- From: <kimdhamilton@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2019 12:58:40 -0700
- To: Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Thanks to Manu Sporny and Dave Longley for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's Credentials CG telecon are now available:
https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2019-10-29/
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 2019-10-29
Agenda:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2019Oct/0035.html
Topics:
1. Introductions / Re-Introductions
2. Announcements
3. Work Items and Action Items Review
4. Year End Purge
Action Items:
1. action: Dan, Matt, Manu to name repo
2. We need process summary
3. PR to W3C-CCG Home Page to refer to CCG work on VCs
4. VC chairs to sent email about CCG to old VC-WG list,
including asking for volunteers.
5. merge the the two crypto-lg registries, fix links
Organizer:
Kim Hamilton Duffy and Joe Andrieu and Christopher Allen
Scribe:
Manu Sporny and Dave Longley
Present:
Joe Andrieu, Justin Richer, Markus Sabadello, Manu Sporny,
Jonathan Holt, Dmitri Zagidulin, Adrian Gropper, Dave Longley,
Alexander Hripak, Christopher Allen, Brent Zundel, David I. Lehn,
Ganesh Annan, Kim Hamilton Duffy, Sumita Jonak, Kaliya Young,
Gabe Cohen, Nate Otto, Dan Burnett, Jeff Orgel, Ken Ebert, Ryan
Grant
Audio:
https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2019-10-29/audio.ogg
Manu Sporny: ChristopherA goes over standard intro to CCG call.
Manu Sporny is scribing.
Christopher Allen: Please do consider scribing for future calls,
it takes a village.
Topic: Introductions / Re-Introductions
Christopher Allen: Anyone new to the call?
Christopher Allen: Anyone that wants to reintroduce themselves?
Adrian Gropper: Hi, Adrian Gropper, volunteer CTO for Patient
Privacy Rights, my role in general is as a privacy expert --
represent the interest of the consumer in this process. What is
new is that I'm heavily involved in trying to develop a common
language for the various services around SSI.
Adrian Gropper: This work started around RWoT9 - created slide
deck that tries to introduce concept of separation of concerns
around various protocol work going on in different SSI related
groups.
Christopher Allen: W3C-CCG Announcements:
https://w3c-ccg.github.io/announcements/
Topic: Announcements
W3C-CCG Announcements: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/announcements/
Christopher Allen: DID Resolution TF meeting on Thursdays...
happens from 1-2pm PT
Christopher Allen: Closing out action items, planning for next
couple of weeks... work item for 2020, please fill out a work
item template.
Adrian Gropper: Separation of Concerns slide deck - work in
progress:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/11lfS-phwt2-Vd6mN4iVIxj3N4PzV-774I9gLEGuZgzA/edit#slide=id.p
Christopher Allen: We're trying to get scribes to volunteer
earlier.
Christopher Allen: Any announcements we should have on this
list?
Dave Longley is scribing.
Manu Sporny: There is a DIDWG F2F coming up in January in
Europe, probably in London. Nothing settled, but, if you're in
the neighborhood and not part of the DIDWG there's always an
opportunity to join as an observer by asking the chairs.
Manu Sporny: This is just a heads up for those of you who might
be in the area.
Manu Sporny is scribing.
Kaliya Young: Glossary WG being spun up in DIF - one of the
Co-Chairs, believe it meets Mondays at 4:30 CT...
Christopher Allen: How do non-DIF people participate?
Kaliya Young: I believe it'll be fine for anyone to join mailing
list and join calls. I'll send information to list when it's
available.
Kaliya Young: First call isn't until November 7th... we'll post
something to the list before then.
Christopher Allen: Review Next:
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22action%3A+review+next%22
Topic: Work Items and Action Items Review
Review Next:
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22action%3A+review+next%22
Christopher Allen: The Chairs track work we're doing in this
queue...
Christopher Allen: DID Explainer tag - not formally a work
item... can we close that?
Dave Longley is scribing.
Christopher Allen: I'm not sure if we should close this out or
what at this point.
Manu Sporny: So I don't think it's an official ... it's not in
the charter for the DID WG, I don't think. They can publish any
document they want to as a NOTE. It falls under introductory
text. Before you drop it just check with the chairs on the DIDWG
to see if they are willing to take it up.
Manu Sporny: If not, it will be dropped and no one will work on
it and it's on there because we thought it was a pretty important
document.
Brent Zundel: Dan and I can talk about this.
Brent Zundel: And reach out.
Christopher Allen: Future meeting -- we had some discussion
around supporting discussions around JSON-LD contexts and
supporting documentation.
Christopher Allen: Future meeting... how to support contributing
to JSON-LD Contexts... [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Dave Longley is scribing.
Christopher Allen: Are there any other people that want to do a
demo of their schemas or contexts before we kick off the work on
creating a new task force on this topic or new work item?
Christopher Allen: If you are doing schema work or have some
resources you want to share please let the chairs know before we
form a work item on this.
Christopher Allen: Next up, the VC Maintenance Charter. This is
a little confusing because W3C is in the midst of figuring out
how to do ongoing work and there is a proposal for... A. The WG
before it completed said the CCG is responsible for any
continuing work.
Christopher Allen: It was going to be our job to create the
process for that. There is now a proposal for a maintenance
charter where the consensus building happens in the CCG but the
final results would be reviewed by the chairs of the VCWG.
Christopher Allen: If the charter is approved.
Christopher Allen: They have a process to approve it, the CCG
cannot approve changes to standards.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: We just need to close out the vote
Christopher Allen: My question here is ... what are the next
steps we have to do here? Do we need to determine a process for
that? It hasn't been one of our work items to think about this
type of thing. Do we do a regular work item and then when it's
the point it's a NOTE ... what level of consensus... do we just
pass it on to the new group then?
Kim Hamilton Duffy: This is just closing out ... during last
meeting we did a proposal about the heads up on adopting this as
a maintenance charter. Right after that we sent out an email
describing the seven day heads up for objections and we haven't
gotten any. During this meeting we can declare final approval of
it.
Christopher Allen: Ok.
Manu Sporny:
https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/pull/237#issuecomment-545090271
Manu Sporny: What Kim said. And there's this comment (I put in
IRC).
Manu Sporny: So W3C charter draft is up for review. Noted that
we have a seven day wait period for objections ... as long as we
wrap this up on the call today it's up to W3M to take the charter
forward with the W3C membership, etc. We don't expect any issues
with that.
Manu Sporny: On our own timeframe (CCG's timeframe) we need to
spend a little time on what that process looks like. Almost all
the work has to do with making sure that we continue to refine
the VC data model specification and implementation guide, etc.
We're just gaining consensus in this group, I can't imagine the
work mode will change much.
Manu Sporny: But we may have a work item we want to adopt.
Perhaps a group meets on its own maybe once a month to talk and
put it to the CCG to review and other groups for broader review
as needed. If we get buy in in the CCG then we push to the VCWG.
We don't have to do that immediately, sometime in the next month
or two is fine.
Dan Burnett: First, a comment on what Manu said. Something we
probably need sooner rather than later is at least a place for
comments to go. That's really the most important. If people have
issues they can know where to file them. Maybe they'll get worked
on or not.
Dan Burnett: I wanted to explain to people that the WG now is
not really there to do work. It's there as a collection of
members of W3C to make a determination on whatever proposal comes
from the CCG. Make sure it stays within the charter, has
appropriate review, meets IPR requirements and so on.
"Ratification group"
Dan Burnett: There are no regular teleconferences, etc. we don't
expect members to remain for a long time. It's about thumbs
up/thumbs down and a review process to ask for changes when
needed.
Dan Burnett: Yes, a ratification group.
Christopher Allen: Are you and Matt still the chairs, what's the
status of that?
Dan Burnett: The proposal has both me (Dan Burnett) and Matt
Stone to be the chairs. That can be modified as needed over time
if we need another co-chair, etc.
Christopher Allen: I want to propose an item for you two... as
far as creating a repo we can do that, just need a name from you.
We also need a little bit about the process written down, we need
that. Also on the W3C CCG website we need something about this
work.
Christopher Allen: To tell people, "If you wish to comment or
change things for VC data model spec, etc. you need to go here"
The CCG chairs need help there, are you willing to accept that
action item?
Manu Sporny: Agree that all of those are good ideas and are
things that we need to do.
ACTION: action: Dan, Matt, Manu to name repo
Dan Burnett: Yes, I will kick that off. I will talk to Manu
about the repo and how it will work but once we have a proper
place I'm happy to do that.
ACTION: We need process summary
ACTION: PR to W3C-CCG Home Page to refer to CCG work on VCs
Christopher Allen: We've done the seven days, do we need to
formally do something?
Manu Sporny: I don't think so, we gave people plenty of warning
and left it open for seven days and if no objections it would
close. I think we're good to go. But proposal+resolution is
process over engineering.
Manu Sporny: We can just proceed.
Manu Sporny: This is mostly just a call to action for this group
(CCG).
Manu Sporny: This group has a pretty big effect on the
maintenance on the VC spec and the implementation guide and we
need help from people to move that along. Don't assume the same
people that moved it before will continue to do so.
Manu Sporny: Quite often there is a changing of the guard.
Manu Sporny: If you're interested in participating or helping
with editorial work or advances/changes to the implementation
guide please use this as an opportunity to jump in and help out.
ACTION: VC chairs to sent email about CCG to old VC-WG list,
including asking for volunteers.
Christopher Allen: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/91
Christopher Allen: A proposal was made for a new work item for
working on a schema -- based on the WorkDay presentation.
Christopher Allen: Gabe and Orie Steele.
Manu Sporny: +1 In support to adopt as a work item.
Christopher Allen: We do have the requisite people from two
different groups that want to work on it.
Christopher Allen: Do we have any objections to that as a
starting point? They said they are very open to making changes --
they are not "our way or the highway".
Nate Otto: +1 In support to adopt as a work item. I would like to
participate in the item, particularly to enable the same
capabilities for Open Badges-schema'd credentials.
Christopher Allen: I wanted to get a feeling for other people
who are willing to participate or read through it or participate
in some calls.
Christopher Allen: The chairs are trying to make sure there's
sufficient energy for us to tackle it as a work item.
Ken Ebert: Brent and I have been doing some work on schemas and
enhancing them in the Sovrin ecosystem so it's an area of
interest for us.
Manu Sporny is scribing.
Christopher Allen: @Ottonomy
Christopher Allen: That would be great... looking for codifying
... not from single community, but from multiple communities.
Nate Otto: I'd like to participate in this work item...
particularly w/ Open Badges angle... Open Badges as a schema that
can be delivered in a VC envelope.
Christopher Allen: We have enough interest and communities
involved, Joe, Kim, thoughts?
Joe Andrieu: +1 Agree
Christopher Allen: +1
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Need to catch up
Christopher Allen: The way the CG process at W3C does not
require consent from entire community to start a work item.
Christopher Allen: We think there is sufficient support of this,
so it just happens... that's the way the CG process works... we
don't need broad approval ... we do need approval of CCG to
approve to move the work ahead to a CG Note or official CG
document.
Christopher Allen: This work item is approved, will setup the
Github.
Christopher Allen:
https://w3c-ccg.github.io/community/work_items.html
Christopher Allen: The Chairs are trying to be careful about our
work items so we can get work done and finished.
Topic: Year End Purge
https://w3c-ccg.github.io/community/work_items.html
Christopher Allen: We'd like to close some things out by the end
of the year in some form.
Christopher Allen: I proposed a couple of different things --
categories of discussing this -- items that are close to complete
and want to publish final report... can always do something
later... just want to get it off of our Agenda.
Christopher Allen: Explainer, Primer, maybe moved to other
places... some items have no progress... Editors haven't been
active, need new editors.
Christopher Allen: There are items we're keeping... DID
Resolution has been doing a great job, meeting every week,
reporting out... etc.
Christopher Allen: There are other work items that are making
progress -- not sufficient community support... anyone have
general comments around us wrapping up these types of things
before we tackle new work.
Dave Longley is scribing.
Christopher Allen: The goal is for us to get to a community
report of some kind that is specification oriented, community
notes, and commentaries are more free form.
Christopher Allen: We have a large number of these and some of
these are finished, etc.
Christopher Allen: We have 4 registers, DID method, VC status,
LD cryptosuites, LD keys. I've seen activity on DID method, and
LD ones.
Christopher Allen: I presume we'll make progress on VC status
one. What's the story there, what's required, is it active, do we
have a process for it?
Joe Andrieu: I'm directing this to Manu or Dan... do we know
anything about where the W3C is going with this? I'd like to move
this from rough draft to something else but I think we're caught
in a redesign of the process.
Dan Burnett: You're right we're in a redesign and we need to do
our own thing.
Manu Sporny: Dan is right, we need to do a stopgap.
Manu Sporny: For these 4 registries, the DID method registry is
not in the DIDWG charter and it's being managed just fine in the
CCG. We're keeping up. There's a question about where that should
go. That may be a question for the DIDWG to discuss. For the time
being it's fine in the CCG.
Manu Sporny: The VC status registry is something ... the
expectation is that the new VCWG will take it over and it will
become a work item but the CCG will still manage it.
Manu Sporny: I think that stays in the CCG. The LD
cryptosuite/LD keys stuff is basically waiting on a LD security
WG to start up at W3C. Again, the CCG is the only one that is
managing those things. All active right now.
Manu Sporny: We've pulled in PRs for all of them in the past
couple of weeks and I don't expect that to change for the next 6
months or so.
Manu Sporny: We don't have have to really worry about the W3C
process on this stuff until it the 2020 process is ratified. I
think even then it won't affect us all that much.
Dmitri Zagidulin: Wanted to check in on the status of the key
format registry. If there is not a 100% overlap with the
cryptosuite registry.
Justin Richer: +1 To that question
Manu Sporny: Yeah, I thought we merged the two. I thought the LD
cryptosuite registry contained things like signatures suites and
key formats in it.
ACTION: merge the the two crypto-lg registries, fix links
Dmitri Zagidulin: I thought so too but the link from the work
items goes to different places.
Manu Sporny: We should fix that, eliminate the key one and just
make it the cryptosuite registry.
Christopher Allen: This is the first I've heard of a LD security
WG. I think there's another thing we're kind of involved in ...
but I didn't see on the CG mailing list. What's the status of
that WG and the larger question of ... how do we get information
put on the CCG mailing list about these emergent W3C things. I
didn't see anything about it.
Christopher Allen: Act manu
Manu Sporny: I do think we covered it on one of the calls but
I'm sure it got buried almost immediately.
Manu Sporny: We had a breakout session at W3C TPAC that was
called LD Security. During the breakout session we identified ...
the minutes from that call are public you can find them from W3C
breakout page, I'll try to find them again.
Manu Sporny: There's a desire from W3C to kick off an LD
security WG to work on LD proofs, packaging formats, etc. It's
not new crypto just about packaging formats. There's also
interesting RDF dataset normalization which other groups want to
see as well.
Manu Sporny: We're waiting on two independent mathematical
proofs and peer review on both papers on RDF normalization and
we're working on merging those papers into a single paper that
can be used to standardize at W3C.
Manu Sporny: That's the status ... we're hoping that work is
done by the end of this year, it's aggressive but by maybe mid
next year we'll have the LD sec WG that is moving all this stuff
forward (LD proofs, LD keys, RDF normalization) as an official
standard.
Digital Verification CG
Jonathan Holt: If there a link for RDF normalization algorithm?
Christopher Allen: It sounds like we need to do some reports for
those work items. And we need to publish them as reports to feed
into a WG.
Christopher Allen: Is that correct?
Manu Sporny: Yes.
Christopher Allen: I think we should get these into our work
item queue. I don't mind a fast track report with good solid work
and a variety of community review.
Christopher Allen: We don't have it on our task list. I won't
make it an action but we need a work item proposal and editors
and the target.
http://json-ld.github.io/normalization/spec/ <-- current RDF
dataset normalization spec (not a link to any proof papers)
Manu Sporny: Linked Data Security meeting minutes from W3C TPAC
-- https://www.w3.org/2019/09/18-ldsec-minutes.html
Christopher Allen: The object capabilities for linked data --
there's OCAP-LD and zcaps, etc. I haven't seen any work on it.
I've seen that ZCAPs is another potential work item.
Manu Sporny: OCAP-LD and the ZCAP work is the same thing. The
only difference is the name. ZCAPs are a subset of OCAPs, there
is discussion with Mark Miller on naming.
Manu Sporny: Chris Webber continues to work on it, Digital
Bazaar is moving technical implementations forward and it's
actively being used.
Manu Sporny: We are actively trying to document so the rest of
the community can more easily participate in the work. The spec
needs an editor to push it forward.
Manu Sporny: I think it's on Dmitri's queue.
Christopher Allen: I know that DIF has been talking about some
OCAP stuff -- anyone from Solid/Sovrin have a particular interest
in this work item? Anyone want to be an editor with it?
Christopher Allen: I'm confused on where to go with it. It
hasn't seen activity and it seems a little ill-defined but there
is one community that is planning on using it.
Christopher Allen: Does anyone know what's going on in the DIF
community/SOLID regarding ZCAPs.
Dmitri Zagidulin: I wanted to mention that SOLID is also
exploring using LD ZCAPs.
Christopher Allen: To keep this work item going as a CCG item,
I'd like to see another editor, someone from another community.
Can you try to identify someone from SOLID or somewhere else to
move this forward?
Christopher Allen: Single editor things tend not to work.
Manu Sporny: We'll try. The big issue is that it's one of the
background technologies. The most obvious ones are the agoric
folks. Maybe we can chat with them a bit. There have been a
couple of other folks saying they've started using it in systems
as well.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/ocap-ld/
Kim Hamilton Duffy: It looks like there's not significant
development in DIF on OCAP, Orie said he's contributed to
ocap-ld.
https://w3c-ccg.github.io/zcap-ld/
^That's the rename
Christopher Allen: The CHAPI spec and polyfill.
Christopher Allen: I don't know if the spec confirms to your
work -- we'd really like to see this advance at least to the next
level. A release draft or even a report and call it.
Christopher Allen: Right now there's no activity on it. It's
status ... Manu?
Manu Sporny: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/credential-handler-api/
Manu Sporny: CHAPI Demo:
https://w3c-ccg.github.io/credential-handler-api/
Manu Sporny: There has been an implementation of the spec for 3+
years, it comes out of the web payments work at W3C. There's a
demo site and a whole bunch of code. The polyfill is open source,
etc. Multiple organizations have used it.
Manu Sporny: Unfortunately some of the organizations are not
being public about it but we can't get folks to talk if they
don't want to.
Manu Sporny: There is something that happened at TPAC. The
implementations have continued to be worked on, there is work
going on there.
Manu Sporny:
https://github.com/marcoscaceres/modal-window/blob/master/explainer.md
Manu Sporny: We have demonstrated interop but not public right
now.
Manu Sporny: Most recently we were approached by Mozilla and
Google ...and Microsoft and Coil are part of this as well.
Manu Sporny: They are trying to do something similar with the
CHAPI and we're talking about moving VCs and ZCAPs across
multiple origins on the Web.
Manu Sporny: I just linked to Marco's repo. He heads up work at
W3C on this stuff and works on Mozilla team, etc. He would
standardize what CHAPI does today and make it native in all
browsers and enable Web-based and native wallets to move VCs back
and forth.
Manu Sporny: This is a big step forward. We don't feel we can
finish up the spec because we just started seeing traction with
the browser community.
Manu Sporny: There is a desire to work through the requirements
with the browser teams and if we can get there we can just defer
to their modal window proposal so long as it does what CHAPI
does.
Christopher Allen: It's listed as an unreleased draft. It should
be listed as something that was worked on and reached some level
of things and we should release it and say we're not going to go
to a final report. It doesn't need multiple implementations for
that. I want to get it listed and you can put notes that says
it's going somewhere else, etc.
Christopher Allen: We don't want it just hanging there that's
not what we want as an example. Can we just get it to a release
stage for that?
Christopher Allen: I don't like it hanging there and giving
people mixed impressions.
Dmitri Zagidulin: I just wanted to add that reason is that
there's not a lot of activity on the spec itself is because it's
largely been stable. Most of the work has been on the
implementation details and the polyfills, etc.
Christopher Allen: To me that's a release draft.
Dave Longley: What do we need to do to declare it a release
draft? [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Dave Longley: Happy to declare it that, and mark it as such...
[scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Christopher Allen: If you want to add some commentary at the top
about existing usage, etc. I would love to see it as a release
draft.
So mote it be
Dave Longley: I can put a version on there... if necessary
[scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Kaliya Young: We are at the hour - I have another call goodbye
all.
Christopher Allen: The DID Resolution work that been
proceeding.. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Manu Sporny is scribing.
Christopher Allen: We're making good progress there.
Markus Sabadello: DID Resolution weekly meeting page:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qYBaXQMUoB86Alquu7WBtWOxsS8SMhp1fioYKEGCabE/
Christopher Allen: We have 3 projects where the output is not
the W3C -- it's the IETF... those drafts are good for six months.
Christopher Allen: Do we need to do more work on them?
Dave Longley is scribing.
Manu Sporny: Which ones specifically? Multihash, etc.?
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Have to drop
Manu Sporny: We can do drafts, I'm not sure if it's worth it for
us to do anything, we publish regularly at IETF.
Christopher Allen: I think yeah, it's part of our work. We can
do more work than just W3C. But as a release draft that gets
listed of things we've done... with a header at the top that says
it's intended for IETF. We want to have a version number.
Joe Andrieu: My question is ... have these been handed off to
IETF and can we retire them?
Manu Sporny: No.
Joe Andrieu: We're still shepherding them.
Manu Sporny: Yes.
Christopher Allen: They have to be handed off to IETF later.
Joe Andrieu: So we have a task within 6 months to do that.
Manu Sporny: Yes, and we've been updating them.
Manu Sporny: People have been submitting issues and modifying
the spec as a result of those and turning the crank at IETF to
republish but that doesn't require us at CCG to do anything here.
Justin Richer: In a lot of cases the drafts haven't been
submitted to the IETF at all, but published as internet drafts
but that doesn't get them into a WG.
Justin Richer: Until they get into a WG or under an area
director they aren't part of the process there.
Jonathan Holt: Is someone from Protocol Labs working on
submitting these to IETF?
Christopher Allen: https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/
Manu Sporny: Agree with Justin_R
Justin Richer: In particular I care a lot about the http
signatures work and it needs to get into an actual WG sooner
rather than later because if we start building dependencies on
internet drafts all bets are off once it officially starts in
terms of compatibility.
Dave Longley: +1
Manu Sporny: Jonathan_holt, yes... that person is me :)
Manu Sporny: Jonathan_holt, and I'd really love some help there.
Christopher Allen: On the page (link in IRC) the CG which has no
standards power are the things the CG is working on. If we go to
the W3C and we say there is consensus and people talking about it
here and in W3C that it's a signal to the IETF community that
this stuff should be taken seriously. But we don't have these
things listed as drafts at all.
Christopher Allen: I want to get to the point where those things
are releases and listed on that page. They don't have to go to
final.
Christopher Allen: At least need them in the draft stage. Thanks
all, made progress here and want to close things out and move
forward in the future, next week will maybe try to close out more
and talk about big tent vs. specs for W3C track.
Received on Saturday, 2 November 2019 19:58:50 UTC