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

[MINUTES] W3C Credentials CG Call - 2019-11-05 12pm ET

From: <kimdhamilton@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 16:02:02 -0800
Message-Id: <1573171322048.0.7071@okimsRazor.local>
To: Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Thanks to Yancy Ribbens for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's Credentials CG telecon are now available:

https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2019-11-05/

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 2019-11-05

Agenda:
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2019Nov/0002.html
Topics:
  1. Introductions and Reintroductions
  2. Announcements and Reminders
  3. Review action items and work items
  4. CCG 2020 Scope of work
Organizer:
  Kim Hamilton Duffy and Joe Andrieu and Christopher Allen
Scribe:
  Yancy Ribbens
Present:
  Amy Guy, Ted Thibodeau, Alexander Hripak, Joe Andrieu, Dan 
  Burnett, Justin Richer, Dave Longley, Gabe Cohen, Yancy Ribbens, 
  Brent Zundel, Ken Ebert, Bohdan Andriyiv, Kim Hamilton Duffy, 
  Jonathan Holt, Adrian Gropper, Christopher Allen, Nate Otto, 
  Dmitri Zagidulin, Jeff Orgel
Audio:
  https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2019-11-05/audio.ogg

Dave Longley: Regrets+
Joe Andrieu: Thanks, Dave
Yancy Ribbens is scribing.
I will scribe at least once today

Topic: Introductions and Reintroductions

Joe Andrieu:  In the future and for the last two weeks we sent an 
  email saying please sign up
  ... we have a did resolution call on Thursdays
  ... have the link to the zoom in the agenda
  ... operates under the IPR of the group
  ... this is house keeping

Topic: Announcements and Reminders

  ... if you have an action item please let us know to move it 
  forward
  ... which is part of the overall call today

Topic: Review action items and work items

Joe Andrieu: 
  https://github.com/w3c-CCG/community/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22action%3A+review+next%22
Joe Andrieu:   The first is vc schema identification
Kim Hamilton Duffy:  This one is approved
Kim Hamilton Duffy: https://github.com/w3c-CCG/vc-json-schemas
  ... and the repo has been created in this location
  ... under community specifications
  ... I included some basic information about getting the doc in 
  spec text
  ... for anyone on new items you can iterate on until you're 
  ready to release a task
Kim Hamilton Duffy: https://w3c-CCG.github.io/
  ... basically there's two options, easy and hard way
  ... creating CCG specs, just write mark down and bike shed on 
  it
  ... the other just use raw respec
  ... gabe and orie are a techie lot so shouldn't be an issue
  ... otherwise reach out
Joe Andrieu:   If markdown feels like the native place to play 
  with, then keep using bike shed
  ... tracking VC maintenance charter
  ... do we have anyone who has been working with the staff on 
  this charter?
Kim Hamilton Duffy:  The charter has been submitted
  ... this should be closed
Joe Andrieu:  Likes closing issues
Joe Andrieu: https://github.com/w3c-CCG/community/issues/88
  ... just an idea for a future meeting
Kim Hamilton Duffy:   There was some catchup
  ... like how to we host json-ld context
  ... it might be a combination of action items in CCG working 
  group
  ... but also might be in the json-ld working group
  ... also wants to callout if anyone else has updates here
  ... wants to make sure json-ld discussion we had a few weeks 
  ago is under way
  ... will close it next week if nothing
Joe Andrieu:   Last one is a DID explainer
Dan Burnett:  This is something the DID working group should take 
  on

Topic: CCG 2020 Scope of work

Joe Andrieu:  The chairs had an interesting conversation
  ... we definitely see the CCG being a big tent
Dan Burnett:  I can "transfer" that issue to the did repo for you 
  to use as a starting point. Shall i? [scribe assist by Kim 
  Hamilton Duffy]
  ... we have a couple items that are tracking to go to ietf
  ... anything in digital credential world which relates to 
  identity can start here
  ... there's some understandable tension
  ... what should the CCG be doing
  ... there's no should by the W3C
  ... so I want to open the conversation
  ... some of this is how do we be effective
  ... some of it is thing we are trying to be better at
  ... we are on this call as volunteers and we need to channel 
  our energy effectiely
Adrian Gropper: 
  https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/11lfS-phwt2-Vd6mN4iVIxj3N4PzV-774I9gLEGuZgzA/edit#slide=id.p
Adrian Gropper:   Interested in oauth and did doc storage
  ... if this is something we can take up here i'll be pleased
  ... I'll link to a set of slides
  ... and will leave it at that
Justin Richer:  Still confuses me that we are working on DID 
  resolution and that it hasn't been moved to the DID WG
  ... as we're figuring out what this group should be doing, we 
  should also consider what we should not be doing
Kim Hamilton Duffy: We have Adrian's topic on our future meetings 
  list. I'm very interested in the analysis he's done
Dmitri Zagidulin:  Couple of things about DID being done as part 
  of the CCG
  ... for one, the constraints of the charter
  ... and the other is that of inclusion
  ... there are a number of people who have stakes in DID but 
  can't join the DID WG
Justin_A:  while not enumerated in the did wg, there are so many 
  places in the current and final doc that will have normative 
  requirements against this
  ... from the inclusion point then letting them talk about only 
  one piece of the DID but not letting them talk about all the rest 
  and only talk about resolution but not anything else is not 
  inclusion
  ... having just the resolution on the outside won't let people 
  be truly engaged
  ... I don't think people will be satisfied with only the 
  resolution part
ChristoperA: I want to speak at the higher level and there are a 
  lot oc communities that can benefit from DID
  ... but not enough to say it can be an internation standard
  ... the number of companies that are not members of the w3c and 
  have expressessed interest is the majority
  ... the best example is the pulling together of the different 
  starage and encrypted storage by Kim
  ... and pulled together at rebooting
  ... is what I hoped for
  ... not everything needs to be an international standard
  ... like Bitcoin is not an international standard
  ... some things should be moved into IETF
  ... but I want this to be a home for that stuff that is not 
  going to be an international standard
  ... the things we can demonstrate is after 2 years incumbation 
  we can start the VC or DID working group
JoeAndrie: I don't know if we can do normative stuff it needs to 
  be in the charter
  ... I would argue against putting it in the document itself and 
  it is method specific
  ... standards is about what you do and don't do
  .... so the fact the peer did is not a valid did when 
  specifying the resolution
  ... and it's still being spec'd out
  ... the pattern that the charters was created under was like 
  the vc wg
  ... and we could do the protocol
  ... but it did let us get the data model published
  ... lets at least get the data model and methods specified as a 
  start
Justin Richer:  Thanks for the context
Joe Andrieu: Fair.
  ... doesn't think the VC spec should be a model spec because of 
  data serialization
  ... I don't think the did document should be a document and 
  should be split into separate concerns
  ... with that in mind that's what I think it makes the most 
  sense to have these three together
  ... guidance like when I hand you a url this is what happens to 
  get a did doc back
  ... and in my mind this should fall under the did chartare
  ... process can be worked
Joe Andrieu:   Having some awareness of what we can do
Adrian Gropper:  Picking up on the inclusion point that was made
  ... I'm confused and having a hard time keeping up with the 
  working being done with DIF and hyper ledger
  ... happy to be told the CCG is not the place to take it up
Dan Burnett: FYI, charters can be extended.  Politically, there 
  is likely better support today for additional work in the DID WG 
  than there was when we began creating the original charter.
  ... I want to know what the relation will be between diff and 
  hl for interop
Kim Hamilton Duffy:  I think that this is the perfect placed for 
  the interop discussions that agropper is having
  ... certainly the storage and layers and protocols.. there's a 
  lot of meaty topics that need to be picked apart
  ... it's hard to figure out how it all fits together
  ... we had the same conversation in DIF as well
  ... and how encrypted vaults fit with identity hubs
  ... and there's proposal to move forward with hubs ins  certain 
  way
  ... there's a discussion upfront about different layers of 
  responsibilities
  ... think there's a meaty area and that implementaters are 
  saying there's a high level discussion
  ... and what agropper has done is to start the conversation 
  here
Joe Andrieu: 
  https://nbviewer.jupyter.org/github/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot9-prague/blob/master/final-documents/encrypted-data-vaults.pdf
Joe Andrieu:  This is the rwot paper which is the result of a 
  conversation lead by kim in august
  ... and it became a paper that was published at rwot in prague
Adrian Gropper: Works for me. I hope Manu is available next week 
  as well.
I'm going to introduce where I'm coming from
  ... I see even my own work which are not standard track 
  destinations
  ... papers where it seemed like the CCG was the best place
  ... and so I thought where have we had success
  ... like the use case document
  ... I think we're a great entrypoint for work going in to the 
  w3c wg and there are other works going into the IETF
  ... there are some that are not getting traction
  ... maybe because it's not really standards track
ChistopherA:  I'm sympathetic to the fact that we don't have time
  ... and the only things that's been shown that can be done is 
  the did resolution spec
  ... one is that we have this CCG report which has no 
  international standard and there are no laws around it
  ... what are the policies about how not to give information to 
  others
  ... they are all behind expensive paywalls
  ... and I'm disappointed that we haven't been able to deliver 
  on any of those things
  ... and as Joe has pointed out we haven't succeeded
  ... DIF and Hyperledger are not going to merge and are not here
  ... and I don't want W3C to be competitive with DIF
  ... once again it's the data hubs architecture is the 
  commonality
  ... and the marketplace has decided what's the winner and 
  choosing one now and making choices that lock you in now could be 
  a long term mistake
Kim Hamilton Duffy:   Trying to be in charge of too many things 
  is a sign we need to shift our roll
  ... I like not being able to use github
  ... and user stores
  ... when we started we put a lot of guards in to have fewer 
  work items
  ... I think now the backlog is more organized
  ... I'd be thrilled to help onboard new people
  ... doesn't need to be experienced in github
  ... I think there's also the idea of how to we make that 
  appealing
  ... I think CCG and documents like that and standards track 
  like that could be really useful
  ... our own organization systems are not very clear
  ... I would like to give a chance to take a different approach 
  to incubate different work items
Joe Andrieu:  One of the things that's happened is with the new 
  vc maintenance charter and we've been tasked with the work but we 
  don't have any staff support to do it
  ... is there any way to get staff resource?
  ... burn do you know anything?
ChistopherA:  mine is similar.  working groups need to have time 
  constraints
  ... but not having time limits is worse
  ... I've seen this in places with never ending coummunities 
  that never finish
  ... the VC work is a global international standard is done
  ... now it's the CCG responsibility to maintain the standard
  ... and there are these other works like the registries that 
  could go on perpetually
  ... I'm hoping we can here from some other people that aren't 
  going to leave their current communities but will will help out 
  here
Joe Andrieu:   How do we be more effective and how to we play 
  nicely with other groups in this space
  ... how can we coordinate
Nate Otto:   As a perspective of non W3C member, and so far the 
  w3c hasn't been at the top of the list for membership
  ... this group helps me keep tabs on other groups and IMS 
  global
  ... such as other groups working on other non-international 
  standards
Jeff Orgel:   As a bystander I want to say that the soul of this 
  community will be hard and I want to give a nod to all of the 
  good work being done here
Kim Hamilton Duffy:   I think to the more recent point about how 
  do we fit with other identity groups, there was a conversation 
  about what happens in DIF and what happens in Hyperledger
  ... I'm only saying that to give a more broad context
  ... it's becoming more murky over time
  ... I think at first it was more about developing prototypes
  ... I think specs and developing use cases is still a sweet 
  spot for us
  ... as someone who's involved in all of these groups, it's a 
  good point that this is a good entrypoint
  ... they can discuss something here and not worry a company is 
  going to patent it out from under them
  ... I'm interested in finding ways we can all work together but 
  I don't have good answer yet
Joe Andrieu:   Standards track work could go to DIF?
ChistopherA: please post to mailing list
Received on Friday, 8 November 2019 00:02:15 UTC

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