W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > November 2019

[MINUTES] W3C Credentials CG Call - 2019-10-29 12pm ET

From: <kimdhamilton@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2019 12:58:40 -0700
Message-Id: <1572724720538.0.98796@okimsRazor.local>
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:


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

  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
  Kim Hamilton Duffy and Joe Andrieu and Christopher Allen
  Manu Sporny and Dave Longley
  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 

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 
Christopher Allen: W3C-CCG 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 
Christopher Allen:  We're trying to get scribes to volunteer 
Christopher Allen:  Any announcements we should have on this 
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 
Kaliya Young:  First call isn't until November 7th... we'll post 
  something to the list before then.
Christopher Allen: Review Next: 

Topic: Work Items and Action Items Review

Review Next: 
Christopher Allen:  The Chairs track work we're doing in this 
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 
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 
Christopher Allen:  Ok.
Manu Sporny: 
Manu Sporny:  What Kim said. And there's this comment (I put in 
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 
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 
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 
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 
Christopher Allen:  This work item is approved, will setup the 
Christopher Allen: 
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

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 
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 
^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: 
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: 
Manu Sporny:  We have demonstrated interop but not public right 
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 
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 
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 
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: 
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 
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:19:03 UTC