Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2016-11-08

Thanks to David Ezell for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's Verifiable Claims telecon are now available:

http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2016-11-08/

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 2016-11-08

Agenda:
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2016Nov/0004.html
Topics:
  1. Gathering More Use Case Data
Organizer:
  Richard Varn and Matt Stone and Dan Burnett
Scribe:
  David Ezell
Present:
  Richard Varn, Matt Stone, Dan Burnett, David Ezell, Drummond 
  Reed, Jean-Yves Rossi, Dave Longley, Adrian Gropper, Katie 
  Haritos-Shea, Gregg Kellogg, Adam Migus, Rob Trainer, David I. 
  Lehn, Les Chasen, Adam Lake
Audio:
  http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2016-11-08/audio.ogg

David Ezell is scribing.
Matt Stone: 
  http://opencreds.org/specs/source/use-cases/#uc-issuing-claims

Topic: Gathering More Use Case Data

Richard Varn:  We have formerly had to remove use cases, and how 
  we have to add them back in.
Richard Varn:  Who can give information on new use cases 
  required?
Drummond Reed: I should be able to have the Evernym product team 
  provide some information about our use cases
Matt Stone:  We made the use cases more abstract from the 
  originals.  Could we just roll-back the simplifications and 
  refresh the link?
Drummond Reed:   Can't speak to that.  I think our team could 
  provide information about our use cases.  I need to know the form 
  and where to post.
Richard Varn:  I think the examples are a good place to start.  
  Send it to Dan, Matt, Richard and we'll publish it.
Richard Varn: Google doc is better than what i said
Drummond Reed:  We had a running Google-doc that we were 
  collaborating on.  Can you share that reference?
Matt Stone:   We were hoping to call an AC vote in early 
  december.  So next week we should review less-abstract use cases, 
  right?
Matt Stone:   I think one Google doc would be easiest.
Richard Varn:   Who should coordinate?
Richard Varn: Who did it last time?
Dan Burnett: Shane coordinated use cases last time
Matt Stone:  I need to figure out how to share this document.
Dave Longley: 
  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sTlymbzQ2zQsgnWDaNBXTq3aZ77RD_Jp5u9p9DLAcfA/edit
Dave Longley: ^New blank Google doc for use cases
Adrian Gropper:   I think the physician credentials use case is 
  something I should add.
Matt Stone:  Yes, absolutely.  We want to focus the next 
  deliverable on concrete and immediate use cases, not too much 
  blue-sky.
Adrian Gropper:   Right now to sign a script for a controlled 
  substance, they need a fob.  They might need three fobs is they 
  work in three places.  Is correcting this problem something we 
  could address.
Adrian Gropper:   DEA audits at the institutional level, so each 
  institution has to issue a fob - there's no standard.
Matt Stone:   Same DEA number, but different fob?
Adrian Gropper:   Yes.
Drummond Reed:  KYC use cases have been talked to death?  Or is 
  it something we want?
Richard Varn:  W3C staff definitely wants that use case.
Dave Longley: 
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-comments/2016Nov/
Dave Longley:  Concerns from AC are "what are the real world use 
  cases".
Dave Longley: 
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-comments/2016Nov/0017.html
Richard Varn: Another one mentioned was for retailers on loyalty 
  programs.
Richard Varn: Another was for c-stores for age verification
Dave Longley:   These kinds of use cases are very important for 
  anyone advocating.
Richard Varn: Yes.  travel would be good as we have not had one 
  before that i know of
Drummond Reed:  Do you want travel use cases?  Passports, 
  emergency contact?
Dave Longley:   It's important to capture, but feedback from 
  companies directly impacted by the work is the most important.
Richard Varn: Pearson and ETS will submit a joint one
Richard Varn: Yes.
Matt Stone:   Players in the education space should contribute.  
  Can we get Pearson and ETS to submit?
Richard Varn:  Yes we'll do that for education.  One reason we'll 
  do that is we don't want vendor lock-in at any level of the 
  process.
Katie Haritos-Shea:  I will be happy to add an Accessibility use 
  case for attesting privately that a person with disabilities 
  meets the legal requirement of disabled to enable them to access 
  public services
Richard Varn:  Have we covered this vendor lock-in adequately?
Richard Varn: We will add the problem of vendor lock in to the 
  education case
Richard Varn: Ok.  will do.
Matt Stone:  It's a useful lens to put on the education use 
  cases.  There are always many players/providers, and consistency 
  is problematic.  Finance (payments) may have the same problems.
Richard Varn: Got it.
Richard Varn: System agnosticism across systems as well as within 
  sectors is important
Matt Stone: +1
Dave Longley:  Work would help create an interoperable way to 
  express and verify so that it works in many different situations. 
   It's a key way this work is new and different.
Adrian Gropper:   Parties in education and healthcare are very 
  diverse, and federation has failed in those cases.
Matt Stone: +1 To agropper
Richard Varn: Is it also true that federation is not practical 
  across sectors?
Dave Longley: 
  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sTlymbzQ2zQsgnWDaNBXTq3aZ77RD_Jp5u9p9DLAcfA/edit
Richard Varn: We need a retailer
Matt Stone:   So there is a google doc, is it enough to have one 
  explicit case for education, healthcare, and KYC as the seminal 
  use cases?
Drummond Reed:   I agree that these cases need to be compelling.  
  I'll try to get our guys to contribute those use cases.
David Ezell:  Working on getting merchant use case.  May not have 
  by Friday.  Merchant ucs are not the same as payment UCs.  I will 
  send a merchant UC this week. [scribe assist by Dan Burnett]
Drummond Reed:  Would like to have a template that we can use to 
  fill use case content. [scribe assist by Matt Stone]
Drummond Reed: Drummond asks if someone can seed the document 
  with one or two use cases in the format that the group 
  recommends, as then we can try to make sure the others follow 
  that same structure.
Matt Stone:  Can we steal from existing use case docs?  A 
  template that the AC might recognize?
Dave Longley: 
  https://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/use-cases/#finance
Dave Longley: ^Existing use caes
Dave Longley: Cases
Gregg Kellogg: Existing Use Cases: 
  https://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/use-cases/
Drummond Reed: A template would be perfect, especially if you 
  already have one.
Matt Stone: 
  http://opencreds.org/specs/source/use-cases/#uc-issuing-claims
Matt Stone:  I'll take one of these examples after the call see 
  what's useful and move it over to googledoc.
Matt Stone:  Work we did last summer was pretty good.  Hate to 
  reinvent anything.
Dave Longley:  We just need to get people to step up to say "xyz 
  is important to my company" and demonstrate how the work is 
  relevant.
Matt Stone: 
Matt Stone:   That begs the question - how do we actually 
  respond?  For those of us who represent specific organizations, 
  we are looking to begin work on certain use cases.
Dave Longley: 
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-comments/2016Nov/0017.html
Gregg Kellogg: +1 To dlongley, it reinforces the work already 
  done to reference existing use cases.
Dan Burnett: +1 As well.  The work has already been done.  Now we 
  just need the direct link between organizations and UCs that are 
  crucial to them.
Dave Longley:  Nate's email was convincing to the the AC reps 
  about how this work helps.  This kind of testimonial is 
  important.  Explaining how this work will help, whereas other 
  work has not will really move us forward.
Dave Longley:   Nate's response: 
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-comments/2016Nov/0017.html 
  [scribe assist by Matt Stone]
Matt Stone:  So we can use this response as a template.
Dave Longley: And Microsoft's response to Nate: 
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-comments/2016Nov/0019.html
Dan Burnett:  Don't respond to that one, but use it as a 
  template.
Dave Longley: 
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-comments/2016Nov/0007.html
Dave Longley: "David Ezell once explained that you're proposing 
  essentially a new architectural layer to glue them together.  
  That sounds promising, but it's not obvious to me as a 
  non-specialist how this relates to the architecture diagram in 
  the VC WG proposal."
David Ezell:   Mike Champion mentioned something in a thread that 
  I had explained to him.  I had called him directly.  I gave Mike 
  concrete examples of what we need and why.  The AC reps want to 
  know why SAML didn't work for our requirements (or how it didn't 
  solve 100% of our requirements).  As a group we know what we are 
  talking about. [scribe assist by Dan Burnett]
Dave Longley: +1 To Richard
Richard Varn:   Want to reinforce - practical, not technical 
  responses may carry the day.  The problem remains that there's no 
  overall header that says "this is a claim, and here's how it's 
  organized."  We need one way to present it and share it.
Matt Stone: +1 Richard
Richard Varn:   I think that's our primary mission.  Even though 
  we're competitors, we want all claims from everyone to be able to 
  be verified.
Matt Stone:   To add to that - the essential ingredient we're 
  adding to the solution space, we're giving control to the 
  original earner, and acknowledging that the federated approach 
  hasn't worked in the solution space.
Richard Varn: +1
Dave Longley: +1 To Matt
David Ezell:  Web servers was another place where federation did 
  not work [scribe assist by Richard Varn]
Richard Varn:   I think we can call this item done.  Anything we 
  didn't do?
Richard Varn:   Other agenda items?
Matt Stone:  Can we say what's happening in the next 3-5 days?
Richard Varn:   4 People will submit sections to the google doc 
  with concrete reasons why they are challenged with current 
  systems and looking forward to VC.
  ...: also in the next 3 to 4 days, all the group should look at 
  those and be prepared to approve or disapprove at our next 
  meeting.
Matt Stone: Contributors use explicit use cases?  Stone, Varn, 
  Drummond and who?
Drummond Reed: Yes, I'm one of them (although I'm going to 
  delegate it within the Evernym product group)
  ...: also find and recirculate Phil Archer's email and make 
  sure expectations are understood.
David Ezell:   I'm the 4th volunteer.
Matt Stone: +1 Dezell
Matt Stone:  Brian is next scribe.  Next meeting is one week from 
  today, eastern (15 Nov).
Richard Varn:  Suggest we won't meet Thanksgiving week.
Drummond Reed: Agreed not to meet Thanksgiving week
No meeting 22 Nov.

Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2016 21:44:15 UTC