15:36:05 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
15:36:10 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/11/13-vcwg-irc
15:36:10 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:36:11 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
15:36:19 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
15:36:19 <ivan> Date: 2024-11-13
15:36:19 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/bcd2e026-9621-481e-8ac6-824a71464234/20241113T110000/
15:36:19 <ivan> chair: brent
15:36:20 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2024-11-13: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/bcd2e026-9621-481e-8ac6-824a71464234/20241113T110000/
15:58:28 <ivan> present+
15:58:48 <mandyv> mandyv has joined #vcwg
15:58:53 <mandyv> present+
15:59:12 <brent> brent has joined #vcwg
15:59:27 <brent> present+
16:01:20 <ivan> present+ manu, joe
16:01:38 <ivan> present+ campbell
16:02:24 <ivan> present+ wes-smith
16:02:26 <wes-smith> wes-smith has joined #vcwg
16:02:32 <ivan> present+ bigbluehat
16:02:38 <ivan> present+ dlongley
16:02:42 <ivan> present+ TallTed
16:02:48 <ivan> present+ davidc
16:03:13 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
16:03:21 <DavidC> present+
16:03:59 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #vcwg
16:04:07 <ivan> present+ kevin
16:04:10 <bigbluehat> scribe+
16:04:12 <bigbluehat> present+
16:04:12 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #vcwg
16:04:15 <KevinDean> present+
16:04:17 <Wip> Wip has joined #vcwg
16:04:22 <Wip> present+
16:04:51 <bigbluehat> brent: welcome to the VCWG call
16:05:03 <bigbluehat> ... we are back after some events last week
16:05:08 <bigbluehat> ... today's agenda is pretty simple
16:05:23 <bigbluehat> ... we'd like to hear about IETF meeting results from last week and how they pertain to us
16:05:29 <ivan> present+ jennie
16:05:32 <bigbluehat> ... and also look at the Controller Document remaining issues
16:05:43 <bigbluehat> ... anyone have any changes or additions to the agenda?
16:05:58 <bigbluehat> manu: should we talk about the future security work?
16:06:07 <bigbluehat> ... maybe 2-5 minutes on that?
16:06:09 <bigbluehat> brent: sounds fine
16:06:23 <bigbluehat> ... anyone on the call who would like to introduce themselves?
16:06:24 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #vcwg
16:06:57 <manu> Topic: Upcoming SING Review Process
16:07:14 <BC> BC has joined #vcwg
16:07:18 <bigbluehat> manu: the security interest group is starting in the next few weeks
16:07:26 <bigbluehat> ... the charter review for that group has gone well
16:07:45 <bigbluehat> ... a few of us have talks with folks that are going to be in that group about the VC work
16:07:58 <bigbluehat> ... once the group exists, they can formally finalize the reviews on our specifications
16:08:04 <bigbluehat> ... focusing first on the data model
16:08:10 <bigbluehat> ... then the securing mechanisms
16:08:19 <bigbluehat> ... and then other things beyond that
16:08:36 <ivan> present+ gabe
16:08:48 <bigbluehat> ... thanks for that update simone !
16:09:14 <bigbluehat> ... there's potential that we could bring SING groups into this call to get feedback
16:09:27 <bigbluehat> ... but this will certainly need to be a priority
16:10:04 <bigbluehat> brent: the topics simone wanted to discuss with the group and the threat modeling exploration...
16:10:11 <bigbluehat> ... I think that would be great to hear about on this call
16:10:17 <manu> q+ to also mention BBS blind and pseudonym features "should we have an adoption call"? request on CFRG
16:10:22 <bigbluehat> ... so ivan and I will reach out to SING to try and arrange something
16:10:30 <brent> ack manu
16:10:30 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to also mention BBS blind and pseudonym features "should we have an adoption call"? request on CFRG
16:10:55 <decentralgabe> decentralgabe has joined #vcwg
16:11:03 <decentralgabe> present+
16:11:07 <bigbluehat> manu: there has been a recent request to put out a call for consensus to adopt Blind BBS and BBS Pseudonyms at the CFRG
16:11:26 <bigbluehat> ... these are important because they enable things with the BBS cryptosuites we use here
16:11:42 <bigbluehat> ... like unlinkability
16:11:56 <bigbluehat> ... where the signature changes every time you do the presentation
16:12:45 <bigbluehat> ... the Psuedonyms provide for preventing Sybil attacks
16:12:48 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
16:12:53 <JoeAndrieu> present+
16:12:58 <bigbluehat> ... it would be super helpful to have folks support the adoption on the CFRG list
16:13:11 <manu> Request for a call for adoption of Blind BBS and BBS Pseudonyms: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/J4pdvxigpXiW7bUfCNeD92fgzng/
16:13:46 <bigbluehat> ... these are basic cryptographic primitives that can be used in many technologies, so please write in to support that.
16:13:54 <bigbluehat> brent: any questions or comments?
16:13:57 <brent> Topic: Report on IETF
16:14:12 <ivan> i/manu: there has been/Topic: BBS related issues/
16:14:18 <bigbluehat> brent: I was at the IETF last week
16:14:38 <bigbluehat> ... I briefly shared a few things
16:14:45 <bigbluehat> ... I was at the SPICE meetings
16:15:00 <bigbluehat> ... their current work items are SD-CWT
16:15:12 <bigbluehat> ... there's a push in that group to produce an architecture document
16:15:21 <bigbluehat> ... once that's in progress, I expect that to be of interest here
16:15:37 <bigbluehat> ... as folks here have already spent quality time on that topic and terminology
16:16:12 <ivan> q+
16:16:47 <brent> ack ivan
16:17:43 <manu> +1 thanks to OAuth WG for avoiding the collision.
16:19:23 <bigbluehat> ... SD-JWT is at last call and very very close to being done
16:19:34 <bigbluehat> ... the JOSE/COSE spec should be able to reference it
16:19:55 <bigbluehat> ... the SD-JWT spec will also be using a different media type which will avoid the previous conflicts
16:20:08 <manu> q+
16:20:14 <brent> ack manu
16:20:16 <bigbluehat> ... any comments before moving to controller document?
16:20:28 <bigbluehat> manu: it's great news about the media type change
16:20:39 <bigbluehat> ... does that mean there are no more standing formal objections planned?
16:20:56 <bigbluehat> ... can we get a confirmation that there are no more potential blockers to JOSE/COSE
16:21:09 <bigbluehat> BC: I will not commit to that at this point.
16:21:21 <bigbluehat> manu: what might you still object over?
16:21:30 <bigbluehat> ... your original objection was over the media type
16:21:49 <bigbluehat> BC: correct. We don't have a media type conflict.
16:21:59 <bigbluehat> ... but I'm not going to say anything here you'll use later
16:22:12 <bigbluehat> brent: thank you, BC. I'll move things forward.
16:22:21 <bigbluehat> BC: thank you brent. There likely will not be.
16:22:32 <brent> Topic: Controller Document
16:22:35 <bigbluehat> brent: no more comments, then? let's move to controller document
16:22:48 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/pulls
16:22:56 <bigbluehat> ... we have a controller document, but no consensus yet on a possible new name for it
16:23:00 <bigbluehat> ... there is one pull request
16:23:23 <bigbluehat> ... it only has 99 comments in last couple weeks
16:23:47 <bigbluehat> JoeAndrieu: there's some editorial work to do yet
16:23:54 <bigbluehat> ... most of the substantive things to address as well
16:24:08 <bigbluehat> ... DavidC's proposal to adjust the name of the controller
16:24:10 <DavidC> q+
16:24:21 <bigbluehat> ... there's some confusion about the controller property at the root of the document
16:24:57 <bigbluehat> ... DavidC proposed trying to make that value's use more clear by renaming it
16:24:57 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #vcwg
16:25:11 <bigbluehat> ... but I think making that a separate issue could help us move the rest of it forward
16:25:16 <brent> ack DavidC
16:25:23 <bigbluehat> DavidC: my motivating factor was to remove ambiguity
16:25:37 <bigbluehat> ... it came from JoeAndrieu's comment about them being two different things
16:25:49 <manu> q+ to note "different semantics" are debatable.
16:25:52 <bigbluehat> ... my hope is to make the document more understandable
16:26:05 <bigbluehat> ... but I'm happy for it to be a separate issue
16:26:11 <dlongley> +1 to use a separate issue (and -1 to change it generally)
16:26:17 <brent> ack manu
16:26:17 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note "different semantics" are debatable.
16:26:23 <bigbluehat> ... I'd like the doc to be understandable to the average computer scientist
16:26:33 <bigbluehat> manu: I understand the desire for clarity
16:26:48 <bigbluehat> ... I would like to see the discussion continue
16:27:04 <bigbluehat> ... and a separate issue would help us move the normative changes forward and get to CR
16:27:07 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to mention Ivan's latest about terminology
16:27:17 <bigbluehat> ... the "different semantics" bit is probably debatable
16:27:35 <bigbluehat> ... you know which is which based on where the property is used
16:27:46 <bigbluehat> ... so changing the name could actually introduce confusion
16:28:00 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
16:28:00 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention Ivan's latest about terminology
16:28:04 <bigbluehat> ... regardless, +1 to making this a separate issue as there's certainly more we can discuss
16:28:12 <bigbluehat> JoeAndrieu: +1 to it being debatable
16:28:19 <dlongley> +1 to not "worth the squeeze"
16:28:22 <bigbluehat> ... and glad it will be it's own issue, so we can do that
16:28:50 <bigbluehat> ... we have some guarantees for the `id` at the root of the document matching the resolution mechanism
16:29:01 <bigbluehat> ... we don't have that for other scenarios
16:29:12 <bigbluehat> ... we need a way to reference the canonical place this should be
16:29:36 <bigbluehat> ... we don't mean the `id` of any of the other contained things, but the `id` at the root of the document
16:29:43 <manu> q+ to ask why we can't just use HTTP dereferencing semantics?
16:29:50 <brent> ack manu
16:29:50 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask why we can't just use HTTP dereferencing semantics?
16:30:01 <bigbluehat> manu: can we use HTTP dereferencing semantics?
16:30:30 <bigbluehat> JoeAndrieu: I think we are partially, because we're saying "canonical URL"
16:30:49 <bigbluehat> ... which identifier we're talking about in the JSON document seems more like a JSON problem than an HTTP problem
16:31:01 <bigbluehat> brent: is that a new issue? or part of this PR?
16:31:11 <bigbluehat> JoeAndrieu: this PR needs to say that they are the same
16:31:18 <bigbluehat> ... I kinda made up the "base identifier" term
16:31:39 <bigbluehat> brent: maybe just "the `id` property at the root of the document"?
16:31:44 <bigbluehat> ... do we need more terms?
16:31:51 <bigbluehat> JoeAndrieu: that is a mouthful
16:32:00 <bigbluehat> ... it'd be easier to say "the base identifier"
16:32:05 <bigbluehat> ... and define that in one place
16:32:21 <bigbluehat> brent: so, maybe add it to the terminology section?
16:32:26 <ivan> q+
16:32:29 <bigbluehat> ... unless others have a term they'd prefer?
16:32:32 <brent> ack ivan
16:32:37 <bigbluehat> ivan: I don't have a term I'd prefer
16:32:44 <manu> I'd be fine w/ defining a term and then referring to it :)
16:33:12 <bigbluehat> ... I want to make it clear that the terminology of "base identifier" does not bring new things to the vocabulary--that it's editorial only
16:33:23 <bigbluehat> ... this is where I stumbled on this problem
16:33:27 <dlongley> fine for it to be clearly indicated as "editorial"
16:33:34 <manu> yep ^
16:33:45 <bigbluehat> JoeAndrieu: what about the other half?
16:34:14 <bigbluehat> ivan: if we want to formalize it, you introduce more things into the actual vocabulary
16:34:27 <bigbluehat> JoeAndrieu: there's some motivation to do that, as needed
16:34:36 <bigbluehat> ... you were opposed to canonical URL
16:34:42 <bigbluehat> ... I think it is canonical
16:34:48 <bigbluehat> ivan: what do you mean by canonical?
16:34:50 <manu> q+
16:35:02 <bigbluehat> JoeAndrieu: DID documents are defined by resolution for that did method
16:35:11 <bigbluehat> ... so the canonical URL is the one where you go and get that thing
16:35:21 <bigbluehat> ivan: but on the Web you might have several
16:35:35 <bigbluehat> JoeAndrieu: but only one is canonical
16:35:40 <bigbluehat> ivan: but what does that mean?
16:35:51 <dlongley> the canonical URL is the one that appears as the value of the base identifier, specified by the `id` property at the root of the controller document
16:36:06 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
16:36:08 <bigbluehat> JoeAndrieu: it means if you got it from a different URL, it's "a DID document" not "the DID document"?
16:36:15 <brent> ack manu
16:36:17 <bigbluehat> manu: ivan can we make this into an issue?
16:36:26 <bigbluehat> ... it sounds editorial possibly
16:36:35 <bigbluehat> ivan: no. agreed. these are editorial
16:36:47 <bigbluehat> manu: this PR needs to get in to address the normative things?
16:36:55 <bigbluehat> ... and then we apply these during CR?
16:37:06 <bigbluehat> JoeAndrieu: it's not editorial...because it's glossary
16:37:26 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
16:37:27 <bigbluehat> ... I'll put some spec text in so ivan can discuss around that text
16:37:41 <bigbluehat> ... hopefully, it'll be close to what you want
16:37:50 <bigbluehat> ivan: and if not, we can fight over it. :) that's fine
16:37:56 <bigbluehat> brent: any more discussion needed for today?
16:38:01 <manu> q+ to request discussing the poll next?
16:38:05 <bigbluehat> ... so, raising an issue to track that
16:38:13 <bigbluehat> JoeAndrieu: I'll take care of that
16:38:27 <bigbluehat> brent: great. is PR116 ready to move forward then?
16:38:42 <bigbluehat> JoeAndrieu: I think we still need people to look at the glossary terms, then we could
16:38:54 <brent> subtopic: poll results
16:38:57 <brent> ack manu
16:38:57 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to request discussing the poll next?
16:39:18 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/issues/100
16:39:50 <bigbluehat> manu: we ran a poll to rename the controller document
16:39:56 <bigbluehat> ... we got good turn out
16:40:02 <bigbluehat> ... I wish I could share my screen...
16:40:15 <bigbluehat> ... what we got as a result was fairly clear preference
16:40:23 <bigbluehat> ... 129 for Identifier Document
16:40:29 <bigbluehat> ... 113 for Controller Document
16:40:45 <bigbluehat> ... 96 for Cryptographic Identifier Document
16:40:50 <bigbluehat> ... and more beyond
16:41:02 <brent> q+
16:41:04 <bigbluehat> ... I'll collect the results and announce them later
16:41:14 <bigbluehat> ... this was ranked choice voting
16:41:22 <bigbluehat> ... mainly to show a preference in the group
16:41:32 <bigbluehat> ... so, that's the data
16:41:45 <bigbluehat> ... we said we'd run the poll and use that as input to a proposal
16:41:59 <bigbluehat> ... brent it's up to you if you want to make the proposal now or later
16:41:59 <brent> ack brent
16:42:26 <DavidC> q+
16:42:28 <bigbluehat> brent: with chair hat on, I don't think 129 vs. 113 is a strong preference...seems like a slight preference
16:42:45 <bigbluehat> ... we can make a proposal, but if we were to do a poll on those two options what would emerge
16:42:45 <ivan> q+
16:42:54 <brent> ack DavidC
16:43:36 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to mention ranked choice and this is the bikeshedding
16:43:41 <bigbluehat> DavidC: looking at those numbers and you take 129 and 96 together, there may be evidence of a preference for Identifier being in the name
16:43:45 <manu> We also had someone suggest Identifier's Authentic Metadata Graph
16:43:46 <brent> ack ivan
16:43:50 <bigbluehat> brent: not sure that's the right interpretation
16:44:02 <bigbluehat> ivan: I agree with brent...as the one who brought this up to begin with...
16:44:09 <bigbluehat> ... let's close this without any action
16:44:15 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
16:44:15 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention ranked choice and this is the bikeshedding
16:44:18 <bigbluehat> ... because we didn't find a clear preference
16:44:26 <bigbluehat> JoeAndrieu: I sadly need to disagree
16:44:36 <bigbluehat> ... we're not going to get more information by running another poll
16:44:44 <manu> q+ to note ranked choice polls output and what they say.
16:44:53 <bigbluehat> ... this is the conversation where we'll have the opportunity to discuss this
16:45:10 <bigbluehat> ... and I think given we didn't get to discuss the name last time, we should follow the poll
16:45:29 <bigbluehat> brent: there was a good deal of conversation around the name "Controller Document"
16:45:35 <bigbluehat> ... mostly on an issue, but also on call
16:45:49 <bigbluehat> JoeAndrieu: when we first came up with the name, it was a "let's use this for now"
16:46:01 <bigbluehat> ... I don't think it has merit to dismiss the poll
16:46:04 <DavidC> +1 JoeAndrieu
16:46:07 <brent> ack manu
16:46:07 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note ranked choice polls output and what they say.
16:46:11 <bigbluehat> brent: I don't think that's what's happening
16:46:33 <bigbluehat> manu: I agree with JoeAndrieu as one of the people who named it initially, we did select it out of thin air...mostly
16:46:41 <bigbluehat> ... I'm not a fan of "Controller Document"
16:46:52 <bigbluehat> ... the way ranked choice works isn't about the margin
16:47:08 <bigbluehat> ... anything that comes out on top, is the clear preference, even if the margin is slim
16:47:17 <bigbluehat> ... we sadly don't know who all voted
16:47:36 <bigbluehat> ... I'm willing to make the change across the documents
16:48:13 <bigbluehat> ... I think it was Gabe who made the "Identifier Document" which shows some of it's lineage to "Decentralized Identifier Document"
16:48:21 <bigbluehat> ... the poll does show a preference...however small
16:48:33 <bigbluehat> ... could we run a poll for the top two?
16:48:33 <decentralgabe> q+
16:48:46 <bigbluehat> ... and if there's still no consensus, we stay the course?
16:49:06 <bigbluehat> brent: before going to the queue, let me attempt to express my deeply felt apathy about this change
16:49:10 <bigbluehat> ... I don't care
16:49:24 <bigbluehat> ... we could call it the Poopy Pants Thingy Document
16:49:28 <brent> ack decentralgabe
16:49:46 <bigbluehat> decentralgabe: I also do not care. Even as the person who proposed "Identifier Document"
16:49:48 <brent> PROPOSAL: Rename Controller Document to Identifier Document
16:49:52 <manu> +1
16:49:55 <DavidC> q+
16:49:57 <mandyv> mandyv has joined #vcwg
16:49:57 <bigbluehat> ... I think there are better things to discuss
16:49:59 <JoeAndrieu> +1
16:50:02 <brent> +0
16:50:04 <decentralgabe> +1
16:50:05 <bigbluehat> +0
16:50:06 <DavidC> +1
16:50:08 <dlongley> -1 but would support Controllable Identifier Document
16:50:09 <ivan> +1
16:50:31 <JennieM> +1
16:50:39 <TallTed> -0.7
16:51:29 <bigbluehat> TallTed: the problem with "identifier document" is that it holds both identifier and crypto material
16:51:39 <bigbluehat> ... the crypto is not identifiers as currently defined
16:52:05 <bigbluehat> ... if we want the name of this thing to communicate to people who find these, I think "identifier document" is the wrong name for it
16:52:11 <bigbluehat> dlongley: similar concerns from me.
16:52:23 <bigbluehat> ... there are many documents you could describe as "identifier documents"
16:52:34 <bigbluehat> ... these documents, however, are about controlling identifiers
16:52:43 <bigbluehat> ... so we'd sadly be missing that key thing
16:52:48 <JoeAndrieu> q+
16:52:59 <brent> ack DavidC
16:53:01 <bigbluehat> ... we'd be missing something if that's the only words in the name
16:53:09 <bigbluehat> DavidC: I wanted to propose something different
16:53:32 <bigbluehat> ... is there anyone strongly against "Identifier Document"...that's how the poll went anyway
16:53:37 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
16:53:40 <bigbluehat> brent: we sadly do not have consensus to change it
16:53:57 <bigbluehat> JoeAndrieu: I want to make the case that this document is about one identifier
16:54:05 <bigbluehat> ... it then provides things related to that identifier
16:54:13 <dlongley> i don't care enough to block it
16:54:13 <bigbluehat> q+
16:54:17 <DavidC> The voting shows a strong concensus to change the name. 5 for, 2 dont care, 1.7 against
16:54:17 <dlongley> -0
16:54:28 <TallTed> "Identifier Interaction Methods [Document]"?
16:54:35 <brent> ack bigbluehat
16:55:14 <dlongley> would we get fully support for "Controllable Identifier Document"?
16:55:20 <dlongley> full*
16:55:23 <brent> bigbluehat: I also don't care. It may be about one identifier, but the document has more than than. I think Identifier Document is painfully broad. Controllable Identifier Docuemnt if kind of okay.
16:55:24 <manu> Controllable Identifier Document polled at 79, FWIW
16:55:45 <brent> PROPOSAL: Rename Controller Document to Controllable Identifier Document
16:55:48 <manu> -1
16:55:50 <dlongley> +1
16:56:01 <decentralgabe> +0
16:56:02 <bigbluehat> +0
16:56:05 <JoeAndrieu> +1
16:56:38 <ivan> 0
16:56:46 <TallTed> -0.9
16:57:14 <DavidC> With dlongley's change of vote we have 5 for, 3 dont care, 0.7 against
16:57:22 <bigbluehat> brent: the W3C process works on hard consensus
16:57:37 <bigbluehat> ... so people not liking something, means we keep working on finding what works for everyone
16:57:38 <manu> q+
16:57:43 <brent> ack manu
16:57:48 <bigbluehat> manu: k. everyone's sad
16:57:51 <bigbluehat> ... let's move on
16:58:08 <bigbluehat> ... it would've been easier if there was strong support for something
16:58:13 <bigbluehat> ... I would have loved to change the name
16:58:18 <bigbluehat> ... but it's not worth fighting for
16:58:32 <bigbluehat> ... let this be a lesson to everyone to not arbitrarily name specs in the future
16:58:48 <bigbluehat> brent: shoulda named it poopy pants
16:58:56 <bigbluehat> JoeAndrieu: clearly you do care brent
16:59:02 <bigbluehat> ivan: so we should close this issue
16:59:21 <bigbluehat> brent: thanks everyone, that was the meeting
16:59:26 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:59:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/13-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
16:59:35 <bigbluehat> ... let's talk again next week
16:59:56 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:59:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/13-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
17:01:08 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
17:01:08 <RRSAgent> I see no action items