JoeAndrieu for finding dinner location Thurs evening, please indicate on sheet if planning to join
15:11:45 <wes-smith> ... should have agenda proposed by next meeting
15:11:53 <brent> Topic: VCDM Wrap Up
15:12:23 <brent> Topic: EUDI Wallet
15:12:52 <wes-smith> manu: the European Commission came out with some regulation language around what is going to be included, some of you in openId group know that the OID4 specs are no longer included
15:12:55 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #vcwg
15:13:10 <wes-smith> ... EUDI cannot include non-standards, as a result OID4 group aggressively trying to finalize specs
15:13:27 <wes-smith> ... VCDM 1.1 is in the regulation, however if we want 2.0 to be in the regulation, we need to be done by end of year
15:13:51 <wes-smith> ... we will miss current window, new window opens Jan/Feb, if we had gotten to rec by Nov it would have been great. It would still be great if that happens.
15:14:10 <wes-smith> ... Us being done sooner than later with set of docs that are ready would allow European regulation to cite the 2.0 stuff instead of the old 1.1 stuff
15:14:10 <ivan> q+
15:14:29 <wes-smith> ... heads up to the group that there is time pressure on us being done, but shouldn't rush if we end up in a bad state.
15:14:36 <brent> ack ivan
15:14:54 <wes-smith> ivan: did you think of publishing VCDM earlier than the others, as that is not the critical one anymore, it is more or less done
15:14:56 <manu> q+
15:15:03 <brent> ack manu
15:15:04 <wes-smith> ... delay in controller document and dependencies is the issue
15:15:16 <wes-smith> manu: that is an option, I am not suggesting a concrete plan, just sharing info for the group to discuss
15:15:31 <wes-smith> ... the thing cited now is VCDM 1.1, 2.0 is very close if not done, haven't been getting new issues for weeks now
15:15:55 <wes-smith> ... VCDM by itself is an option, do other securing specs later, can see how far we get with controller document today
15:16:03 <brent> Topic: VCDM Wrap Up
15:16:11 <manu> q+
15:16:19 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
15:16:22 <wes-smith> brent: we have 2 PRs we should briefly look at
15:16:33 <wes-smith> ... will start with 1557
15:16:34 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1557
15:16:39 <manu> q-
15:16:48 <wes-smith> ... going to merge this one after the call, lots of approvals, has been open for a long time
15:16:52 <wes-smith> ... minor but necessary changes
15:16:59 <wes-smith> ... next is 1554
15:17:00 <manu> q+
15:17:01 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1554
15:17:14 <brent> ack manu
15:17:15 <wes-smith> ... editorial overview of the privacy considerations section done by gabe
15:17:41 <TallTed> q+
15:17:53 <wes-smith> manu: 100% OK with the PR before but then the abstract for the document got changed. The group has spent a lot of time getting the abstract language right, please look at the new abstract and decide if you prefer the new language
15:17:59 <bigbluehat> present+
15:18:01 <brent> ack TallTed
15:18:28 <manu> q+
15:18:34 <PL-ASU> PL-ASU has joined #vcwg
15:18:34 <wes-smith> TallTed: an abstract is supposed to roughly summarize the whole document, not introduce you to the document. The current abstract is replicated 100% in the intro that follows. It is fine in the intro but not an abstract, so that is why I made the changes.
15:18:39 <PL-ASU> present+
15:18:39 <brent> ack manu
15:18:48 <wes-smith> manu: can we break that PR into a different PR so we can get the privacy changes in then discuss the abstract changes?
15:18:57 <JoeAndrieu> +1 for a separate PR. I like updating the abstract, but let's separate
15:19:00 <wes-smith> ... the new abstract might be inscrutable to someone not familiar with the document
15:19:10 <wes-smith> TallTed: sure, can split PRs
15:19:24 <wes-smith> brent: any other comments on this PR?
15:20:07 <wes-smith> TallTed: currently the abstract also exists 100% in the intro, in my change requests it has been changed in the intro but retained as the intro, if we are going to do the pull out of the abstract change, my revised paragraph should move to replace the existing abstract, any objection?
15:20:13 <JoeAndrieu> +1 to that TallTed
15:20:28 <manu> q+
15:20:53 <manu> q-
15:20:56 <wes-smith> brent: the fact that the abstract is a problem is a separate issue from privacy considerations, would like to see that resolved in separate PR
15:21:04 <wes-smith> TallTed: I think this PR is broader than that but will see what I can do
15:21:27 <manu> q+
15:21:28 <wes-smith> ... it is broader than that, the initial comment on this is not proofreading privacy, it is that plus changes from a previous PR which is more broadly scoped
15:21:42 <wes-smith> brent: thank you for the clarity, but my desire remains for a separate PR
15:22:00 <brent> ack manu
15:22:04 <wes-smith> TallTed: I will put my big block on the abstract in a separate PR, the remaining changes are to the introduction
15:22:21 <wes-smith> manu: no issue with you doing that with a separate PR, Gabe started with privacy section and then began modifying other sections of the document
15:22:25 <wes-smith> ... makes PR less focused
15:22:43 <wes-smith> ... the current concern is that there are no objections to other text, but I am objecting to changes to abstract and introduction
15:23:12 <wes-smith> ... I agree that there should be differences between abstract and intro, no issue with preserving what you have written into the introduction, needs to be in separate PR so the group can wordsmith
15:23:30 <wes-smith> TallTed: I will adjust my change suggestions in this PR for the abstract and the intro
15:23:36 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/pulls
15:23:40 <wes-smith> brent: moving to issues
15:23:47 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Afuture+sort%3Aupdated-asc
15:23:50 <ivan>             /me :-(
15:24:33 <wes-smith> ... we have 6 open issues, all are normative except for 1, the 1 normative one follows the conversation we had on hold-your-nose consensus on making the terminology section normative
15:24:38 <manu> q+
15:24:41 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1538
15:24:42 <wes-smith> ... let's get status update on these
15:24:53 <manu> q-
15:24:54 <wes-smith> ... 1538, respec plugin still does not work, what is the status
15:24:55 <bigbluehat> q+
15:25:03 <brent> ack bigbluehat
15:25:13 <wes-smith> bigbluehat: I believe it mostly works, just the jose-cose bit needs to be tested
15:25:21 <wes-smith> brent: looking forward to the PR
15:25:32 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1551
15:25:40 <manu> q+
15:25:48 <wes-smith> ... next up is 1551, which was a proposal to rename VC specs registry to VC extensions
15:25:53 <wes-smith> ... I think this happened, is that right?
15:25:55 <brent> ack manu
15:25:59 <ivan> q+
15:26:11 <wes-smith> manu: correct, that happened, waiting for redirects to be set up in TR space, let me know if you are waiting on something
15:26:13 <brent> ack ivan
15:26:44 <wes-smith> ivan: I put a long comment on that more than a week ago, the problem is that it is not that simple, I cannot change the redirect, need to republish the node, making clear that we are changing the name
15:26:53 <wes-smith> ... I was not here when it was decided to change the repo/doc
15:26:58 <manu> q+ to ask if we can do a PROPOSAL and RESOLUTION on this call?
15:27:06 <manu> q-
15:27:07 <wes-smith> ... I would have said that changing docs short name is not an easy business
15:27:26 <wes-smith> ... not a matter of proposal/resolution, there is a proposal I wrote there to change things that I need to submit for administration, you have not commented
15:27:39 <wes-smith> ... we are getting into publication moratorium now, all of this is now postponed until next week
15:27:41 <manu> q+
15:27:44 <wes-smith> ... sorry, but not my decision
15:27:47 <brent> ack manu
15:27:52 <wes-smith> manu: I think all of that is fine as long as it happens eventually
15:28:03 <wes-smith> ivan: eventually is key word, I will need your input
15:28:19 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1556
15:28:39 <wes-smith> brent: next is 1556, allowing VCDM 2.0 context URL, fixed in PR 1557, issue will be closed today
15:28:51 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1555
15:29:12 <manu> yes, I will do that PR :)
15:29:12 <wes-smith> ... next is 1555, last time we talked nobody objected to change "usage patterns" to "patterns of use"
15:29:16 <wes-smith> ... waiting for that PR
15:29:18 <manu> (or anyone else can too! ) :)
15:29:37 <wes-smith> manu: last week was controller document focused, this weekend hopefully can get back to VCDM queue
15:29:49 <wes-smith> brent: editorial change, straightforward, anyone can take this PR
15:30:10 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1558
15:30:14 <manu> q+
15:30:23 <wes-smith> Wip: I can take that one
15:30:43 <wes-smith> brent: next up 1558, summary of discussion is that it doesn't really matter but might as well do it since it will make some people happy
15:31:10 <wes-smith> selfissued: PRs are done
15:31:16 <wes-smith> manu: can I make this change across all specs
15:31:29 <wes-smith> brent: any objections to manu making this change across all specs
15:31:34 <brent> ack manu
15:31:54 <wes-smith> brent: hearing no objections, that is a reasonable course of action, thanks manu, please make a note when it is done so we can close the issue
15:32:03 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1559
15:32:10 <manu> q+
15:32:11 <wes-smith> ... last issue to look at is 1559, remove problem details integer error codes
15:32:17 <brent> ack manu
15:32:55 <wes-smith> manu: we were having some discussions with implementers in the VC API group and it turns out that, we added integer error codes in an attempt to say, if you have an IOT device/software library that cannot return strings or objects in a verify call, we will give well known integer codes that you can respond with
15:33:22 <wes-smith> ... none of the implementers that we know of use these integer error codes, and the issue is that we need to allocate them, theory was to allocate them based on level of library (low-high)
15:33:57 <wes-smith> ... people were like, what's the use of having 32-64 be implementation defined, you cannot depend on the error code you get back
15:34:16 <wes-smith> ... people unsure that this was needed, nobody spoke up, suggestion to remove this, doesn't mean implementers cannot do it
15:34:23 <ivan> q+
15:34:30 <wes-smith> brent: I love removing things from the spec
15:34:31 <brent> ack ivan
15:34:46 <wes-smith> ivan: yes that is no problem, just one warning, if you do that in the spec ideally you have to do it in the vocabs as well
15:34:55 <wes-smith> ... these objects are defined as terms in the vocabulary as well
15:34:58 <wes-smith> ... keep that in mind
15:35:33 <manu> q+
15:35:47 <wes-smith> RobDeFeo: just a note on this, from implementer perspective, when reading through the spec and looking at verification endpoints/response, it states that response should be an array of strings, there is a mention further down for problem details, but we couldn't figure out how to return it
15:35:58 <brent> ack manu
15:35:59 <wes-smith> ... that was partly why we didn't do it, don't know if other implementers have the same problem
15:36:11 <wes-smith> manu: could you point out exactly where in the spec you read that
15:36:40 <wes-smith> ... RobDeFeo if you could post this to Zoom we can raise an issue
15:37:08 <wes-smith> brent: next topic, we can post link later
15:37:14 <wes-smith> ... next on agenda is controller document
15:37:18 <brent> Topic: Controller Document
15:37:29 <wes-smith> ... first will look at some PRs
15:37:31 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/pulls
15:37:42 <wes-smith> ... we have 4 open PRs
15:37:53 <wes-smith> ... I believe all of them could benefit from some conversation, will start with 96
15:37:55 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/pull/96
15:38:13 <wes-smith> ... ivan, you have raised this PR, has been open for 4 hours, talk us through the changes
15:39:05 <wes-smith> ivan: dlongley updated the context file which I put in another PR, by looking at that I realized that with all the changes, the expire property is not mentioned as a potential property for verification methods, I believe it was in DI origin but got commented out in controller document, I believe that is a transition bug, I removed the comments to
15:39:05 <wes-smith> put it back
15:39:21 <manu> q+
15:39:26 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
15:39:47 <wes-smith> ... two comments, if this gets accepted I will have to make some changes in the vocabulary, and also the text that is there, which I did not write, is the same as for another property
15:39:58 <wes-smith> ... I understand the difference between the two but the specification should make it clearer
15:39:59 <brent> ack manu
15:40:08 <selfissued> q+
15:40:48 <wes-smith> manu: +1 to the PR, the differences are: expires is set before the thing expires as just a window, the revoked thing is that you must pay attention to revoked as the key was deactivated on a certain date for a very specific reason, while you should pay attention to expires
15:41:02 <brent> ack selfissued
15:41:06 <wes-smith> ivan: I will modify the PR to make that difference clear and we can come back to it
15:41:46 <wes-smith> selfissued: the history of that comment and similar comments is that when I was sorting out what was common between controller document section in vc-jose-cose and that section in DI, anything that was not in both I put in comments, only put in stuff from both documents
15:42:06 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/pull/95
15:42:09 <wes-smith> brent: moving to PR 95
15:42:12 <manu> q+
15:42:17 <brent> ack manu
15:42:20 <wes-smith> ... demonstrate how respect auto-generates RFC 2195 langauge
15:43:02 <TallTed> s/2195/2119/
15:43:03 <wes-smith> manu: all specs that W3C releases have a block of text in them that tells you how to interpret certain language (e.g. MUST, MAY). Respect autogenerates that paragraph, if you don't use a word like SHALL, respect will not put that language in the boilerplate
15:43:16 <dlongley> -1 to deviate from W3C standard practice
15:43:16 <wes-smith> ... selfissued you feel like we should include all RFC language
15:43:18 <selfissued> q+
15:43:44 <wes-smith> ... I am suggesting we should not do that, as that is not how other specs work, respect generates the text when you use that language, I have raised a PR to demonstrate that is true
15:44:10 <brent> ack selfissued
15:44:11 <wes-smith> ... the diff for the PR shows that NOT RECOMMENDED was added by respec to the boilerplate language, we should not make this change, we should follow W3C policy
15:45:08 <wes-smith> selfissued: part of my issue was that we are not following policy, I now understand that respec is only generating the parts that we use, not a terrible problem, I think the tool is doing the wrong thing, but that is a tooling issue.
15:45:30 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/pull/92
15:45:31 <wes-smith> brent: for clarity, this PR and the related issue will be closed
15:45:42 <wes-smith> ... next PR is 92, alternative version of the context and vocabulary section
15:45:59 <wes-smith> ... some review, change requests, comments, they have not been addressed at this point
15:46:33 <wes-smith> ivan: there were several things happening in this PR, I don't want to go to things that have been closed, have already mentioned dlongley for his contribution to the context file
15:46:49 <manu> q+
15:47:07 <wes-smith> ... two open things, one is that there are strange things happening, there were merge problems last week that I had to take care of, somehow the PR was referring to text in the document that was not my making and not in the changes
15:47:22 <wes-smith> ... TallTed put editorial comments that I have no problems with against those parts, which is not the topic of this PR
15:47:29 <wes-smith> ... those changes should be put in a separate PR
15:47:51 <wes-smith> ... the other thing is that I took over Jeffery's comment on context injection into this PR so that it is not lost, and I am not really sure what to do about the text
15:48:04 <wes-smith> ... dlongley came up with a change suggestion that I found fine, Jeffery is still not happy
15:48:11 <TallTed> q+
15:48:14 <wes-smith> ... other than that it is ready to go
15:48:17 <brent> ack manu
15:48:27 <TallTed> https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/pull/92/files
15:48:41 <wes-smith> manu: thanks for the PR ivan, it strikes a good compromise, an hour ago I rebased the PR onto main and tried to address the merge conflicts, should be clean if TallTed does a rereview
15:49:14 <wes-smith> ... another rereview from TallTed would be appreciated, I will also rereview and take another look at Jeffery's issue, I can't remember what the solution is there but it is a workable issue
15:49:16 <brent> ack TallTed
15:50:12 <wes-smith> TallTed: to be clear about what I make suggestions on, when I look at a PR in the files presentation, there are red sections that are deleted and green sections that are added, I focus on green sections. When there are unchanged sections that are contextually relevant I bring them in as well. With the rebase, some of the text that I have changed is
15:50:12 <wes-smith> not part of the PR, and I need to make another PR to figure out where my changes need to go.
15:50:20 <manu> q+
15:50:37 <wes-smith> ivan: your comment has been marked outdated as an effect of what manu has done, but I don't want to remove them, I would prefer you close those when you move them to a new PR
15:51:05 <wes-smith> ivan: this is what happens when he have 25 overlapping PRs that we merge, some of them create problems
15:51:13 <wes-smith> TallTed: I will make the required changes
15:51:17 <brent> ack manu
15:52:11 <wes-smith> manu: just to be clear about what happened, whenever anyone merges things down to the main branch, make sure that all the commits make sense and do not say things like "fix typo", please try to keep the history clean so the changelog is contained
15:53:13 <wes-smith> ... when the commit history is unclear it makes things difficult, I had to rewrite sloppy commits and push it, in which case it disconnected all 18 PRs that we had, I needed to rebase all of them, that took 6 hours, please when you do a commit or pull in changes, make sure that commit makes sense when somebody else reads it. The reason TallTed's
15:53:13 <wes-smith> changes got disconnected is automatic GitHub process
15:53:49 <wes-smith> ... nobody actually went in and manually marked TallTed's changes outdated, GitHub did it automatically. It's not necessarily having 18 PRs in flight, it is when we are sloppy with the history and commit stuff to main that should not be committed, that is what creates that problem.
15:54:13 <wes-smith> brent: manu if you want to ping me with my chair hat on if we need to further discuss that's fine
15:54:30 <wes-smith> manu: honest mistake, happens once in a blue moon, just unfortunate when it happens when there are a lot of PRs in flight
15:54:35 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/pull/42
15:54:39 <wes-smith> brent: in general, don't do merges to main, raise a PR.
15:55:10 <wes-smith> ... next PR #42, we have discussed this before, where we left off was that JoeAndrieu was going to propose different language, where are we at here?
15:55:31 <wes-smith> JoeAndrieu: I haven't done anything on this, will rehydrate and see where we are, but I did not meet your expectation
15:55:32 <dlongley> https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/issues/75
15:55:37 <dlongley> ^there's some useful text there
15:55:41 <wes-smith> brent: no worries, thank you for continuing to do the work
15:55:41 <dlongley> q+
15:55:48 <brent> ack dlongley
15:55:59 <manu> q+
15:56:02 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to ask about proof language
15:56:12 <wes-smith> dlongley: JoeAndrieu you did propose some alternate text that may or may not be reusable, just a reminder that that text is out there in the above linked issue
15:56:34 <wes-smith> brent: we have some wording suggestions in issue 75 which I believe would help either modify PR 42 or result in a new PR, folks please look at issue 75
15:56:41 <manu> q?
15:56:46 <wes-smith> ... that will guide changing PR 42 or help us determine a resolution.
15:56:48 <brent> ack manu
15:57:13 <wes-smith> manu: I was expecting to close 42 in favor of whatever PR JoeAndrieu raises, I'm fine to close this now, any objections?
15:57:18 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:57:18 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to ask about proof language
15:57:37 <manu> I'll leave PR 42 open if we're unsure then.
15:57:57 <wes-smith> JoeAndrieu: not sure we should close it but not sure that I want to stand in the way either, the issue has some language we can use, but there is disconnect between manu and I on meaning of controller property, looking forward to talking this out at TPAC
15:58:31 <wes-smith> brent: going forward are we leaving PR 42 open for comparison? who is taking the action to move the proposed language into the spec?
15:58:37 <wes-smith> manu: I will work with JoeAndrieu to do that.
15:59:01 <wes-smith> brent: whatever we don't solve next week on controller document we will talk about at TPAC.
15:59:04 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:59:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/11-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
15:59:55 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
15:59:55 <RRSAgent> I see no action items