Re: [MINUTES] W3C Credentials CG Call - 2020-01-07 12pm ET

Note this email had an off-by-one date problem. "Credentials CG Telecon
Minutes for 2020-01-08" should be "Credentials CG Telecon Minutes for
2020-01-07".

This is a time zone offset bug I found now that we're running via github
actions. I think I fixed it, but there are a lot of date shenanigans in the
scripts, so it may take a bit to sort out. In the meantime, I manually
patched the html.

(Always blame the bot)

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 3:45 PM W3C CCG Chairs <w3c.ccg@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks to Manu Sporny for scribing this week! The minutes
> for this week's Credentials CG telecon are now available:
>
> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2020-01-07/
>
> Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes.
> Audio from the meeting is available as well (link provided below).
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Credentials CG Telecon Minutes for 2020-01-08
>
> Agenda:
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2020Jan/0009.html
> Topics:
>   1. Introductions and Reintroductions
>   2. Announcements
>   3. Progress on Action Items
>   4. 2020 Update & Roadmap Planning
> Organizer:
>   Kim Hamilton Duffy and Joe Andrieu and Christopher Allen
> Scribe:
>   Manu Sporny
> Present:
>   Christopher Allen, Manu Sporny, Joel Hartshorn, Markus Sabadello,
>   Dave Longley, Alexis, Joe Andrieu, Tom S, Kim Hamilton Duffy,
>   Adrian Gropper, Dmitri Zagidulin, Dan Burnett, Chris Winczewski,
>   Justin Richer, Carl DiClementi, Kaliya Young, Orie Steele,
>   Darrell Duane, Sam Smith, Jonathan Holt
> Audio:
>   https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2020-01-08/audio.ogg
>
> Manu Sporny is scribing.
> Alexis: How do I join the call?
> Joe Andrieu:  Welcome to the CCG's first call of 2020.
> Joe Andrieu:  We want to look at a few things today, look at 2020
>   Roadmap, prioritizations, not going to dive yet into
>   charter/election stuff, but will do that this month.
> Joe Andrieu:  Will talk about where DID WG, VCWG, Educational
>   Credentials Task Force, update on DID Resolution and where that's
>   going. New work item proposal - credential issuer/vierifier APIs.
> Joe Andrieu:  That's the short form for our agenda, feel free to
>   jump in if you want to add/modify Agenda.
> Joe Andrieu:  IP Note: Anyone can participate, but if you have
>   not formally joined the CG, limit your contributions to not
>   include substantive technical contributions - subject to
>   moderation by the chairs - please join the group it's lightweight
>   and free. We want to make sure our IP is clear here so we can
>   make the work into global standards.
> Joe Andrieu:  We use IRC for these calls, manage the queue there,
>   use q+ to add yourself. Please type "present+" to note that
>   you're attending the meeting.
> Joe Andrieu:  It let's our minute taking system note that you
>   attended.
> Joe Andrieu:  If you don't have IRC, just ask to be added to the
>   queue via voice.
> Joe Andrieu:  Use IRC, we'll get you in the queue - want to
>   maintain single conversation, not backchannel stuff.
>
> Topic: Introductions and Reintroductions
>
> Joe Andrieu:  Anyone new to the call?
> Darrell Duane: Newbie here
> Carl DiClementi:  Hi, Carl DiClementi, work at Factom - working
>   on Silicon Valley Innovation Program projects - also have Sam
>   Barnes here with me as well.
> Alexis: Anyone recommends a voip client for ubuntu to join the
>   call?
> Sam Smith:  Hi Sam, been at Factom for two years - working on
>   identity/DID related code for Factom Blockchain.
> Wayne_chang: Hi, work at ConsenSys, work on DID stuff, also at
>   DIF, want to avoid duplication of efforts.
> Bouma: Hi Tim Bouma at Canadian Treasury Board, working on Pan
>   Canadian trust framework, going to get more from our side to
>   join.
> AnilJohn: Hi Anil John, from Technical Director of Silicon Valley
>   Innovation Program, one of the work items today has to do with
>   our interest so joining the call today.
> Juan_caballero: Hi Juan Caballero, I am working for a lot of
>   different folks, but primarily for Spherity, happy to be here,
>   want to make sure I have the story right.
>
> Topic: Announcements
>
> Joe Andrieu:  DID WG face to face meeting is coming up
> Joe Andrieu:
>   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2019Nov/0018.html
> Joe Andrieu:  January 29-31, 2020 Amsterdam, Netherlands
> Dan Burnett:  We welcome observers at our F2F meetings - if you
>   want to observe because you are not in the WG, please contact Dan
>   Burnett or Brent Zundel - the Chairs.
> Dan Burnett:  If you attend as an observer, we ask that you not
>   make substantive technical contributions due to IP reasons, but
>   we would love to have you there to get use cases from you,
>   introduce you to the work, etc. Many end up becoming DID WG
>   members.
> Dan Burnett:
>   https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/F2F/2020.01.Amsterdam
> Joe Andrieu:  Rebooting the Web of Trust (#RWOT10) is 16 March -
>   20 March, Buenos Aires, Argentina
> Joe Andrieu:  The Eventbrite is now live
> Joe Andrieu: http://rwot10.eventbrite.com
> Joe Andrieu:  A couple of important things to note, the event
>   starts Monday night - start the discussion around topic papers at
>   a Monday night event, more details on that, make sure you're
>   there Monday night...
> Joe Andrieu:  The early bird deadline is coming up fast -
>   attempting to streamline, but behind the curve. Early bird paper
>   submissions i January 17th, topic papers should be shorter.
> Joe Andrieu:  So 1-2 pages, submit to Github, all information is
>   in the Eventbrite page.
> Alexis: Dlongley, thanks!
> Joe Andrieu:  We will be offering scholarships and travel
>   stipends, apply if you think you bring a unique perspective to
>   the conversation.
> Joe Andrieu:  So, everyone has 10 days to get those papers in.
> Joe Andrieu:  We do have dedicated DID calls on Thursdays
>   Resuming in January starting 1-2:30PM PT / 20:00-21:30 UTC
> Joe Andrieu:  We use Zoom for those calls
>   https://zoom.us/j/7077077007
> Joe Andrieu:  We are going to be closing out action items and
>   work items... action need to see activity soon or we're going to
>   close items.
> Markus Sabadello:  Yes, about weekly DID Resolution calls, we
>   will resume them this week 60 minute calls.
>
> Topic: Progress on Action Items
>
> Markus Sabadello: DID Resolution calls:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qYBaXQMUoB86Alquu7WBtWOxsS8SMhp1fioYKEGCabE/
> Joe Andrieu:
>
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22action%3A+review+next%22
> Joe Andrieu:  VC chairs to send email about CCG to old VC-WG
>   list, including asking for volunteers -- was this done?
> Dan Burnett:  Can't remember?
> Joe Andrieu:  Maybe we can ask for volunteers - I'll flag you
>   Dan.
> Joe Andrieu:  SIP not working -- some people have had issues, but
>   now have onsip working, Amy said she'd write something up, don't
>   know if she's on the call.
> Manu Sporny:  She sent her regrets.
> Joe Andrieu:  I just walked someone through the process - they
>   used onsip on their mobile, couldn't help them on mobile. Maybe
>   we can round the corner w/ Amy.
> Joe Andrieu:  Discuss registries meta-process; what are next
>   steps?
> Kim Hamilton Duffy:
>   https://w3c.github.io/w3process/registries/#registries
> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  I noted that the AB has been working on this
>   offline - ChristopherA said we're interested - AB has been
>   iterating, discussing offline, draft proposal for registry
>   process is interesting in that issue.
> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  It seems like a good opportunity to review
>   what W3C AB has done - I think this will save us a fair amount of
>   duplicate effort - we can just call out differences w/ W3C
>   General rules... CCG might just have specific rules for
>   registries, general note that we should be able to update
>   registries metaprocess simply now that they've done that.
> Joe Andrieu:  If you are an editor, please look at that link. See
>   if it breaks anything wrt. how you run that registry.
> Alexis: I got linphone but still can't join, not sure whether I
>   need to do anything else
> Manu Sporny:  We did engage w/ W3C Registries TF at W3C TPAC 2019
>   - very aligned with how we run, don't expect major changes.
> Joe Andrieu:  Ok, Registry Editors please check into it.
> Joe Andrieu:  JWK cryptosuite specifications - not a lot of
>   progress, unless we see action, let's close it out.
> Manu Sporny:  It's not clear how to join from onsip.com [scribe
>   assist by Alexis]
> Christopher Allen:  We have authority over the cryptosuites -
>   we're trying to close out these items that are either incorrect
>   or outdates or whatever. We have the problem of JSON-LD
>   description that is DVCG is way out of date and yet people are
>   referring to it.
> Orie Steele: +1 To fix this stuff!
> Christopher Allen:  We have all kinds of discussions about usage
>   of JWTs, but there are no cryptosuite descriptions for DVCG - so
>   we have stubs, if we don't see progress on either of these, we'll
>   archive and say "DO NOT USE", no replacement.
> Carl DiClementi: +1 As well
> Christopher Allen:  I'm very disappointed in this, it's causing
>   me headaches - running into others that want to do stuff, telling
>   them not to look at the documents.
> Christopher Allen:  This is a new year, time to call it.
> Alexis: I was defeated on this battle, the link for the onsip app
>   asks for a password and it's very late now
> Manu Sporny:  I'm fine with closing some of the issues down. The
>   challenge here is that people haven't been doing the work or it's
>   being done in some places and not others. We haven't been doing
>   things in the spec sphere but have been in the implementation
>   sphere. I would be very concerned with closing everything down.
>   [scribe assist by Dave Longley]
> Manu Sporny:  Telling people that there is no JWT or LD Proof
>   mechanism is not accurate. The implementations are there and have
>   been for years. The challenge is getting someone to write the
>   spec to make it in line with the implementations. [scribe assist
>   by Dave Longley]
> Manu Sporny:  I'm fine with the group saying "We're not going to
>   work on this stuff anymore" as long as everyone understands that
>   work continues outside of this group on implementations outside
>   of it. Eventually someone will get to the specs. But the VC/DID
>   work is higher priority and this stuff is low on the list. It's
>   not a matter of the technology not working, it's that the
>   community priority isn't high enough to up date the specs.
>   [scribe assist by Dave Longley]
> Manu Sporny:  It's going to get worse with EDV spec work, etc.
>   which will knock these specs down again. It's not a very hard
>   spec to write, but everyone is up to their neck in work right
>   now. [scribe assist by Dave Longley]
> Joe Andrieu:  Both of these issues are valuable - spec related
>   work - one of the things we want to do is move this from
>   implementers wanting to do this in their own world vs. working on
>   it out in the open.
> Joe Andrieu:  What I'd like to propose - if we're trying to
>   create a WG - the CCG has incubated specs that become WGs, but
>   it's not happening here. Let's get a proposed charter into the CG
>   - or someone other than this group is going to pick up the baton.
> Joe Andrieu:  I would support a TF to support a WG, but we need
>   to do something for this languaging stuff.
> Christopher Allen:  I would be happy w/ deleting the specs and
>   pointing to JSON-LD example that Digital Bazaar gave us and
>   contact person is Dave Longley.
> Christopher Allen:  There is nobody to go to, nobody to point to,
>   no implementation listed to point them to - if it ended up being
>   5 lines, JWT, repo that generated it, it would be better than
>   current state which is wrong and is hurting us w/ new people
>   coming in.
> Orie Steele:  I'm one of these people that wants to not see these
>   registries marked as unusable, but also recognize that ... Manu's
>   right, the spec work isn't getting done... these specs are
>   floating around in many different repos, need to crawl across
>   many different repos, looking at commit dates, ancient commits.
> Orie Steele:  I'm in favor of marking anything that's stale as
>   not supported, for sake of clarity to community... I'm late to
>   the whole party, don't understand difference between DVCG and
>   CCG, but would like to see all these registries in one place.
> Orie Steele:  I'd love to see them in one place instead of
>   different repos.
> Orie Steele:  It's much easier if they're all in one place, mark
>   each repo that's separate, unsupported, and move ones that we
>   care about, continue to maintain into one location.
> Orie Steele:  I think there need to be individuals that are
>   points of contact for them, whether each item is supported. I
>   want to help to the extent to which I can.
> Dave Longley: Thanks, Orie!
> Dmitri Zagidulin:  A couple of words about the specs - clarify
>   that there is definitely ongoing activity on at least LD parts of
>   the specs - we have a couple of problems, one is keeping the
>   specs up to date, just a matter of eyeballs and effort.
> Christopher Allen: (In fact, the DID context and signing isn't
>   even in their charter, same with VC)
> Dmitri Zagidulin:  The other is jurisdiction - with DID Context,
>   which repo and which W3C group gets to host it... context is in
>   limbo, kinda in CCG archive DID spec but not in DID WG, and
>   that's part of the friction that people are mentioning about
>   registries. Several of the contexts are in limbo, need to
>   understand where they're being hosted, whteher we're going to
>   version them.
> Dmitri Zagidulin:  Because we're doing such long standing work,
>   some of the registry specs are in DVCG, and I think we can move
>   them to CCG... we are in process of moving DVCG repos to CCG, we
>   have an action item to move those repos to CCG org on Github.
> Dmitri Zagidulin:  Work is ongoing, we're looking for volunteers
>   for JOSE part of it, moving DVCG specs to CCG, and then trying to
>   figure out where to host contexts.
> Joe Andrieu:  Dmitri could you take the proposals and put them in
>   the issue thread?
> Joe Andrieu:  Do we need formal action items to move repos?
> Joe Andrieu:  I'd like to make sure these items can have formal
>   support before moving them over.
> Christopher Allen:  I think we clearly have authority to move
>   stuff over, I'm Chair of DVCG. That being said, I don't want to
>   move anything over that isn't active and doesn't meet our
>   requirements.
> Christopher Allen:  I'd rather say "inactive" and use Github
>   archive feature to lock it in time.
> Christopher Allen:  I don't want to move anything that isn't real
>   in some fashion.
> Orie Steele: +1, We should start by marking inactivity and
>   archive
> Joe Andrieu:  My interpretation for what is real is "real in term
>   of public discourse and standards development".
> Joe Andrieu:  Our role as a CG is to get them into public
>   discourse.
> Manu Sporny:  I'm trying to get the order of operations. It's
>   clear that the DVCG is dead and we're trying to figure out what
>   to salvage from it and what will be archived and not maintained.
>   There are multiple companies that are using this stuff and are
>   using software libraries. They don't feel the need to engage
>   because it's just working for them. [scribe assist by Dave
>   Longley]
> Manu Sporny:  I think we need to decide which of these things we
>   are not end of lifeing, but say that work on it is halting and
>   anything else we're continuing I'm happy for us to go through the
>   CCG process and move it over. [scribe assist by Dave Longley]
> Manu Sporny:  The RSA Signature spec implementation was done a
>   long time ago and people are using them, specs are out of date,
>   but I don't want to signal it's not supported. But if RSA support
>   is requested and made a priority, those specs will be updated and
>   pushed out. [scribe assist by Dave Longley]
> Manu Sporny:  I want to make sure when we message that these
>   things aren't currently supported that they won't ever be and
>   this is an evolutionary dead end. That's not what's going on --
>   we just don't have enough people working on this simultaneously.
>   [scribe assist by Dave Longley]
> Orie Steele: For context: https://github.com/w3c-dvcg
> Joe Andrieu:  In terms of moving forward, on issue #18 - would
>   like people to take it to the issue.
> Orie Steele: Can we link the issue
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/18
> Joe Andrieu:  We're also talking about #3 and #18 - we want to
>   see things move forward.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/3
> Carl DiClementi:  On our end, we really require support for RSA
>   and happy to contribute - why - SecureEnclave on Android doesn't
>   support all signature types, leaning towards RSA because that's
>   supported. If there is work that needs to be done, happy to
>   contribute there.
> Joe Andrieu:  That would be great, thank you.
> Joe Andrieu:  That concludes our review of the issues, we need to
>   move this stuff forward, we are busy, we look forward to how to
>   keep the public part of that work moving forward even as we clean
>   up stuff for DVCG.
>
> Topic: 2020 Update & Roadmap Planning
>
> Joe Andrieu:  Where are we with DID WG? What's scope for this
>   year?
> Joe Andrieu:  What can the CCG do to support you? What's 2020
>   look like for you?
> https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/
> Dan Burnett:  The DID WG kicked off late last year, first draft
>   of DID Core spec, first draft of DID Use Cases document, trying
>   to get to FPWD for DID Rubrics document.
> Dan Burnett:  There are three main big discussion topics right
>   now - JSON-LD syntax, no JSON-only syntax (even though document
>   states that data model is generic, other realizations are
>   possible), explicitly providing JSON-only representation, and
>   along with that a different abstract way to describe DID Document
>   Data Model, biggest topic under discussion right now.
> Dan Burnett:  Two other big topics are - metadata within DID
>   Document, not going to try to define what that is.
> Dan Burnett:  How does metadata fit in with how you use DID
>   Documents?
> Dan Burnett:  Third one is around matrix parameters - some
>   questions about whether or not to have matrix parameters at all,
>   might be a surprise for some of you, where we questioned whether
>   or not we needed matrix parameters.
> Dan Burnett:  What we'd like to have is, if there is anyone that
>   has an opinion on these topics, please join github discussion on
>   these, Github repos are public, anyone can participate.
> Orie Steele: Lol they muted
> Dan Burnett:  That's what we need, additional input on topics.
> Dan Burnett:  You can go to any repos and comment on existing
>   issues.
> Dan Burnett:  One of the things that's challenging, you can
>   sometimes only hear a few voices... or large group of voices, but
>   large group of voices are not reflective of broader community.
> Christopher Allen:  The reason I asked for this to be added to
>   Agenda is that it feels like there is a third or half of CCG
>   community is not actively watching the DID WG.
> Orie Steele: Regarding some of the discussion in DID WG regarding
>   JSON-LD, we wrote this blog post:
>
> https://medium.com/transmute-techtalk/on-json-ld-and-the-semantics-of-identity-42d051d3ce14
> Christopher Allen:  ... Or are not W3C Members, so can't
>   participate in those discussions on the calls... so having
>   periodic reports and critical reports is something we'd like to
>   see every few months. So, rest of community thinking that they
>   can depend on matrix parameters can find out that they're at risk
>   and can speak out.
> Joe Andrieu:  We do want to have a full call on how to move
>   forward JSON-LD stuff, happy to coordinate with folks working on
>   that.
> Joe Andrieu:  We will talk about that in the future.
> Joe Andrieu:  With respect to the VCWG rechartering process - the
>   CCG is absolutely committed to supporting that.
> Manu Sporny:  This group put forward a charter proposal for a
>   maintenance WG for the VCWG. That means they will station keep
>   the specs, track what implementations are doing in the wild, fix
>   bugs, things like that. It's up to this group to modify the specs
>   and provide updates for that [which then feed into the VCWG
>   maintenance group]. You have 48 hours to vote to open that group.
>   [scribe assist by Dave Longley]
> Manu Sporny:  If the vote is successful, we will have that new
>   group for 2 years. [scribe assist by Dave Longley]
> Manu Sporny:  A VCWG. [scribe assist by Dave Longley]
> Manu Sporny:  That will allow us to update the specs/station
>   keep. That vote will end in 48 hours, then there will be about a
>   month delay and the group will open in late February if the vote
>   passes. [scribe assist by Dave Longley]
> Joe Andrieu:  Kim, Educational Task Force update?
> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  Those of us in the EdTech standards space -
>   Digital Credentials Consortium is the 12 university effort -
>   whitepaper is coming out in a week or so.
> Joe Andrieu: Digital Credentails Consortium!
> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  The Verifiable Credentials for Education
>   Task Force is the public face for that.
> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  The whitepaper is going to be using DIDs and
>   VCs - collection of univerisities focused on implementation
>   challenges in their domain. DCC is not a standards org. The
>   examples called out are specific challenges that we want to work
>   through in the Task Force, Digital Credentials Consortium has a
>   roadmap, but to act on it, we want to work on doable prototypes.
> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  Things equivalent to Open Badges for VCs,
>   Diploma, MOOC certificate, etc.
> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  There are more difficult issues - building
>   stackable credentials, ontologies, that will happen in tandem.
>   How do we get these things working now, and then how do we work
>   on longer lead problems... this is not just DCC - it's everything
>   having to do with using VCs with Educational Credential claims.
>   Because that's a large scope, we may spin off different efforts
>   as we understand who shows up.
> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  For example, using DIDs to authenticate w/
>   university systems... including w/ publishing industry.
> Kim Hamilton Duffy:  Because we have rich set of problems, we set
>   priorities there, start executing on that plan on TF.
> Joe Andrieu:  Thanks for the update, appreciate the difference
>   between DCC and CCG support - VC4ETF - CCG - Verifiable
>   Credentials For Education Task Force
> Orie Steele: Thanks!
>
>
>
>