W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > February 2016

Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2016-02-09

From: <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 15:26:41 -0500
Message-Id: <1455308801539.0.14036@zoe>
To: Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>, Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Thanks to Dave Longley for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's Verifiable Claims telecon are now available:

http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2016-02-09/

Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes.
Audio from the meeting is available as well (link provided below).

----------------------------------------------------------------
Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2016-02-09

Agenda:
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2016Feb/0018.html
Topics:
  1. Plan to Finishing up Interviews
  2. Verifiable Claims Task Force Final Report
  3. Use Cases Document
  4. Draft Charter Proposal
Organizer:
  Manu Sporny
Scribe:
  Dave Longley
Present:
  Dave Longley, Manu Sporny, John Tibbetts, Richard Varn, Colleen 
  Kennedy, Rebecca Simmons, Brian Sletten, Shane McCarron, Daniel 
  C. Burnett, Carla Casilli, Stuart Sutton, Peter Hofman, 
  Victoriano Giralt, Rob Trainer, David I. Lehn, Jason Law, Greg 
  Kidd, Bill DeLorenzo
Audio:
  http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2016-02-09/audio.ogg

Dave Longley is scribing.
Manu Sporny:  We're supposed to get an update from Deustche 
  Telekom, but they aren't here yet so we'll push that to later on 
  the agenda.
Manu Sporny:  Are there any other updates/changes to the agenda?
None

Topic: Plan to Finishing up Interviews

Manu Sporny:  We have a plan to finish the interviews this week. 
  We've got good coverage on our interviews, the vast majority we 
  wanted to interview responded in some way. The folks with very 
  busy schedules like Vint Cerf and Tim Berner-Lee likely won't 
  have time to talk before we have to report, we've got Bob Sheets 
  and Jeanne Kitchens later this week. John Tibbetts sent a private 
  email that could be used as his interview --- super helpful. 
  Coming from someone involved in this space for many years and 
  answered similar questions from the interview.
Manu Sporny:  We were going to try and integrate everyone's 
  feedback into the final interview and were going to ask for 
  piecemeal input, but John Tibbett's email was much more helpful, 
  we've already got expertise from people in the CG but we didn't 
  capture their input view interview. So what I think we should do 
  is interviews over email, Matt Stone, Richard Varn, John 
  Tibbetts, etc. I'll ask you to write an email and I'll send a 
  template for you to use. We'd like to hear from you, people who 
  have been participating to get your thoughts on the VCTF charter, 
  etc.
Manu Sporny:  My hope is to get input from the folks who want to 
  move on this stuff, not just input from people who don't yet have 
  skin in the game or those who are critical.
Manu Sporny:  Heads up to you guys -- we'll be sending out a 
  template and if you can just respond with an email that will be 
  super helpful, send it to the mailing list, we'll put it down on 
  the record and we'll report those findings to the Web Payments IG 
  at the end of the month. Any questions about the interviews or 
  that template?
John Tibbetts:  I want to make sure ... I put in the email the 
  second time to the two forums you gave me ... did you not get 
  those? I just wanted to makes sure.
Manu Sporny:  When you send it to the IG it will be held for 
  moderation, but your one from the Credentials CG should have gone 
  through, I'm not seeing it there.
Manu Sporny:  As long as you send it to those two mailing lists 
  we can reference it from there.
John Tibbetts:  Ok.
Manu Sporny:  Any other questions ... Richard, specifically, do 
  you think you'll have time this week to write something up?
Richard Varn:  I was waiting for a prompt.
Manu Sporny:  Yeah, you were going to get one, but we changed the 
  format slightly to parallelize, we'll give you a template.
Richard Varn:  Ok, yes, I'll respond this week.
Manu Sporny:  Colleen, if you want to respond on behalf of 
  Pearson or get Matt Stone to that would be great.
Colleen Kennedy:  Ok.
Manu Sporny:  Rebecca it would be great to capture your unique 
  perspective, but if you feel uncomfortable because you haven't 
  been engaged in the work as deeply as some of the other folks.
Rebecca Simmons:  I'd like to, I'm afraid it won't be as useful 
  as the other folks.
Manu Sporny:  No, just having an opinion about the fact you've 
  been involved in work like this it would be helpful.
Manu Sporny:  Same goes for anyone who feels they would have 
  anything helpful to add that the other interviewees haven't said.
Manu Sporny:  I'll try to get that template out today and if we 
  can get responses before Friday that would be great, but any time 
  before the 20th (the F2F meeting is around then) that's the 
  deadline. But we want responses by Friday to get them integrated 
  into the presentation.
Manu Sporny:  Any questions?
None

Topic: Verifiable Claims Task Force Final Report

Manu Sporny: 
  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dYup3KC2nak3LVTzyapr996TKxDj1w5Eyp4g13rQQBA/edit
Manu Sporny:  I was able to put some time into this over the 
  weekend, it's not going as quickly as I had hoped but the basic 
  structure of the document is there as well as the first couple of 
  sections. The sections are kind of filled out. Going from the top 
  of the document down ..
Manu Sporny:  The purpose of this document ... it will be 
  circulated to 300+ W3C member companies, giving them a background 
  on the work we've been doing to make a case to start work at W3C, 
  proving our due diligence.
Manu Sporny:  We start out with a background on VCTF and the 
  problem statement then go into a summary of findings. These 
  member companies have reps that are really busy and they may only 
  read the first page and a half. The rest is supporting 
  documentation so people can find all the assertions in the doc.
Manu Sporny:  We assert a number of things about broad consensus 
  on the problem statement, etc.
Manu Sporny:  We have clear use cases documented in banking, 
  finance, education, etc.
Manu Sporny:  Current tech doesn't address those use cases, and 
  so on. A summary of findings there. If the group participants can 
  take a look at that doc and highlight issues with things they 
  have concerns with that would be super helpful.
Richard Varn: Joined
Manu Sporny:  We go into what we mean by privacy enhancing and 
  user centric ... it's continuing point of confusion, we list the 
  survey, we have 43 orgs we've surveyed, etc. We list them out. 
  That's more supporting material showing there's a desire to solve 
  the problem.
Manu Sporny:  Then interviews on page 4. We listed all experts 
  W3C staff wanted us to interview and anything from the 
  Credentials CG experts that want to respond.
Manu Sporny:  I hate to say this but the bigger the company 
  you're with the more weight the interview may carry; while we 
  want to hear from small orgs, they may not be as convincing as 
  large orgs to W3C.
Manu Sporny:  The rest of the doc elaborates on things we have 
  clear consensus on and things we don't and potential pitfalls, 
  etc. We need to point out all the things people are worried about 
  us messing up.
Manu Sporny:  That's the shape of the VCTF final report, there 
  will be a presentation on the Monday of the F2F meeting. We've 
  been given 90 minutes which is a pretty large chunk of time. We 
  need to figure out if the Web Payments IG will back our charter 
  proposal and use cases or not. We need very clear payments use 
  cases or they will feel that they don't have much to see there. 
  The chairs have said they only need to see a couple of payments 
  use cases (not a majority).
Manu Sporny:  Any questions?
Manu Sporny:  Do folks feel like this is the right approach or is 
  something missing?
Brian Sletten:  Do you need any assistance?
Manu Sporny:  I could use all the help I could get, I'm very thin 
  on time these days but will get it done regardless. I don't know 
  how to parallelize the work at this point, the best idea I have 
  is for people to go into the topics where we talk about consensus 
  and pitfalls and then scan the interviews and make sure we aren't 
  missing anything. In each section we need to copy and paste 
  quotes from people or link to the interviews that raise any 
  concerns. Looking at page six, each topic should have a paragraph 
  summarizing what the topic is about and then referencing all the 
  interviews related and showing quotes that show agreement or 
  concern.
Manu Sporny:  Make sense?
Brian Sletten:  Yes.
Manu Sporny:  At this point, if you have time, please fill out 
  anything that isn't filled out in the document, that will really 
  help. We were hoping to have it done this Friday but it won't be 
  on my own, I'll get it as soon as I can, it will be done before 
  F2F, but the more people we have the tighter we can make the 
  message.
Brian Sletten:  I'll take a look at ... I don't have more time 
  than you but maybe we can each stay up until 2am instead of 4am 
  :)
Manu Sporny:  Sounds like a plan, a sad plan, but a plan! :)
Shane McCarron: The semi-final report
Manu Sporny:  What we may do is suggest that what we do is 
  provide the report as a draft -- that will give the IG some kind 
  of buy in to let them change the content so if they ask us to 
  elaborate we can do that and demonstrate our responsiveness to 
  their desires.

Topic: Use Cases Document

Manu Sporny: http://opencreds.org/specs/source/use-cases/
Shane McCarron:  So everyone is on the same page, a couple of 
  weeks ago I offered to take lead on the use cases pulled together 
  from various sources. Gregg and Dan, Brian assisting.
Shane McCarron:  We're gathering a lot of use cases and 
  organizing them together into a structure where similar use cases 
  are grouped together under certain requirements. Requirement X 
  has scenario Y and use cases. We're going to try and get a 
  consistent editorial style over the next week and get the 
  payment-related scenarios floated to the top of the list. For 
  each requirement we want payment scenarios there. If there isn't 
  a requirement related to payments (and I can't find one) we can 
  relegate those to a "someday" pile or find a use case that does.
Shane McCarron:  Any questions?
Manu Sporny:  Deep thank you.
Manu Sporny:  The use cases doc is in way better shape than it 
  was two weeks ago so that's great and we've been able to 
  circulate to people and say it's in rough shape but people have 
  responded positively to it. Clear we have done due diligence and 
  people have seen their own use cases in there and these are 
  people in finance/banking. People understand it's rough but it's 
  resonating.
Manu Sporny:  Ian Jacobs has pushed back on the use cases 
  document and said that we should focus on eight core use cases 
  and associate a charter with that rather than shotgun a ton of 
  use cases their way, some we can't deal with in phase I. The 
  argument that he made for the Web Payments use cases was that we 
  get a bunch of use cases together and then prioritize. It feels 
  like they are asking for something different here from Web 
  Payments Use cases, I don't know if that's because those use 
  cases didn't work out how folks wanted or if there was push back. 
  I know when W3C starts is to list a minor set of use cases. The 
  problem is that they are not very descriptive of the ecosystem 
  that the Credentials CG is trying to build and that's the point 
  of contention... Shane, do you have any thoughts on that? We have 
  this big document but can we paste maybe some payments ones into 
  a Phase I doc so we can show that if they push back?
Shane McCarron:  That's a strategy. We can do required and nice 
  to have phases ... those are all ways to do it. If you wanted me 
  to create a version of the document of Phase I and related to 
  payments use cases ... that's trivial so that will just fall out. 
  Are you suggesting that, when we have lots of scenarios that 
  support a use case... are you suggesting we hide some scenarios 
  so only payment ones are shown so it's not overwhelming?
Manu Sporny:  So I don't know.
Manu Sporny:  That's frustrating as an editor.
Shane McCarron:  It means I get to pick and that's fine. I only 
  heard feedback from Ian what I heard was that "don't waste your 
  time on things that don't have to do with payments".
Shane McCarron: Lol.....
Manu Sporny:  What I think Ian typically wants is to not 
  overwhelm the membership with too much data. Whittle it down to 
  eight use cases that resonate with the membership, make sure a 
  couple are payments so the IG can act and make sure the charter 
  is scoped to those use cases.
Daniel C. Burnett:  I understand the value of focus, there's 
  definitely value there. But as we've seen, recently, and actually 
  you've seen for a long time now. There's this back and forth 
  thing that happens. When your reduce people will say "I can think 
  of a way to solve this that's simpler" ... "but we have all these 
  other use cases" ... "yeah but you didn't show me those" ... 
  "because you didn't want to see them."
Daniel C. Burnett:  If you don't understand why we're suggesting 
  certain directions you can look at these other use cases. People 
  can read the first eight and if they can't see justification then 
  they can read the rest.
Shane McCarron:  That's a really good point, thank you. We want 
  to show how we're supporting a lot of things. We want to have all 
  the data. Maybe a strategy is to have the either or ten that are 
  the highest priority in section three and then there's an 
  appendix with all of the rest of the things. We are bringing all 
  the data to the table.
Daniel C. Burnett:  Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about. 
  What Ian was asking for you don't make the entire document, it's 
  the front of the document and then you have an appendix that's 
  the rest of the document.
Shane McCarron:  If we get pushback I'll add a button to hide the 
  appendix.
Dave Longley: +1 To that direction!
Carla Casilli: +1 To that direction, too
Shane McCarron: +1
Stuart Sutton: +1
Manu Sporny: +1 To that direction
Manu Sporny:  Ok, that sounds like our direction for the use 
  cases.
Manu Sporny:  Sounds good. Anything else on that, Shane?
Shane McCarron:  Everyone who is not editing say a little prayer 
  for us, we'll get there.
Daniel C. Burnett: The reason for this is that some people will 
  use lack of focus to nix the work, while others will use lack of 
  context to nix it.  This provides both.
Manu Sporny:  If either of you guys want to present the Deutsche 
  Telekom work on Credentials you guys are welcome to present that 
  to this group.
Peter Hofman:  I will do that, I think the user centric approach 
  is very much in line with what we are doing. At the moment I am 
  just new to the group.

Topic: Draft Charter Proposal

Manu Sporny:  Jorg and I have talked a lot about the work we're 
  doing here and what you're doing and we agree there's a 
  tremendous amount of alignment. It would just be getting everyone 
  up to speed in this area.
Manu Sporny: http://w3c.github.io/vctf/charter/proposal.html
Manu Sporny:  We need to make a decision on the proposal pretty 
  soon. The proposal ... we haven't been asked to provide a charter 
  proposal but we'll do it anyway because it helps the Web Payments 
  IG see what we're asking for, it's a solid ask. I think we're to 
  the point where we can do solid asks and see what the team and IG 
  thinks. We're having trouble formulating what the solid ask is 
  for however, ... through the interviews we asked if the problem 
  was in data models or formats, like how to express digital 
  credentials like drivers license, debt obligations, whatever. 
  What's the data model and format to do that, how do you do that 
  online ... OR is the focus on how to issue, request, and transmit 
  the credentials? If we split the work up like that can they be 
  independent; can you do one and then the other? The current 
  charter is about getting the data model and format down ... and 
  talk about how to express a claim and get it nicely locked down. 
  Then the vision is to work on the protocol. How do you move those 
  around on the Web and internet that is private, secure, easy, 
  etc. First group just wants to work on the data model and data 
  format, don't work on protocol. The other group of folks says 
  don't just work on the data model and format, because until you 
  can move things around you don't have a healthy ecosystem. If you 
  don't specify the ecosystem you may actually do damage because 
  you won't have interop.
Manu Sporny:  Does anyone have strong feelings one way or another 
  for what to put in the charter? If we make it too big, it sounds 
  like it will take many years to do ... they will be less prone to 
  do the work.
Dave Longley:  I feel like if we don't cover both of these 
  things, we'll get pushback from one of the two groups - data 
  format is not important, if all you're going to do is data 
  format, don't bother. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Carla Casilli: How might the data model work tie into the CTI 
  work?
Dave Longley:  Other's feel that data format is really important 
  and we shouldn't do protocol yet. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Dave Longley:  Some might find that there is nothing for them to 
  work on. We can try to limit the scope in a number of ways. 
  [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Dave Longley:  We could focus on doing only the browser API - 
  make it clear that work should be done at W3C - disadvantage of 
  not having HTTP API. So, that might give us limitd scope to get 
  something done. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Dave Longley:  The other thing we can do is to be clear about 
  providing simple means to store information in the browser and 
  share it via the browser - we don't try to do anything other than 
  that. If we keep it limited to that - we need a format for the 
  data and we need to have the simplest version of the ecosystem. 
  [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Shane McCarron: +1 For browser api - sharing / storing; need 
  callout to ensure that third party apps can do it
Manu Sporny:  Here's my primary concern with that approach -- we 
  have zero browser vendors joining the calls and a few of them 
  disagree with the approach we're taking. Mike West, for example, 
  is skeptical of the work and Richard Barnes of Mozilla ... and 
  Brad Hill from facebook. If we proposed a browser API without 
  vendors behind it, I'm pretty strongly convinced it won't happen 
  because we've gone through this in the Web Payments group ... we 
  proposed an API and there was ignoring/rejection of that. It does 
  no good to propose a browser API with no vendors behind it.
Dave Longley:  My response would be - yes, Mike West is skeptical 
  - but there is already a Credential Management API that we intend 
  to try to extend. We already got Mike West to say in that spec, 
  that the Credentials CG intended to extend the spec and do some 
  other things. We could point to it and say this is what we're 
  doing. So, we can build polyfills on top of that, I think we have 
  some of that groundwork where we might otherwise be starting 
  entirely from scratch. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Shane McCarron:  Longley, I don't disagree, we have a hook. Maybe 
  we don't want to use the hook or the hook is broken. We have some 
  sort of existing W3C browser API. I would also note there is some 
  Web Authentication activity, I don't know how it dovetails with 
  what we've been doing.
Manu Sporny:  I'll put him back on the queue, hopefully he'll 
  reconnect.
Shane McCarron: Wow I was super eloquent
Manu Sporny:  It doesn't have any overlap as far as we can tell, 
  the Web Authentication WG is not allowed to work on multi-origin 
  credentials or federated identity.
Manu Sporny:  That's effectively what we're working on.
Manu Sporny:  So we're what's "out of scope" for that WG.
Shane McCarron: Perfect
Richard Varn: Add varn to cue
Manu Sporny:  We still do not have a browser saying "we will back 
  this" and without that I don't think we can get anywhere. I think 
  Mike West and the Google folks are saying "We'd be interested in 
  seeing a proposal and we'll think about it once it's on the table 
  ..." but I think once we say that they'll say "this API was never 
  intended to work that way, you should build on something else." 
  and as a result we're completely stonewalled.
Daniel C. Burnett:  +1 I've had that experience in multiple 
  groups. If you need anything implemented by browsers and they 
  aren't participating, it won't happen. I agree Manu's concern is 
  a major one and we don't want to go down a road that ends up with 
  no implementations.
Carla Casilli: +1 To what Richard is saying. The combination of 
  use cases is the complexity that extends beyond what edu wants 
  right now.
Richard Varn:  I was going to add that we always run into a 
  danger that we have a scope so large that it swallows discussion. 
  The education community is involved because they want to exchange 
  credentials, discover them, etc. The protocol as you're 
  describing it, no one really cares what it is in that use case 
  world, they just want it to work, and one or more of them to plug 
  into the data to build a trust model around it that's adequate to 
  its use. If we can express that without trying to cover every 
  area of interest here ... if we can cover some areas in how to 
  format or express these credentials then that's the unique 
  contribution we can make. The other thing I see is the Web Auth 
  WG has our stuff out of scope so they will be helpful and so will 
  the Web Payments group, so I'm trying to make sure we make a 
  contribution that is unique and link it to shared contributions 
  and I'm not sure how to do that.
Manu Sporny:  The answer to Carla's question is that it's the 
  same way this work ties into other credentialing initiatives. 
  They all need a data model and format to express this stuff in an 
  interop/verifiable way. It sounds like the bare minimum we could 
  do is do just that. We can say we know we're going to need a 
  protocol in the future but we don't have browser buy in yet. The 
  protocol stuff is somewhat controversial because it seems like 
  we're trying to boil the ocean there and all we're left with is 
  data model and data format. The hope is that we can through that 
  in a years time. We're already working with Badge Alliance, CTI 
  to pull that stuff together and we can bring that into the 
  working group and in a year we can build a case to having a 
  browser API. After hearing some of the input I think the thing 
  that everyone seems to have in common right now is a common way 
  to express these claims and make sure they are verifiable. When 
  it comes to browser API then people start fragmenting and we 
  can't say we have consensus on those things. That just comes down 
  to let's work on data model and format in the charter until we 
  get consensus and buy in on browser API.
Carla Casilli: :)
Shane McCarron:  I understand what you're saying Manu with "gets 
  some points on the board" if you will. If the group agrees with 
  the direction you're pushing for, do you want us to push use 
  cases that aren't protocol related to go up to Phase I?
Manu Sporny:  Ian has pushed back on phases and said just talk 
  about a charter ... to be clear I think the answer to your 
  question is "yes", meaning we'll want to put something to the 
  order of "phase I/phase II" or "VC Data Format WG" and "VC 
  Protocol WG".
Manu Sporny:  And stage it.
Manu Sporny:  I think we all want data model/format and protocol 
  to be done. That's when it has a tremendous amount of value to 
  us.
Manu Sporny:  I'm finding it difficult to put the protocol stuff 
  in there because we already know W3C management will push back 
  hard on it. If so, it's hard to get it front of the membership, 
  which means giving them something they think they can sell.
Shane McCarron: (Personally) Just because there are political 
  impediments to doing something doesn't mean we should not try.
Carla Casilli: Bleak!
Shane McCarron:  ShaneM tells a story about flies.
Victoriano Giralt: EDU (from my point of view Unis and 
  govermental bodies issuing credentials like degrees)
Victoriano Giralt: At this moment are happy using "off line" 
  transports
Victoriano Giralt: For that I mean not in the browser
Shane McCarron:  I don't know what benefit we'll get out of 
  defining a format without a protocol. It's like defining a header 
  file with no implementation.
Victoriano Giralt: As much I would like to have a browser API, if 
  that is a problem, we woudl be happy with a datamodel
Victoriano Giralt: We can use other protocols
Victoriano Giralt: EOT
Daniel C. Burnett:  I understand Shane's concern quite a bit. 
  Sometimes you can't properly do one piece without understanding 
  what the other piece will look like. I will say that all 
  standards work that has been successful has been effectively 
  staged. There's a certain mass of people that want to do one 
  thing or a set of things and then you decide to do that and then 
  say there's stuff you want to do afterwards. Everyone will 
  participate in phase I and if there are enough then phase II will 
  happen. Eventually you won't have enough people. It's always a 
  question of where you draw that line. Ideally you don't have to 
  draw that line, but sometimes you can say "Here's part one" and 
  once that's done if there's enough demand for it, you'll get to 
  part two. Politically, that's the only way to get work done.
Victoriano Giralt: * I whish I could have heard the flies story 
  :-)
Shane McCarron: I don't think that I would find a working group 
  argument compelling as an AC member if there weren't going to be 
  a usable output.
Peter Hofman:  I think we should try and reach for more in the 
  work, that's my view.
Manu Sporny:  At the end of a data model and format ... we'll 
  have something useful out of it. We'll be able to express these 
  verifiable claims and some people have said that a transport 
  layer could be OpenID Connect or maybe it's something else. The 
  trap we can fall into ... we have a protocol in Credentials CG, 
  but it requires us to solve a self-sovereign identifier problem 
  w/a WebDHT tech. That's not trivial to address. That's a concern 
  with trying to do the protocol work.
Manu Sporny:  I'm not convinced we can do that in two years, not 
  enough people and funding.
Manu Sporny:  We can pull off data model and format.
John Tibbetts:  I do think there's value in data format, sort of 
  moving in the direction of JWTs. I'm wondering if the dynamic 
  side of it that's realized in an API if that couldn't be 
  expressed more non-specifically. Like talking about the kinds of 
  required interactions we need to have work without getting into 
  the exact protocols. We want to have some dynamic expressed but 
  could we do it abstractly or diagrammatically?
Manu Sporny:  Yes, I think we can do that. The question is... 
  does this group feel like we should just do data format, etc. 
  first.
John Tibbetts: +1 To push call back
Manu Sporny:  We're past time, next week I won't be here so we 
  can have someone else run it or we can push it off to Thurs/Fri 
  to make sure we have all the docs ready.
Shane McCarron: I can live with just formats and model.  But if 
  there were example APIs or something that might be useful.
Manu Sporny:  I'll send an email about potentially pushing it 
  off.
Received on Friday, 12 February 2016 20:27:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:27 UTC