W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vc-wg@w3.org > March 2019

Minutes for VCWG telecon 26 February 2019

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 16:08:45 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9W94HghcpiXxfr7OmL2-7E-v8KWKFDNSG2J7b4Ohfx+GA@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-vc-wg@w3.org
available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2019/02/26-vcwg-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks a for taking these minutes, Charles!

Kazuyuki

---

   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                    Verifiable Claims Working Group

26 Feb 2019

   [2]Agenda

      [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2019Feb/0016.html

Attendees

   Present
          David_Ezell, Justin_Richer, Matt_Stone,
          Charles_McCathie_Nevile, Dan_Burnett, Grant_Noble,
          Mike_Lodder, Tzviya_Siegman, Benjamin_Young,
          Ganesh_Annan, Dmitri_Zagidurin, Kaz_Ashimura,
          Manu_Sporny, Ken_Ebert, David_Chadwick, Ted_Thibodeau,
          Brent_Zundel, Andrei_Sambra, Allen_Brown, Dave_Longley,
          Oliver_Terbu, Yancy_Ribbens

   Regrets

   Chair
          Dan_Burnett, Matt_Stone

   Scribe
          chaals

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Agenda review, Introductions, Re-introductions
         2. [5]Unassigned issues
         3. [6]F2F Agenda
         4. [7]PR review (CR Blocker Checkin)
     * [8]Summary of Action Items
     * [9]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <scribe> scribe: chaals

Agenda review, Introductions, Re-introductions

   Grant: Work at PegaSys/ConsenSys. Technical communicator, have
   been providing feedback and editorial contributions to the data
   model.

   DanB: Agenda is simple: issues, f2f agenda review, blockers,
   test suite… anything else?

   ManuS: Are we looking line by line at the f2f agenda? Need to
   ensure people know they are presenting

   DanB: Sure

Unassigned issues

   <burn>
   [10]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&
   q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+no%3Aassignee

     [10] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?utf8=✓&q=is:issue+is:open+no:assignee

   [11]issue 433

     [11] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/433

   DanB / DavidC: looks editorial

   RESOLUTION: Assign 433 to Manu

   [12]432

     [12] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/432

   DavidC: Not quite editorial, we need to talk about it ...
   ... I will take it on. Don't think it is huge

   RESOLUTION: assign DavidC to 432

   [13]429 sorting out @contexts

     [13] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/429

   RESOLUTION: assign 429 to ManuS

   ManuS: good news is I think this will come out as implementors
   do the work

   DavidC: two things: is the ID optional or not, and what does it
   point to

   ManuS: Might need some clarification in the extensibility
   section.

   DavidC: or a fuller explanation.

   ManuS: Let me look at it in more detail, and see if I can fix
   it or needs more discussion.

   [14]428 Mandatory types

     [14] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/428

   DavidC: this is editorial - give it to Manu...

   RESOLUTION: assign 428 to Manu

   [15]427 Context URL is down

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/427

   DanB: Worked for me yesterday.

   ManuS: Don't think we deployed context or vocab at the given
   URLs yet.
   ... not sure what the timeframe is to deploy the content at the
   URLs. Presume that is work for Kaz, not sure where it is up to
   right now.

   Kaz: Yes.

   [Kaz notes in passing that the TAG will meet this week so we
   can hope for them to look at the review issue.]

   Kaz: I need to talk to webmaster to do this work.

   DanB: is it worth putting a temporary note in the spec until
   this happens?

   MauS: I can do that (although not convinced people will read
   the note...)

   Manu: changing this is a lot of work, so we will just add the
   warning until the files are updated.

   Kaz: We have the approval to do this, so it's just a question
   of deploying the documents. Not a big problem.
   ... BTW, these days the trend of W3C groups is to have content
   on a github server, with a redirect from
   [16]https://www.w3.org/ so if you want that, we might be able
   to set it up. I'll check with the Webmaster about that
   possibility.

     [16] https://www.w3.org/

   ManuS: I have some concerns, but we can talk about that

   RESOLUTION: Assign 427 to Kaz.

   DanB: Please make this high priority

   Ken: When we move something, are we preserving the old
   location?

   ManuS: If we remove this we will break the internet, so once we
   hit Recommendation we will never change the URL or the content
   there.

   Ken: Not sure if that is completely true. Errors creep in and
   stuff needs to be updated. We need a plan for that.

   ManuS: this is not a simple topic, but there is a plan. We
   could talk about it at the F2F if people want to …

   [17]Need MIME type guidance

     [17] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/421

   <TallTed> Errors in many w3 publications (particularly CR and
   PR) are indeed preserved forever, albeit there may be an
   "errata" supplement document. It's the unfortunate nature of
   this beast.

   Brent: Assigned to me, but not done

   DanB: Kaz, can you please get Brent added to GitHub so he can
   work on stuff.

   Brent: I am already assigned to 413.

   RESOLUTION: Assign 421 to Kaz, because he needs to get Brent
   assigned...

   DanB: We won't assign the other issues.

   Kaz's note: As I mentioned on the IRC during the call, I added
   Brent to the verifiable-claims-wg GitHub Team so that he can
   handle the [18]Issue 421, and Brent has assigned himself to the
   issue.

     [18] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/421

F2F Agenda

   <burn>
   [19]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G1ygbZMI5nJB94ROuX-
   Vtic4FgbeYl-S58E_DoXa7-w/edit#gid=285762982

     [19] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G1ygbZMI5nJB94ROuX-Vtic4FgbeYl-S58E_DoXa7-w/edit#gid=285762982

   DanB: We start 10am and go to 6.30pm each day because Spain,
   and because we must have left the room clean and empty by 7.
   ... there are a couple of open blocks to discuss topics that
   come up during the discussion, otherwise we will use them for
   dealing with github issues.
   ... Discussion leads should be like before. Someone who can
   lead each section of the discussion.
   ... There is a Google Slides deck for sections - find yours,
   and put content there. The leads in there are proposals - we
   would like to get confirmation
   ... First is digital bazaar assigned feedback from
   implementors.
   ... We are not sure we will get a vote on a CR, but what if we
   get feedback from early implementors, because that is the
   number one priority. If there is none, we move on to other
   issues.

   ManuS: +1 would like to hear from uPort, Evernym, Sovrin, and
   Dmitri … I expect we will fill 90 minutes. With a specific
   focus on practical interop (not just test suite-based)
   ... once we see real deployment, real interop will come up e.g.
   between JSON and linked data proof.

   <oliver> +1

   ManuS: Feel we need that discussion, and it could go in that
   slot too.

   DanB: Trying to get impleentation feedback, otherwise anything
   else that blocks CR is the number one priority for this agenda.
   ... Can you put together a placeholder for upates from
   implementors, and then those groups will have to fill in the
   info

   DavidC: Related to interop, I wanted to add it to the topics,
   so sent it as an email about conformance. Spec is unclear about
   what is mandatory and what is optional and that will affect
   interop. I wanted to go through each requirement and make sure
   the wording on that is very clear and consistent.

   DanB: Agree we need to do that, not sure if face to face time
   is best used on that. Is there a way to focus the discussion on
   items where there is actual disagreement?

   DavidC: I will try to list the items I think are unclear, in
   preparation, if I have time, but not sure I can.

   <Zakim> dmitriz, you wanted to suggest combining test suite
   discussion and the implementations feedback

   DanB: That would be great if you can- thanks.

   DmitriZ: Does it make sense to combine test suite discussion
   with implementation issues? Likely same people and topics.

   DanB: The intent for implementor discussion is that we don't
   have to have a test suite to get *into* CR. We will have a
   think, because I was also wondering the same thing.
   ... maybe retitle the sessions a bit
   ... There is nobody for "Non-spec important issues". This
   includes the implementation Guide - not needed by process, but
   the community needs it.
   ... Is someone willing to talk about that and other items that
   are critical to the WG but not needed for CR?

   Brent: I would be willing to lead that.

   DanB: Thank you! You don't need the answers, but if you have
   some notes to lead a discussion that would be helpful.
   ... Registries. We have Digital Bazaar but could be someone
   else…

   MattS: We also call them out ...

   ManuS: It's good ans concrete. There is also a broader
   discussion. Are we going to vote for CR during the meeting?
   After we decide we are ready for CR there are things beyond the
   registries - Terms of Use specs, …

   <burn> These sound like "non-spec important things" to me

   ManuS: There is also a question of living document status for
   the spec itself.
   ... Do we want a broader discussion around that? 30 minutes
   would not be enough.

   DanB: Sounds a lot like non-spec important iissues. Registries
   are strong - there are things that don't block the spec but it
   won't be approved without them.
   ... Implementors Guide is important, registries are necessary
   because the spec depends on them.
   ... then there are issues about longevity and sustainability.
   ... Maybe we can move those to the second day. Do you want to
   put something together on registries, and maybe take the other
   items and list them on a slide so we can look at how to
   schedule it?

   ManuS: Sure.

   stonematt: There will be a slide for "open blocks" Might be a
   place to seed that discussion

   <manu> chaals: 30 minutes is a bit short for where the group
   should go next... don't need to get it all done now, that's a
   continuing discussion.

   DanB: Use cases doc - Joe. We want an update. Most groups do
   their use cases long before the spec. We might be the other way
   around. Allowed 60 minutes, if there is anything productive we
   can do to make progress, let's do that.
   ... We talked about test suite - is there anything you can
   update us on?

   DmitriZ: There is a pending PR that has been approved by a
   couple of people. I don't have merge power, can someone do that
   please?

   Manu: oops, I will.

   DmitriZ: Let's have a discussion on test suite too.

   DanB: please add slides on that section for the f2f.
   ... "Defer other open issues". (This is a hint - feature freeze
   was 3 months ago)
   ... There are open issues, but it is time to put them down for
   now. People should have very strong justification if they want
   an issue to be open still.

   Manu: Yay!

   DanB: You are listed to say "next version, next lifetime, some
   other group, …" The chairs will help too
   ... DID WG impact and coordination. We don't mind who does this
   session.
   ... what will be the impact on our group given participant
   overlap, etc…

   ManuS: Think someone else should do this. Maybe Chris Allen or
   Joe?
   ... except they will be busy until then, so looking for someone
   else might be good.

   RESOLUTION: We will assign this to Christopher for now.
   Drummond might be interested - let's see.

   DanB: Future work items - would be nice to have a volunteer.
   This is if we do a full-on recharter to do new work (not just
   finishing this under an extension)
   ... assigned chairs to action items and next steps.

   Ken: I will do the future work items

   DanB: Thank you :)

   TzviyaS: Will there be remote participation facility?

   DanB: I have to follow up with the host.

   Manu: Think we will bring out own system, and can set up for
   that with our own zoom. No idea what the network will be - if
   it is strong enough to make that work.

   DanB: The host recommended a videoconferencing system and
   believes the wifi will be up to it. I will follow up.

   Kaz: I can bring speakerphone and set up webex for it.

   DanB: Let's discuss that as an option.
   ... It is a really nice "luxury" that we will actually have our
   Team contact at our whole meeting

PR review (CR Blocker Checkin)

   <burn> [20]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls

     [20] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls

   ManuS: Think the PR from Grant will go in as editorial, there
   are 2 that have been floating for a while and need decisions.
   One is [21]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/384 syntax
   and proof trade off. There has been a lot of work but no
   feedback from Pelle on whether this is ready now. Ditto from
   Oliver. There have been dozens of comments raised and responded
   to, so feel comfortable
   ... 412, converting subjectOnly is trickier. There are people
   saying they won't, or might, implement it. Maybe we can change
   this to be framed as "nonTransferable" and mark it as "at
   risk". David what do you prefer?

     [21] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/384

   DavidC: The non-transferable mirrors stuff on physical objects
   as credentials. This provides more flexibility.

   <dlongley> `notTransferrable` from the original holder or wrt
   the subject?

   <Zakim> manu, you wanted to dial in

   Manu: so you prefer to make the new property notTransferable
   and mark it at risk. Anyone object to that?

   [silence]

   Manu: Will do.

   Oliver: I don't understand every entry on the table still. I
   would prefer to have more use-case oriented approach, rather
   than it just being technology-focused.

   <manu>
   [22]https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/
   384.html#syntax-and-proof-format-trade-offs

     [22] https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/384.html#syntax-and-proof-format-trade-offs

   ManuS: Sure, but I don't know how to reconcile that. What will
   produce the least number of objections, to get us as close as
   we can to consensus. For us to do it as you suggest there would
   need to be a PR that demonstrates the approach in practice. I
   don't know how I would write that. Then we can look at which PR
   has most support. I have tried hard to take the input I got, so
   I would prefer if there are issues in this to fix them, rather
   ... than trying to make a drastic change because that might
   generate quite a lot more objections without answering the
   actual problem that this PR addresses.
   ... So, would you put in such a PR, are the group willing to go
   through the work of dealing with review? The alternative
   question is whether you would object to the current PR.

   <ken> Changing the name to from SubjectOnly to NotTransferable
   does not change any of the qualities of the attribute already
   discussed in issued #412.

   OliverT: OK, I hope we can provide review by the end of this
   week.

   ManuS: This is all editorial - we can make these changes in the
   future. But as an editor I think this would be a huge amount of
   work. There are so many use cases it is hard to write about one
   and capture everything.

   Oliver: The table only has a few disadvantages of JSON proofs.
   This could go into the table easily.

   <Zakim> burn, you wanted to end the meeting

   Oliver: Many entries make sense. But I think there are some
   points missing that might help with JWTs.

   <stonematt> slide deck for F2F:
   [23]https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_AKEYKWqaiMIUb6tlo3
   yVONTl9Z-71H4XfdTtgUF88U/edit?usp=sharing

     [23] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_AKEYKWqaiMIUb6tlo3yVONTl9Z-71H4XfdTtgUF88U/edit?usp=sharing

   Manu: +1 to adding those, if you make the suggestions.

   DanB: Thanks folks, out of time, talk to you next week.

   [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    1. [24]Assign 433 to Manu
    2. [25]assign DavidC to 432
    3. [26]assign 429 to ManuS
    4. [27]assign 428 to Manu
    5. [28]Assign 427 to Kaz.
    6. [29]Assign 421 to Kaz, because he needs to get Brent
       assigned...
    7. [30]We will assign this to Christopher for now. Drummond
       might be interested - let's see.

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    David Booth's [31]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([32]CVS log)
    $Date: 2019/02/27 03:37:15 $

     [31] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [32] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 4 March 2019 07:09:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 4 March 2019 07:09:49 UTC