[MINUTES] W3C Credentials CG Call - 2018-05-01 12pm ET

Thanks to Ryan Grant for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's Credentials CG 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).

Credentials CG Telecon Minutes for 2018-05-01

  1. Reintroductions
  2. Action Items
  3. DID Working Group Transition
Action Items:
  1. JoeAndrieu to pick target date for outreach hackathon.
  2. ChristianLundkvist and DanBuchner specify use of JWK for key 
  Joe Andrieu and Kim Hamilton Duffy and Christopher Allen
  Ryan Grant
  Heather Vescent, Joe Andrieu, Greg Linklater, Mike Lodder, Shadan 
  Kam, Manu Sporny, Dave Longley, Ted Thibodeau, Dmitri Zagidulin, 
  Moses Ma, Christopher Allen, David I. Lehn, Andrew Hughes, Nate 
  Otto, Dan Burnett, Benjamin Young, Lucas Parker, Drummond Reed, 
  David Chadwick, Kayode Ezike, Kim Hamilton Duffy, Ryan Grant, 
  Chris Boscolo, Christian Lundkvist, Kaliya Young, Adrian Gropper, 
  Lionel Wolberger

Ryan Grant is scribing.

Topic: Reintroductions

Andrew Hughes:  Independent.  editing standards, mostly at ISO 
  and ?  Tracking SSI.  Looking forward to contributing more to the 
  standards process

Topic: Action Items

Joe Andrieu:     1. Consensus May 14-16 in NYC      2. MYDATA 
  2018 August 29-31 Helsinki, Finland      3. Summer DID/VC 
  Outreach - target date?
Andrew Hughes:  Contributing to identity and privacy standards at 
  ISO and ITU-T - looking forward to contributing to VC and DID 
  standards [scribe assist by Andrew Hughes]

ACTION: JoeAndrieu to pick target date for outreach hackathon.

Dmitri Zagidulin: I'll be at MyData, fwiw
Joe Andrieu: Adrian will be on a panel on interoperability
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Re Helsinki: likely no progress to report; I 
  haven't seen any discussion about the panel
Joe Andrieu:  Adrian will also be on an interoperability panel at 
Joe Andrieu:  Registry process.  issue #6.2
Manu Sporny:  Process is github pull request results in community 
Manu Sporny:  You want more of a write-up?
Joe Andrieu:  Yup
  ... as lightweight as possible
Manu Sporny:  Will eventually propose more in that issue
Joe Andrieu:  We need more signposts to this registry, to avoid 
  future complaints
Christopher Allen:  Will introduce a BTCR registry, due to 
  blockchain magic value.
Christopher Allen:  There's only 22 spaces available.  Proposed 
  filter: have a working version of your blockchain and method 
  before entering our registry.
Joe Andrieu:  Moving to work items
Christopher Allen:  Got his point in
Kim Hamilton Duffy:  There was a question (or action item) abotu 
  a registry thing, and maybe JWT?
Manu Sporny:  It was maybe JWK
Mike Lodder:  Must have been someone else asking for that
Manu Sporny:  It was the uPort folks who had this question.
Christian Lundkvist:  MSFT also interested in this.  and ?? folks
Joe Andrieu:  The question started confusing.
Kim Hamilton Duffy:  We have found the action item.  possibly 
  assignable to ChristianLundkvist and Daniel?
Christian Lundkvist:  Can we use current JWK specifications for 
  key descriptions.
Manu Sporny:  Yes you can, but you have to write a spec for it.
Manu Sporny:  We don't have the LD-key registry anymore, we have 
  a crypto-suite registry.

ACTION: ChristianLundkvist and DanBuchner specify use of JWK for 
  key descriptions.

Manu Sporny:  Push this through IETF <and two more items on your 
Manu Sporny: TODO items for uPort: 1. Create a spec that 
  demonstrates how you express a JWK using a LD Cryptosuite.
Manu Sporny: TODO items for uPort: 2. Create a spec that 
  demonstrates how you express a Verifiable Credential as a JWT.
Manu Sporny: TODO items for uPort: 3. Implementations and test 
  suites for those specs.
Joe Andrieu:  Call for other work items
Lionel Wolberger:  Data minimization work moving forward
Christopher Allen:  Amira status?
Joe Andrieu:  Some progress.  halfway with final edits.  
  something coming net week.
Dmitri Zagidulin: *Mike-lodder: the spec can mention recommended 
  algorithms, re jwk.*
Joe Andrieu:  After buyoff from authors, we'll gather consensus 
Joe Andrieu:  We have a DID spec!
Mike Lodder: Dmitriz, yes and they must be carefully chosen to 
  not introduce vulnerabilities, I personally would choose Fernet 

Topic: DID Working Group Transition

Joe Andrieu:  Next milestone: getting the work transitioned to a 
  stanards working group, whether W3C or somewhere else.  there are 
  8 items.
Joe Andrieu:  Manu how do you see the schedule going?
Manu Sporny:  Needs to be done in 90 days.
Manu Sporny:  It's a rough accelerated schedule
Manu Sporny:  We'll need lots of volunteers to move this stuff 
  forward in parallel.
Joe Andrieu: 90 Days = ~Aug 1
Manu Sporny:  The reason is that manu things have lead-time to 
  prepare for conferences liek TPAC
Joe Andrieu:  Let's go through and do a brief introduction and 
  call for volunteers
8. DID Working Group Transition (35 min)      1. DID Charter      
  2. Use Cases      3. Demonstration of Support      4. Technical 
  Architecture Review      5. Privacy Review      6. DID Primer     
   7. DID Test Suite      8. Deployments
Benjamin Young: Here's an example in-progress Charter for the 
  forthcoming JSON-LD WG https://json-ld.github.io/charter/
Manu Sporny:  If you want to learn how we do things, feel free to 
  jump into the charter process.
Manu Sporny:  Questions?
Joe Andrieu:  Names so far?
Manu Sporny:  Um, mine.
Dan Burnett:  Today's a bad day for me to try to commit, but in a 
  couple weeks i may be more available
Manu Sporny:  We're going to try to cut use cases down to four
Joe Andrieu:  I'll put my name on that
Heather Vescent:  A while back we talked about "CCG Stories" how 
  does that relate to DID use cases?
Manu Sporny:  Not much at all
Christian Lundkvist: I need to drop off to another call, cheers!
Manu Sporny:  Use cases tend to be things that we've achieved.
Benjamin Young: Here's an example of from the (now completed) 
  Digital Publishing Interest Groups Use Cases document 
Heather Vescent:  I've seen this process before, and i understand 
  why we have to be clear like that from a technical testing model, 
  but i think there's a limitation on these use cases from a human 
  centric interaction model.  how should we resolve those two 
Heather Vescent:  I want to work on the stuff that bridges those 
  two things
Heather Vescent:  Use cases are going to miss a bunch of stuff
Heather Vescent: These are great @bigbluehat
Benjamin Young:  Digital Publishing Interest Groups Use Cases 
  include lots of stories and useage examples that try to distill 
  the stories down to a requirement.
Benjamin Young:  It has to have its own identification as well as 
  each of its parts
Benjamin Young:  As well as howevermany stories are needed to 
  become a requirement
Manu Sporny:  There are two worlds here: the stuff that W3C 
  membership needs to see
Manu Sporny:  But each submission creates a commitment.  the less 
  we write of these, the better off we tend to be.
Heather Vescent:  Thank you for the explanation, manu.  how can 
  we move forward including these concerns and mitigate the risks 
  you're bringing up?
Manu Sporny:  It's an iterative process.
Andrew Hughes: Can we use the CCG to collect the user stories?
Andrew Hughes: That way we can keep the use cases for the WG 
  clean and focused
Manu Sporny:  If something is achievable, we'll try to address 
  it.  if it's a liability for the group, then we'll identify that.
Manu Sporny:  It's a process.
Heather Vescent:  That's acceptable to me.  i just want to see us 
  not forget this point.  just stating the obvious.
Manu Sporny:  Thank you heathervescent, noted.  other questions?
Manu Sporny:  #3 Is demonstration of support.  W3C cares about 
  other W3C members wanting this work.
Manu Sporny:  They care about big organizations, but 
  fundamentally it's W3C membership that does the vote.
Manu Sporny:  So we'll look for 35-50 organizations informally 
  supporting it.
Manu Sporny:  This will require the chairs to drum up support 
  "pick up phones and knock on doors" ;)
Joe Andrieu:  Any names to add here?
Kim Hamilton Duffy:  Main question here is who the big 
  organizations are (not clear yet).  we can talk about it offline.
Manu Sporny:  Usually you want big keystone corporations.  we 
  have some ideas who those might be.
Manu Sporny:  It's for the chairs, plus me.
Manu Sporny:  There will be a question as to who's going to chair 
  this group.
Manu Sporny:  One of the multinationals will want a chair 
  position, probably.
Joe Andrieu:  That will be a part of the charter?
Manu Sporny:  Yes.
Manu Sporny:  #4 And #5 is the "technical architecture group"
Manu Sporny:  And the "privacy interest group", who is ready to 
  do a review.
Manu Sporny:  We need to get the spec finalized before we hand it 
  over to them.
Manu Sporny:  Up to the editors to finish and up to the chairs to 
  request the reviews at the appropriate time.
Manu Sporny:  #6 Is the primer, which is done thanks to drummond 
Joe Andrieu:  Can we get a name s to who's going to turn that in 
  to spec-techs (?)
Manu Sporny:  It would be great if someone other than drummond or 
  manu could take that on.
Drummond Reed:  Yes, it would be great to see someone else step 
  up to this.
Dmitri Zagidulin: *Are there decent tutorials on the re-spec 
Andrew Hughes:  What's the deadline?
Manu Sporny:  End of summer
Andrew Hughes:  I'm willing to take that on, noting that i'm busy 
  until mid-May
Manu Sporny:  Wrapping it up by mid-June seems reasonable.
Andrew Hughes:  Will reach out for more instructions and guidance
Dan Burnett: Again, I will likely also be available in the same 
  time frame
Manu Sporny:  The test suite isn't absolutely required
Manu Sporny:  (#7)  It would be good for us to have our ducks in 
  a row
Manu Sporny:  This would be something like various DID Documents 
  feeding through a test suite with green checkmarks
Manu Sporny:  We may be able to leverage some of the verifiable 
  claims test suite as well.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: I'm debating whether I can do this or work on 
  it with someone
Lucas Parker: Same.
Ryan Grant:  I'd love to work with Kim on this [scribe assist by 
  Joe Andrieu]
Ryan Grant:  I may be able to work on this with Kim and lparker. 
  [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Joe Andrieu: ... If Markus is available as well, he's well 
Kim Hamilton Duffy: He's not but I was thinking that too
Lucas Parker: Yep
Manu Sporny:  We position ourselves best if we can demonstrate 
  that this stuff is being deployed and used out there.  the most 
  common response to a charter is "who's using it, and why is this 
  the right time to standardize"
Manu Sporny:  The goldilocks period is flexibility with active 
  work ongoing.
Manu Sporny:  If we have three organizations that are deploying 
  in production, we are well positioned
Manu Sporny:  Deployments help with large organizations jumping 
  in and trying to take control
Manu Sporny:  As long as we go in as a group, those kinds of 
  bombs don't have a lot of effect.
Manu Sporny:  If we're not interoperating, then those bombs have 
  more effect, and W3C management freaks out.
Manu Sporny:  That's why test suites and deployment are so 
Manu Sporny:  Evernym, Sovrin, Veres One, maybe uPort, and we 
  dont' know where BTCR is with DID Documents.
Joe Andrieu:  Call for someone to manage the spreadsheet of 
Lparker, achughes: are interested
Manu Sporny:  Timeline review
Joe Andrieu: S/lparker,/lionel_wolberger/
Manu Sporny:  DID spec is blocking reviews
Drummond Reed: I am ready to put time in on the DID spec this 
Drummond Reed: Yes, I am planning time with Manu TODAY.
Manu Sporny:  Next is charter and use cases
Manu Sporny:  DID spec by end of may
Manu Sporny:  Charter and use cases by end of June
Manu Sporny:  Then kick off reviews
Manu Sporny:  Correction: charter and primer by end of June
Joe Andrieu: Deadline for Charter, Use Cases, and Primer: end of 
Joe Andrieu:  Manu, any recommendations for end of next week?
Manu Sporny:  Maybe narrowing down use cases
Manu Sporny:  And definitely DID spec work, then charter the week 
  after that
Joe Andrieu:  Is on the hook for leading use case conversation 
  next week
Andrew Hughes: @JoeAndrieu should check in with BC Gov to talk 
  use cases - jjordan etc
Christopher Allen:  We've inherited all the data verification of 
  the ? specs as well
Christopher Allen:  Any thoughts on when we can do custom 
  verifiable credentials?
Christopher Allen:  This is gating things to try, since other 
  test beds aren't suitable at the moment.
Manu Sporny:  Working on it
Joe Andrieu:  We'll put these names down and follow up in weeks 
  to come.
Joe Andrieu:  That's a wrap.

Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2018 18:05:08 UTC