- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 15:47:50 +0900
- To: public-vc-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2019/01/29-vcwg-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, Dave!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Verifiable Claims Working Group
29 Jan 2019
[2]Agenda
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2019Jan/0036.html
Attendees
Present
Dan_Burnett, JoeAndrieu, Tim_Tibbals, TimTibbals,
Dmitri_Zagidulin, Justin_Richer, David_Chadwick,
Amy_Guy, Tzviya_Siegman, Oliver_Terbu, Allen_Brown,
Ken_Ebert, Adrian_Gropper, Matt_Stone, Ted_Thibodeau,
Brent_Zundel, Ganesh_Annan, Manu_Sporny, Benjamin_Young,
Gregory_Natran, Yancy_Ribbens
Regrets
Kaz_Ashimura
Chair
Matt_Stone, Dan_Burnett
Scribe
DavidC
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Agenda review, Introductions, Re-introductions
2. [5]F2F sign-up
3. [6]Unassigned issues
4. [7]Explainer update
5. [8]Implementor List
6. [9]PR review (CR Blocker Checkin)
7. [10]Test suite checkin
* [11]Summary of Action Items
* [12]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<burn> scribenick DavidC
<burn> Agenda:
[13]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2019Jan/0
036.html
[13] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2019Jan/0036.html
Agenda review, Introductions, Re-introductions
Justin Richer introduced himself. Has worked in IETF and in
identity management
Will be joining the W3C very soon
Dan reintroduced himself. Had his own consulting business and
saw VCs would give individuals much greater control over their
PII. He joined ConsenSys in 2018
Been working in this space since 1999
F2F sign-up
<burn>
[14]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G1ygbZMI5nJB94ROuX-
Vtic4FgbeYl-S58E_DoXa7-w/edit#gid=913829325
[14] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G1ygbZMI5nJB94ROuX-Vtic4FgbeYl-S58E_DoXa7-w/edit#gid=913829325
Unassigned issues
<burn>
[15]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&
q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+no%3Aassignee
[15] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?utf8=✓&q=is:issue+is:open+no:assignee
<burn> [16]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/394
[16] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/394
#394 assigned to Amy
Explainer update
<burn>
[17]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/blob/gh-pages/VCDMExpl
ainer.md
[17] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/blob/gh-pages/VCDMExplainer.md
manu: said that there are a few PRs to be merged
brent: said he is editor but does not have the power to merge
PRs
Tzviya will merge the PRs when asked to
burn: reminded everyone that every feature needs two
independent implementations
Implementor List
burn: otherwise it would be marked "at risk"
<burn>
[18]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SzfAUA0J72-1BORHJEm
Y4cdZrQ6vmKy4oq_24r_NwB4/edit#gid=0
[18] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SzfAUA0J72-1BORHJEmY4cdZrQ6vmKy4oq_24r_NwB4/edit#gid=0
burn: reminded everyone to add their names to implementors if
they will be doing one
manu: said we have to have three independent implementations
<burn> reminder - we actually only need 2 implementations
<stonematt> manu, I thought 'revocation' is cryptographic, not
status. revoking a credential status IS the refreshService if
it's business layer attribute.
tzviya: Why did Manu ask for 3 implementations instead of 2?
burn: This is only for marking features at risk. We only
require 2 when we are done, but would prefer 3 implementors to
say they propose to implement it
<burn> DavidC: we have an impl but using our own syntax. We
don't have the funding yet to make it match the standard. This
is why we cannot list ourselves as implementers yet. I don't
think evidence is essential. IF you trust an issuer then you
trust them. You don't need them to tell you what evidence .
<JoeAndrieu> +1 for evidence not being relevant as a property.
It can always be included in the claims if desired
ken: has found a way of embedding schema into proof section, so
they dont use the schema section
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note the issue w/ the thought
processes.
manu: If the features are not implemented they wont do into the
spec. This is why we need 2 implementations
... the spec will be much weaker if we have to rip out a core
of the spec because no-one has implemented these features
<burn> DavidC: questions to ken. why is he doing it another
way, and why isn't it documented?
DavidC: there is a difference between not implementing a
feature you think is not needed, and implementing a needed
feature (such as schema) in a non-standard way
ken: For ZKP VCs we have a map function to allow attributes to
be corresponded to signature values in the proof
... we could also put the schema in the schema section as well
brent thought the schema was defined in the type section. S
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that we detailed an algorithm
for Sovrin Credentials that could use credentialSchema in the
map function... as well as in the proof.
manu: Schema does not have to come from the type. Sovrin can
use schema in the proof or in the main content
... algorithm is simpler if you use schema instead of type
... . To summarise you can still use schema in the proof, but
better for interop to put it in the schema section. Also dont
put it in the type but in the schema section
... we should probably have another offline discussion about
the schema issue
... question to Oliver. How do you do revocation is you dont
have the status property
<oliver> q
manu: . Should we have an implementors call to discuss the
non-standard way of implementing certain features
matt: . This call should be advertised on the list so that all
implementors can participate
<oliver> +1
<gannan> +1
<Yancy> +1
<ken> +1
<brent> +1
<dmitriz> +1
matt: . Manu please go ahead and schedule this call next week
PR review (CR Blocker Checkin)
<burn> [19]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
[19] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
<manu> [20]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/384
[20] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/384
Ganesh: Lifecycle PR is out of sync so needs more work
manu: most PRs have already been pulled in
... . We will merge all PRs at the end of this week (with or
without comments)
<manu> [21]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/399
[21] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/399
manu: . Service endpoint breaks our normal pattern with URLs.
This is because there might be a set of URLs
<manu> "id": "[22]https://example.com/refresh-service/123"
[22] https://example.com/refresh-service/123
<manu> "type": "ManualRefreshService2018"
manu: says this can be solved by using 'same as"
<manu> "alternateEndpoint":
["[23]https://blue.com/refresh/567",
"[24]https://red.com/refresh/567"]
[23] https://blue.com/refresh/567
[24] https://red.com/refresh/567
<manu> Here are the current CR Blockers --
[25]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is
%3Aopen+label%3ACR-blocker
[25] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is:issue+is:open+label:CR-blocker
<TallTed> +1 to those tweaks toward the existing design pattern
with indirect links to the endpoints
<manu> [26]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/391
[26] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/391
manu: Ping review is out of our control
... all others under our control except #391
<manu>
[27]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/blob/gh-pages/contexts
/credentials-v1.jsonld#L4
[27] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/blob/gh-pages/contexts/credentials-v1.jsonld#L4
manu: our security vocabulary is not in the suggested location
<manu> [28]https://w3.org/2018/security#
[28] https://w3.org/2018/security
<manu> [29]https://w3.org/2018/credentials#
[29] https://w3.org/2018/credentials
manu: We should ask the security WG if we can have a URL for
our vocabulary
<burn> DavidC: I answered all the CCG review questions I could,
but others still need answers.
<TallTed> belated scribe flag -- DavidC, please note that
`@speaker-nick` is not interpreted as desired by the minutes
tools... `speaker-nick:` is the line-start to use. kaz will
have a lot of cleanup today.
<burn> ... where do you find the schema for multiple revocation
services, for example?
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note registries
manu: CCG contains a list of registeries. We will need a
registry for revocation types so that people can find out the
schemas for different revocation mechanisms
... we need to decide how to point to CCG registeries
<oliver> q
oliver: Can we have a call next week about the test suite
Test suite checkin
<burn>
[30]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2019Jan/0
012.html
[30] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2019Jan/0012.html
manu: . Benjamin have you done a first pass yet on the tests
bigbluehat: Yes
manu: If anyone has any spare time can they please add more
tests to the test suite. If just requires some java script to
be written
<manu> and huge thank you to bigbluehat for writing those
stubs!!!
burn: We still have a few issues to resolve so we are not quite
done yet!
... thanks to everyone and bye till next week
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [31]scribe.perl version
1.152 ([32]CVS log)
$Date: 2019/01/30 16:37:32 $
[31] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[32] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 11 February 2019 06:48:53 UTC