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

Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2016-06-21

From: <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:45:59 -0400
Message-Id: <1466541959361.0.21732@zoe>
To: Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>, Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Thanks to Shane McCarron for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's Verifiable Claims telecon are now available:


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 2016-06-21

  1. Verifiable Claims Working Group Proposal
  2. Terminology Results
  3. Data Model Specification
  4. Use Cases
  5. Next Steps
Action Items:
  1. Manu to put together a 9 month schedule/roadmap and publish 
    to CG/IG.
  Manu Sporny
  Shane McCarron
  Shane McCarron, Manu Sporny, Adam Lake, Dave Longley, Christopher 
  Allen, David Ezell, Dan Burnett, Eric Korb, Gregg Kellogg, Matt 
  Stone, Drummond Reed, Nate Otto, Dave Crocker, Stuart Sutton, 
  Carla Casilli, Richard Varn, David I. Lehn, Rob Trainer, Les 
  Chasen, Rebecca Simmons, Matthew Larson

Shane McCarron is scribing.

Topic: Verifiable Claims Working Group Proposal

Manu Sporny:  Thanks to everyone.  we got the proposal together 
  and handed over to the IG yesterday.
Manu Sporny: http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/
  ... we hope people are reading that now.  Will discuss at the 
  f2f on 1 July.
  ... all documents are review ready, but we might want to make 
  some refinements over the next couple of weeks.
Adam Lake: Thanks CarlaCasilli for your input on the primer
Manu Sporny:  Some new implementor committments that we need to 
  add.  Data model and use cases are being edited.
  ... Joe had provided some ideas for how to restructure the use 
  ... terminology is consistent.  Everything hangs together.  We 
  have demonstrated that people want to do it, and there are large 
  organizations that will implement it.
Dave Longley:  What's the next steps?
Manu Sporny:  The reason we have all these documents is to create 
  a proposal to create a working group.
  ... a working group is mandated to create a technical 
  recommendation for ratificaiton by the membership.
Christopher Allen:  When will the vote be?
Manu Sporny:  At the f2f.  But there might not be critical mass 
  at that meeting.  So if in the room we decide, we will still need 
  to take it to the mailing list for a call for consensus.
  ... after that we need to get over a hurdle of W3M to put it 
  forward to the membership.
  ... W3C representatives will be in the room at the f2f and will 
  ask questions.
  ... might go to a vote end of July, early August.  Vote goes 
  out for a month.  Some back and forth after that.
  ... at the end of August hopefully an approved charter.  
  September is the W3C technical plenary meeting in Lisbon.  That 
  would be the first opportunity to meet face to face.
  ... We would need a two day agenda for that meeting.
Shane McCarron:  TPAC fills up quickly, if we want a face-to-face 
  - we need to allocate space. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Christopher Allen: Does anyone have tpac reg URL?
Dave Longley: https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC/
Manu Sporny:  As a CG we cannot ask for space.  people have been 
  reluctant to assume that this will be successful.  dezell is 
  there a way to ask for space?
David Ezell:  I am not sure that between now and the f2f it will 
  make a big difference.  W3M will say it is premature today.  But 
  it is a fair question on 1 July depending on how the conversation 
  ... not sure how much attention we can get between now and then 
Dan Burnett: They may say it is premature, but if we don't prep 
  them for it they will later claim we should have asked earlier, 
  so we need to prep W3M anyway
Manu Sporny:  We could plan to meet there anyway.  They are 
  allowing CGs to have space and time at TPAC.  We could plan to 
  have a f2f at TPAC using that mechanism.
  ... if a working group is formed, we could just shift it.
  ... thoughts from the group?"
Shane McCarron:  That's clever. [scribe assist by Dave Longley]
David Ezell:  I think you should go ahead and do that.
Dan Burnett: +1 To planning to meet anyway
Manu Sporny:  There are people who are going to be split between 
  VC, IG, and Web Payuments.  This is a problem.
Shane McCarron:  This is a classic problem.
David Ezell:  It is getting worse and worse
  ... it is a good / bad situation
Dan Burnett: Yes, it's a good problem to have
Shane McCarron:  Let's put this roadmap out on the Web. [scribe 
  assist by Dave Longley]

ACTION: Manu to put together a 9 month schedule/roadmap and 
  publish to CG/IG.

Christopher Allen:  I heard a little more from Dave's question 
  than just the schedule.  I would like to hear who is committing 
  development resources etc.  Who can we cooperate with?
  ... are there P2P things we can do to verify claims?
Manu Sporny: 
  ... are there ways we can discuss coding on the agenda at some 
Manu Sporny:  There is a list of who is going to implement.  
  These are committments to implement if the work is successful.  
  Having said that, there are organizations that have been doing 
  this for years already.
  ... Digital Bazaar is one such.  I am not going to call out 
  others that are doing things in the next three months.  They can 
  speak for themselves.
Eric Korb: Accreditrust is

Topic: Terminology Results

Manu Sporny: 
Manu Sporny:  Picked "inspector" for what used to be called 
  "consumer".  That raised another question...  So there is a new 
  term "verifier" for the thing that really does the verification.
Gregg Kellogg: +1 For consistency
  ... there is a conflict between "identity profile" and "entity 
  ... this might cause some further discussion.  But we don't 
  need to have the debate now.
Dave Longley: +1 For consistency
Matt Stone: +1 On process
Drummond Reed:  The conflict between the terms needs to be fixed.
Nate Otto: Hehe, wish I could have been on the call to push for 
  consumer, but I'm prepared to adapt Badge Alliance terminology to 
  "Inspector" to keep that in line. +1 for consistency. Identity is 
  better, assuming we're clear that any entity can have an 
Dave Longley: +1 For Identity as well.
Gregg Kellogg: +1 For identity too
Manu Sporny:  We need to make a decision about whether we are 
  talking about identities or entities.  We don't need to do it 
Manu Sporny:  We are zeroing in on terminology that the community 
  seems to be okay with.
Dave Crocker: Terminology:  choices need to be driven less by 
  personal preference and more by likely uptake.  Who will use it 
  and what are they most likely to be comfortable with and likely 
  to use?
Stuart Sutton: +1 For consistency (prefer Identity)
Manu Sporny:  It is arguable that this debate has been going on 
  for 15 years.
Dave Longley: +1 For voting on the two names for inspector and 
  ... it was good to have a large sample when doing a poll like 
Dave Longley: (So voting on pairs)

Topic: Data Model Specification

Manu Sporny: http://opencreds.org/specs/source/claims-data-model/
Dan Burnett:  Did some major editorial terminology.  The terms we 
  use really effect this document
  ... the terms cause problems with references.  But I think it 
  hangs together much better than it did.
  ... there is a reference problem that we need to get sorted 
  out.  Shane and I are working on it.
Dave Longley: "Entity credentials are user-centric. This refers 
  to an architecture where:" <-- maybe avoid "user-centric" and 
  just say "Entity credentials are part of an architecture with the 
  following properties:"
  ...  there is a reference to the use cases document that needs 
  to be updated.
Dan Burnett:  I have one question for the group.  Initially I 
  included "entity credential" and the "identity profile".  I 
  included both so that there was a way to understand the overall 
  ... the concern I have is that people will look at this will 
  say "you are standarizing verifiable claims, but here is an 
  identity profile as well".
  ... my question is should I remove it, should I push it to an 
  appendix, or should I leave it alone?
Shane McCarron:  I'm inclined to leave it in, it makes sense to 
  have it in there, without it it isn't clear how this stuff maps 
  together. If there is concern around exposing that concept, lets 
  add notation to say it's just for context - wouldn't want to lose 
  the example. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Dan Burnett: Dlongley, missed the user-centric.  Will either 
  remove as you suggest or change to self-sovereign
Manu Sporny:  To echo what Shane said...  it is a part of the 
  bigger vision.  Being buried in the spec is probably deep enough.
  ... we dont want to distract from VC for the initial work, but 
  we know that an identity profile is a goal and being able to 
  express it is a requirement
Dan Burnett:  Probably best to avoid a term at all there and just 
  list the properties, -- we're already listing all that out so 
  it's less controversial to avoid the term [scribe assist by Dave 
  ... I don't think that the AC reps are going to read it in 
  detail.  And if they do then they are going to realize that this 
  is a proposed spec and the WG will do whatever they do.;
Dan Burnett: @Dlongley okay
Dave Longley: +1 To keeping Identity Profile in there for now.
Nate Otto: +1 Keep it in the document
  ... an AC member will know that if they want to effect change 
  they should staff the working group.
Stuart Sutton: +1 Keep
Gregg Kellogg: +1 To keep
Drummond Reed: +1 To keep
Matt Stone: +1 Keep - ultimately it's the key to a functional eco 
Dan Burnett:  Note that the doc does say that we will ONLY be 
  working on VC stuff.
Manu Sporny:  We talk about identity profile in the abstract.  We 
  may want to use some of the language from the architecture  
  document in the abstract to ease the way into the document.
Dan Burnett:  The abstract came from an older document.  I will 
  adjust it.
Dave Longley: +1
Manu Sporny:  What are the next steps?
Dan Burnett:  Actually... not clear given the schedule.  I am 
  hesitant to change anything other than editorial.
Manu Sporny:  Good plan.

Topic: Use Cases

Manu Sporny: http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/use-cases/
Manu Sporny:  It would be good for poeple to review again.
Nate Otto: I feel bad having my name on there as an Author given 
  how little time I've been able to contribute to Use Cases during 
  calendar 2016. Is there anything I could do to help next week or 
  this coming weekend (not this week)?
Nate Otto: "Consumer" language still appears in use case. todo: 
  change to Inspector?
Manu Sporny:  We have an opportunity to create / modify use cases 
  through september.
  ...once the working group starts, we can update the doc as 
Nate Otto: Thumbsup, ShaneM

Topic: Next Steps

Manu Sporny:  Thanks again everyone.  I think this is one of the 
  best proposals I have seen.
  ... what do we want to do?
  ... plan for success.  Two day agenda for TPAC.  Rely on the 
  web payments working group schedule from their first f2f as a 
  ... when a new wg starts 60% of the people in the room will 
  have no background.
  ... We should continue to refine the spec and use cases.
  ... ChristopherA pointed out that we could start doing 
  preliminary implementations.
  ... there are  a number of other things that have come up.  We 
  have rebooting web of trust, ID 2020, refugee use cases.
  ... there are a bunch of components that will factor into 
  success over the next 5 years.  WebDHT, registries, etc.
Drummond Reed: Respect Network will be working on an 
  implementation of DIDs
  ... what do people think we should be doing?
Shane McCarron:  You said "group".  Do you mean VCTF or something 
Manu Sporny:  I mean the credentials community group
Carla Casilli: Die ... more like evolve
  ... the VCTF is going to evolve within a month.  Assuming the 
  vote is successful.
  ... but there is still a Credentials Community Group that is 
  around to stage work.
Nate Otto: I think the people on this call should focus on 
  answering questions from people who are considering voting on the 
  proposals, keep showing our interest and activity through 
  discussing these documents & proposals.
  ... I am unfortunately going to continue to be vague.  The 
  group is amorphous.
Christopher Allen:  We should try to get the MIT group that is 
  looking at Badges to get them into the fold
Carla Casilli: Umm, not sure we can call them badges. they're 
Manu Sporny: MIT Media Lab + Learning Machine
Manu Sporny: Chainpoint is Proof of Publication
Nate Otto: I'm working with them for making sure their 2.0 is 
  standards-compatible, uses Open Badges data classes. Can 
  introduce anybody who needs it to the MIT Media Lab & Learning 
  Machine folks.
Christopher Allen:  I would like to make a claim not just about a 
  security reviewer, but also a source code repository...
  ... I want to do this soon because these are the things 
  developers care about now and they are likely to be early 
  ... work out the issues with a limited community before we go 
  to broader deployment.
Nate Otto: Kerri Lemoie working with the BadgeChain group will be 
  at that meeting, I believe.
Manu Sporny: https://medium.com/badge-chain
Carla Casilli:  This idea blockchain and badges is something we 
  are working on too.  The conversations we have had are in this 
  area.  So I am cautiously voting in this direction.
Christopher Allen: 
  ... we have not yet decided if blockchain is the best 
  direction.  We have a great amount of interest in picking apart 
  what blockchain adds but we are not specifically interested in 
Christopher Allen:  This group makes a big deal about using 
  blockchain, but it is just really putting a has on the 
Carla Casilli: Right, we're a lot more investigative about 
  exploring the future of badges related to the future of 
Carla Casilli: Where we = BadgeChain
  ... this is just proof of existence.
Carla Casilli: Yep
Manu Sporny: http://digitalbazaar.github.io/flex-ledger/
Manu Sporny:  There are digital signatures that we are working on 
  with a number of companies about proof of publication.  Put into 
  various chains.  Ethereum, bitcoin, ipfs.
Carla Casilli: Yes, BadgeChain is very interested about Flex 
  Ledger. all of these things are interesting to us.
  ... flex ledger is designed to publish verifiable claims into 
  the ledger.  It is a more flexible way of publishing what people 
  have learned, what they have accomplished, etc.  That work is 
Manu Sporny:  There is also the did stuff.  Drummond?
Drummond Reed:  We welcome the input.  We are just finishing the 
  first 4 milestones that we are doing for DHS.  We are researching 
  DIDs and what the best way is to format identifiers and objects.
  ... if there are people with strong feelings about this we 
  would love to interview you.
  ... we are hoping to produce a recommendation that will move 
  into a spec in the appropriate body.
Manu Sporny:  As far as verifiable claims...  what should we 
  working on next?
  ... a number of us are on the road for the next two weeks, so 
  cancel those meetings.
  ... we should be working on a F2F agenda.   TPAC is a good 
  opportunity to do that.
  ... the way this stuff happens is that people step up and do 
  the work.  People who proposed things should bring forward 
Christopher Allen: The next #RebootingWebOfTrust is September 
  28,29,30th in SF, http://www.WebOfTrust.info
Manu Sporny:  DID stuff is central to this group.
  ... there is no finalized mechanism way to allocate those.
Christopher Allen: We will be doing more with DIDs, smart 
  signatures, proof of existence, peer claims, etc.
  ...  We have references to them in our specs though, so it 
  feels like it is next.
Christopher Allen:  Rebooting web of trust is in late september.  
  Right after TPAC.
Drummond Reed: It is definitely a high priority for Respect 
  Network and several of our partners as well.
Christopher Allen: (Dave crocker - sent you email about 
  scheduling phone call)
Nate Otto: Thanks all! Safe travels.
Manu Sporny:  So - brief hiatus.  next meeting second week of 
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2016 20:46:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:29 UTC