W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > April 2021

[MINUTES] W3C Verifiable Credentials HTTP API Call - 2021-04-22 12pm ET

From: W3C CCG Chairs <w3c.ccg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 17:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <6082161e.1c69fb81.46a0e.a498@mx.google.com>
Thanks to Heather Vescent for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's Verifiable Credentials HTTP API telecon are now available:

https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2021-04-22-vchttpapi 

Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes.
Audio from the meeting is available as well (link provided below).

----------------------------------------------------------------
VC HTTP API Special Topic Call Minutes for 2021-04-22

Agenda:
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2021Apr/0120.html
Topics:
  1. VC HTTP API Proposals Under Consideration
  2. Use Cases Document
  3. Scope of VC HTTP API
  4. VC HTTP API Specification Structure
Resolutions:
  1. Create a use cases and requirements document.
  2. We will strive to assign one primary Editor and one 
    secondary Editor (like peer programming) to the VC HTTP API Use 
    Cases Document with well defined responsibilities associated with 
    the position.
Organizer:
  Manu Sporny
Scribe:
  Heather Vescent
Present:
  Manu Sporny, Mike Prorock, Orie Steele, Anil John, Heather 
  Vescent, Markus Sabadello, Dmitri Zagidulin, Aaron Coburn, Adrian 
  Gropper, Dave Longley, Ted Thibodeau, Juan Caballero, Daniel 
  Hardman, Daniel Buchner, Joe Andrieu, Kayode Ezike, Geun Hyung, 
  Henry Story, Phil Long, Kaliya Young, Adrian Hope-Bailie
Audio:
  https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2021-04-22/audio.ogg

Heather Vescent is scribing.
Manu Sporny:  Giving introduction about the call
Heather Vescent:  I'm heather, co-chair of W3C Credentials CG - 
  we normally meet at 9am PT, 12pm ET on Tuesday mornings -- we 
  discuss pre-standards and tech topics associated with Verifiable 
  Credentials, Decentralized Identifiers, Privacy concerns, [scribe 
  assist by Manu Sporny]
Heather Vescent:  Special call today is to discuss VC HTTP API -- 
  community-driven work items -- multiple companies, multiple 
  people work together, and work on repos, code, reports, use cases 
  out there for broader community to use -- anyone can be a member 
  of the CCG, you don't have to be a member of W3C to do so. 
  [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
How to join the CCG: Anyone can participate in these calls. 
  However, all substantive
A. Ensure you have a W3 account: 
  https://www.w3.org/accounts/request
B. W3C COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTOR LICENSE AGREEMENT (CLA) - 
  https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/
Manu Sporny:  This is a continuation of the Tuesday CCG call.
<mprorock> if you are not used to jitsi and the slides are going 
  off the edge of your screen, close and reopen the chat and then 
  the screen share will fit
Manu Sporny:  Going through presentation: 
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2021Apr/att-0120/2021-VC-HTTP-API.pdf
Manu Sporny:  We are going to go through the API and address the 
  challenges
  ... currently only have a YAML file and missing a lot of other 
  documentation. We are going to address these issues with the goal 
  of concrete proposals the community can provide feedback on.
Explaining the queue: to add to the queue type "q+"
Use +1 if you agree -1 if not.

Topic: VC HTTP API Proposals Under Consideration

Manu Sporny:  We're going to be discussing these proposal today:

PROPOSAL:  Create a use cases and requirements document.

PROPOSAL:  Use Juan's Use Cases and requirements document as a 
  starting point.

PROPOSAL:  Create documented data flow diagrams and place them in 
  the Use Case document.

PROPOSAL:  Create 3 VC HTTP API ReSpec specifications (Issuing, 
  Verification, Presenting) in addition to the existing OAS file.

PROPOSAL:  Create 1 ReSpec specification with at least three 
  sections (Issuing, Verification, Presenting) in addition to the 
  existing OAS files.

PROPOSAL:  Restructure the OAS into multiple json / yaml files, 
  reusing JSON Schema and Tags

PROPOSAL:  Identify a Lead Editor and 1-2 supporting Editors for 
  each major section in the specification.

PROPOSAL:  Identify a single Lead Editor for the work item, and 
  define their responsibilities formally.

<juan_caballero> /me mortified to have major connection issues 
  while traveling. Plz no one call on me until I can actually hear 
  what's happening
Manu Sporny:  Going to start with these proposals

Topic: Use Cases Document

<daniel_hardman> Can someone add a link to Juan's use cases 
  requirements doc
<juan_caballero> Ack! (In the Kathy sense)
Manu Sporny:  There are no use cases documents. Juan has put one 
  together.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-u0_Ub6feiX6DH3jXFJFjt6n3CwKGpkmC3VISqDkWL4/edit?ts=607f0499
  ... do we want a use cases document
<juan_caballero> I posted link to github issue in community
<juan_caballero> Thanks!
Heather Vescent: +1 To use cases document
Michael_Herman: need to do some scoping. Would this protocol be 
  like zCaps/Authorization enabled? just as an example? I think we 
  need use cases form a scoping perspective.
Orie Steele: +1 To uses cases help define scope, which blocks 
  everything else.
Manu Sporny:  Agree. that is the goal. Help the use cases drive 
  the scope.
<orie> Agree with Daniel, there are use cases for both inside and 
  across trust domains, that have been discusseed
<orie> in that document.
Daniel Hardman:  The document looks to me to mix 2 concerns: 1: 
  backend behavior (green lines on the diagram) 2: interactions at 
  the front end, e.g. interacting with holders proving something. 
  And I'm wondering the intention? To broaden the scope?
Manu Sporny:  Yes that is the intention. There's a request to 
  broaden scope, but we need a use cases doc to have a conversation 
  about what hte scope is.
Daniel Buchner:  Is the intent to take Juan's document and we 
  just tweak it, or is it that everything is up for debate.
Manu Sporny:  Yes, we everything is up for debate in Juan's 
  document.
<juan_caballero> Full disclosure I was trying to 
  summarize.conversation up til.now in trace vocabulary
<juan_caballero> I am not opinionated or even knowledgeable just 
  tryna scribe
Heather Vescent:  I think that use cases documents are great, not 
  sure if Juan's document fits, I'm sure it has some good stuff, 
  use/iterate on - Daniel's concern - if we start from that 
  document, we can assume agreement on anything in it. [scribe 
  assist by Manu Sporny]
Orie Steele: Lets start by assuming we don't agree :)
<orie> but that we don't to come to agreement in a document.
Heather Vescent:  We could have an official use cases kick off 
  and that could be one, and others could add use cases from there. 
  Juan, don't feel like you're under the gun, you went above and 
  beyond in trying to help community with documentation. I know 
  your heart is in the right place, trying to help us work forward. 
  [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
<orie> * want to
Manu Sporny:  No argument about a use cases document. So going 
  forward about this. We will have a separate discussion about 
  using the content in Juan's document later.

PROPOSAL:  Create a use cases and requirements document.

Mike Prorock: +1
Daniel Hardman: +1
<joe_andrieu> 1
Orie Steele: +1
Markus Sabadello: +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1
  ... so now we are going to vote on Proposal. +1 you like -1 if 
  disagree
Manu Sporny: +1
Heather Vescent: +1
Dave Longley: +1
Anil John: +1
Kayode Ezike: +1
Adrian Gropper: +1
(You can also say "0" if you have no opinion)

RESOLUTION: Create a use cases and requirements document.

<mprorock> weeks?
Manu Sporny:  Second proposal: use Juan's document as a starting 
  point. We could give hte community a couple weeks to 
  iterate/edit/comment. Then we can make the decision as use cases 
  and requirements.
Juan Caballero: Can commit to 3 hours in next week :)
<orie> agree
<mprorock> agree
<orie> with joe
<juan_caballero> Doesn't need to be me or only me if more 
  interested parties have enough time
Orie Steele: -1 To joint ownership, it causes tragedy of the 
  commons
Heather Vescent:  I'm concerned about deciding owner, would like 
  broad/diverse ownership of use case document. Would like broader 
  community to provide input. Don't want to slow things down, but 
  not happy with way use cases have been done in the past, don't 
  want that to repeat in that in this case. [scribe assist by Manu 
  Sporny]
<orie> but agree with heather, that we should choose carefully
Orie Steele:  Don't want to see too many owners. and also 
  concerned about picking from who is here today. Need to make sure 
  this person is here to synthesize community consensus.
Mike Prorock: +1 Orie
Heather Vescent: +1 Orie - this is 100% my concern
Joe Andrieu: +1 For someone taking on the responsibility (and 
  that the best person may not be on this call)
<mprorock> is nominations for this a terrible idea?
Manu Sporny:  Ok to not pick the person today, but decide to pick 
  a strong lead.
Joe Andrieu: Also: co-editors can be productive, but I agree with 
  Orie that larger numbers start to dissipate the work
<orie> ^yep
  ... there needs to be one lead editor to lead consensus 
  quickly.
<orie> agree with Ted
Mike Prorock: +1 Ted
Ted Thibodeau:  One editor is often too few, five is too many, 
  two can be good. Sometimes things take longer for legit reason. 
  I'm bristling at the suggestion that things took time, the people 
  who agreed to do the work take time to do that.
Heather Vescent: +1 Ted, totally agree.
<juan_caballero> Thanks Ted
Manu Sporny:  Synthesizing proposal, at least two editors for 
  each document associated with the VC-HTTP-APi with well defined 
  responsibilities associated with the position.
<orie> There are always 2 Sith
Heather Vescent:  I think this can be an opportunity for growing 
  leadership -- one strong lead, one upcoming lead -- someone newer 
  to the community. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Heather Vescent:  The lead knows how things work and can 
  mentor/co-lead - kinda like pair programming. [scribe assist by 
  Manu Sporny]
<bblfish> Wondering if LDP/Solid could be used as an HTTP VC API 
  base point. But I don't yet have a good idea as to what the API 
  is meant to do. (I missed the beginning of the very short talk)
Mike Prorock: +1 Heather - this is an excellent opportunity for 
  that, especially as it is a content and consensus focused item
Orie Steele: +1
<juan_caballero> I could lead weakly
Juan Caballero: But have weak arms and weak understanding of api 
  politics :)
<orie> navigator and driver typically... but not really  
  appropriate for specss imo
Heather Vescent:  One strong, one learning... pairs w/ one strong 
  standards/W3C Editorial experience, and one that may not have 
  strong W3C experience. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
<michael_herman_(trusted_digital_web)> test
<orie> primary, secondary workss for me
<juan_caballero> Not sure.i understand the strong/weak analogy 
  hehe. Happy to be one of 2 or 3 if at least one ccg vet is in the 
  group
<orie> hmm
<mprorock> yes
Manu Sporny:  Modifying language based on feedback
<orie> we might take the same appraoch with other docs as well
+2

PROPOSAL:  We will strive to assign one primary Editor and one 
  secondary Editor (like peer programming) to the VC HTTP API Use 
  Cases Document with well defined responsibilities associated with 
  the position.

Orie Steele: +1
Heather Vescent: +1
Mike Prorock: +1
Daniel Hardman: +1
Kayode Ezike: +1
Manu Sporny: +1
Joe Andrieu: +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1
Aaron Coburn: +1
Adrian Gropper: +1
Dmitri Zagidulin: +1
Dave Longley: +1 (Peer and pair programming are different things, 
  which did we mean?)
Markus Sabadello: +1
Good catch dlongley, I guess I mashed them together lol
I kinda love peer programming lol

RESOLUTION: We will strive to assign one primary Editor and one 
  secondary Editor (like peer programming) to the VC HTTP API Use 
  Cases Document with well defined responsibilities associated with 
  the position.

<mprorock> can we set a timeline on selection?
<orie> yes
<orie> deferred for forvever for now
Manu Sporny:  We are defering hte responsibilities discussion to 
  a later time.
Manu Sporny:  Do you want to share use cases document
<michael_herman_(trusted_digital_web)> What assumptions, if any, 
  are there about where VCs are stored?
<dmitriz> @Michael - aren't any. out of scope for this api
<mprorock> @Michael Herman - at this moment that is pretty 
  contentious
Juan Caballero:  The conversation was about expanding the scope. 
  I was expanding a couple situations that expanded broker 
  situations. Many stakeholders who are not the subject of the 
  claims.
Juan's use case document: 
  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-u0_Ub6feiX6DH3jXFJFjt6n3CwKGpkmC3VISqDkWL4/edit?ts=607f0499
  ... was based on the architcture.md file
Juan Caballero:  Just getting a starting point, no strong 
  opinions
<orie> No comment on UCR
<juan_caballero> Yes
Manu Sporny:  This is missing a number of use cases that other 
  will also want. The suggestion is to work from the document. 
  Juan, is your expectation that others will add their use cases to 
  this document in say suggest mode?
<orie> Hopefully the UCR Editor will own upgrading this document.
<juan_caballero> Yes
  ... is everyone on the call comfortable in this document?
<juan_caballero> Troy had a diagram of some holder use cases and 
  markus mentioned some.verifier use cases
Manu Sporny:  Can we use this as a starting point?
<michael_herman_(trusted_digital_web)> So the http endpoint could 
  be an "agent" on top of a wallet ...or an EDV ...or whatever 
  ...at least for now

Topic: Scope of VC HTTP API

Adrian Gropper:  Are we assuming this is a scope document? Or the 
  scope doc comes after the use case doc.
<michael_herman_(trusted_digital_web)> Suggest a scope document 
  comes after
Heather Vescent:  I've looked quickly at the document, what might 
  be helpful is if we have a structured template, add a use case, 
  can include appropriate parts of use case. [scribe assist by Manu 
  Sporny]
Heather Vescent:  I don't think we need to have a big discussion 
  about template -- but maybe some of us who are used to this could 
  just async throw down a template chunsk and iterate from there 
  [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
<kayode_ezike> perhaps the lead(s) could create that template
<michael_herman_(trusted_digital_web)> Use the use case document 
  as the exploratory tool
Manu Sporny:  +1 Heather, having a template would helpe people 
  contiribute in a way that could help the editors.
Mike Prorock:  Echo as well. I would like to see the scope come 
  after the use cases are defined.
  .... a number of real world use cases with JSON payloads with 
  VCs weren't through through.Now we have real world use cases we 
  would like to use VCs/documented API for this. Concerned if we 
  scope first, will have current problem again.
<michael_herman_(trusted_digital_web)> Link to the statement?
Mike Prorock: +1 Joe
Joe Andrieu:  We have a partial scope. don't want to propose a 
  waterfall model. Have a statement in VC-HTTP-API for what that is 
  for. That sounds like a charter statement. But that may be the 
  right level of scoping to start from. The scope is going to 
  evolve as people say this use case is important to me.
Joe Andrieu: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-http-api
<joe_andrieu> a standard API specification for constructing and 
  verifying objects which conform to the Verifiable Credential Data 
  Model specification, along with documentation, integration and 
  compatability tests, and related assets for the test and 
  integration process.
<adrian_gropper> Can we include the "charter statement" as part 
  of the template?
Daniel Hardman:  There is an aspect of the scope that is 
  important and will color the use cases, whether the intention... 
  /lost audio
Daniel Hardman:  Concerned with the approach of let's put 
  everything in. we will waste cycles. Would like to see if we 
  agree scope on: internal parties or internal and external 
  parties.
  ... if we want to contemplate expanding that, we should address 
  that early.
<markus_sabadello> Original intention of VC HTTP API was 
  internal-only (but this doesn't mean that the scope can't evolve 
  from that)
Can someone explain the pro/con of keeping it internal only vs 
  internal and external?
<orie> Speaking for Transmute, we want interoperable APIs for 
  both internal and external use cases.
<orie> and are will to compromise to get both.
<adrian_gropper> I don't understand internal / external either
<orie> Adrian (cross origin / trust domain)
<daniel_hardman> right
<mprorock> speaking for mesur.io we need interoperable apis for 
  external usage (if internal, interoperability does not matter)
<daniel_hardman> external = crosses trust boundary
<orie> no such thing as "interop" built on internal APIs.... 
  alone.
<orie> at least for the strong version of interop.
Mike Prorock: +1 Dmitri
Adrian Gropper: +1 Heather
Daniel Hardman: -1 For external
<joe_andrieu> @mprorock interoperability is important for 
  substitutability of the back end.
<michael_herman_(trusted_digital_web)> Need zcap-style capability 
  authorization over the set of methods associated with different 
  types of VCs, for example ...e.g. lifecycle of a driver's license
<dmitri_zagidulin> @Daniel - ok but like... "internal API" 
  basically means "we don't care about security". which is not what 
  we want to go for here...
Henry Story: Agree with Orie. without understanding what this is 
  about, internal only APIs don't make sense. If you control the 
  client and the server you can pretty much make any API you want. 
  There is nearly no need for consensus. (There is some use: in 
  that library writers can built tools that work across silos)
Heather Vescent:  I feel like I barely have enough knowledge to 
  even have an opinion of this. There is a little of chicken and 
  egg here -- DHS SVIP have a good idea of this, but there are 
  others that don't know... chicken and egg, not helpful for those 
  that are not familiar. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
<tallted> internal/external feels more like 
  default-trusted/default-untrusted -- which sort-of fits firewall 
  delimiter, not necessarily enterprise delimiter.
<orie> internal api interop is also referred to as usable 
  software.
<tallted> interop can absolutely be a concern within the 
  firewall/enterprise.  just think about file-server and file-user.
Markus Sabadello:  Internal apis: this work item would not over 
  lap/compete with OpenID or CHAPI or DIDCom (external) this one is 
  one we considered internal. But that's just how we understood 
  originally.
<orie> yeah, S3 interop is a good example of the value of 
  standards based internal APIs
Daniel Hardman: @Bblfish: the current API was defined to be 
  internal only, and was justified because it would allow an 
  enterprise who consumes VC tech to swap out vendors. That is a 
  form of interop.
<orie> yep both forms are valuable.
Anil John:  +1 Heather's suggestion to need more information. I 
  will provide a consumer perspective. THe internal/external 
  framing that drove the original disctioning is at best 
  incomplete. The intent from the enterprise perspective, we need a 
  standard set of APIs implemented by a verifier/issues and used by 
  holder to interact with all of them. There is an opportunity to 
  switch providers without incuring a switching cost.
<mprorock> speaking for mesur.io - we need to issue, verify, 
  exchange, and retrieve VCs with third parties in a testable 
  manner - we hope that that can be a w3c spec, hopefully aligned 
  with the vc-http-api
Ted Thibodeau: +1 Anil's API-lock-in points
<bblfish> I hear about APIs, but is this really a question of 
  APIs or about vocabularies/ontologies?
  ... whatever ends up here, that we arrive at something that 
  makes vendors happy but enterprises and customers happy.
Henry Story:  No [scribe assist by Orie Steele]
<orie> its just api HTTP OAS 3
<dmitri_zagidulin> @bbl - it's really about the API
Adrian Gropper:  Agree with Heather's concern, I think it was 
  framed in a previous call, where the different of 
  interoperability - substitutability of an internal provider vs 
  one in the ecosystem.
Manu Sporny:  Gonna run the poll.
<anil_john> When speaking about APIs, we need to separate the 
  pipe and the payload. This is about the pipe and not about the 
  payload.
Manu Sporny: POLL: Is the VC HTTP API for external parties, 
  internal parties, both, or "I need more information to answer 
  that question"?
<mprorock> both
<mike_varley> both
<mahmoud> both
<joe_andrieu> internal
<acoburn> both
<orie> both
I need more information to answer that question
<manu> both
<phil.l> both
<agropper> Need more info
<daniel_hardman> emphatic "internal only"
Henry Story: Need more info :-)
<juan_caballero> Both
<identitywoman> killer whale Jello salad
<daniel_hardman> (Can I shout?)
<jtwalker2000> both
<anil_john> both
<markus_sabadello> +0.75 to both
<michael_herman_(trusted_digital_web)> More info
<tallted> both; I'd need more info to know whether to -1 on 
  either specific
<xavier_vila> internal
<juan_caballero> Haha can it be internal only with didcomm 
  attachment/option? Hehe
<joe_andrieu> Yep @juan, internal only is a policy rather than 
  technical boundary
Daniel Buchner:  I would like an opportunity to present on this. 
  Request.
<juan_caballero> That would work for me
For scheduling reasons
Orie Steele: +1 To regular meetings
<anil_john> Yup..  Would love to hear Daniel's perspective!
<orie> maybe the most important thing to have.
Meeting same time / day for next week.

Topic: VC HTTP API Specification Structure

PROPOSAL:  1 ReSpec, multiple OAS 3.0 files.

Manu Sporny:  Can we determine the structure of the 
  specification?
<identitywoman> we just had a conversation at IIW about how to 
  align different/competing credential and presentation exchange - 
  modalities - we had two good sessions - one yesterday a 2nd one 
  today and a third one just after this to plan next steps - so 
  would be great to see synergistic alignment. I will work to get 
  notes from those sessions done and available next week.
<markus_sabadello> Actually the very first version of the API did 
  have some functionality that could be considered external (e.g. 
  for refreshing a VC), but that functionality got removed in 
  subsequent versions.
<troy_ronda> We need a full credential exchange model that we can 
  use in production systems. An internal API just isn't enough.
<juan_caballero> ^ this was my understanding of scope
<anil_john> I think the IIW Killer Whale discussion is relevant 
  to this discussion, right?
<dmitri_zagidulin> @Anil - very much so
<juan_caballero> But also agree that scope needs r
<orie> emphatic -1 to 3 repsec documents
<identitywoman> yes @anil highly relevent
Juan Caballero: To be hammered out before use cases :)
<michael_herman_(trusted_digital_web)> Need a fully
<adrian_gropper> 3 specs
Manu Sporny:  Put yourself on the queue to provide input. 1 spec 
  with sections, or 3 specs and an overview doc
<juan_caballero> Thank you kaliya for managing that convo, will 
  read those notes before next mtg!
<daniel_hardman> Would the 3 specs be versioned together?
<daniel_hardman> How much redundancy would there be in 3 specs?
<manu> Daniel_Hardman, unknown right now
Orie Steele:  Repeat proposal from IRC: 1 ReSpec, multiple OAS 
  3.0 files. Markus already has a draft that looks great. Why 1 
  ReSpec vs multiple, one place to get info, see how they relate to 
  each other re: privacy concerns. If we split them up, could be 
  hard to compare, and then address privacy/security in 1 doc, can 
  provide better guidance to users as a whole.
Markus Sabadello:  +1 To Orie. I would propose the same thing.
Adrian Gropper:  Argue strongly for the 3 separate specs - not 
  any particular format. There is great asymmetry btwn holder and 
  issuer/verifier. If we don't force ourselves to separate, we will 
  make privacy analysis difficult.
<dmitri_zagidulin> I do want to point out that there is very much 
  asymmetry between different sections of a spec document. 
  like,that's expected
<orie> I think we agree Adrian, but you can't actually seperate 
  these things... you are making that problem worse, by splitting 
  things up.
Markus Sabadello: Draft PR to split open OpenAPI spec files: 
  https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-http-api/pull/178

PROPOSAL:  Create 1 ReSpec specification in addition to 
  separating the existing OAS files into modular components.

Orie Steele: +1
Heather Vescent: +1
Kayode Ezike: +1
Manu Sporny: +1
<daniel_hardman> 0
Phil Long: +1
Markus Sabadello: +1
Dave Longley: +1
Joe Andrieu: +1
Adrian Gropper: -1
Aaron Coburn: +1
Mike Prorock: +1
Kaliya Young: +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1   Strongly favor one spec with multiple 
  sections ... significantly but not only because any given 
  individual is likely to flip between roles, and devs needing to 
  flip between docs typically leads to problems when the user 
  role-flip comes up. (having one or two specs pass muster and the 
  other(s) fail would be worse than having the entire stack fail at 
  TR)
<juan_caballero> Joint privacy considerations and joint intro 
  sound good to me
<daniel_hardman> Can we do multiple html files even if it's one 
  spec?
<daniel_hardman> (using ReSpec's glue-together feature?)
<dmitri_zagidulin> @Daniel - seems reasonable.
<anil_john> We need unanious agreement at CCG?
<orie> @DH yep
<mprorock> @Daniel - yes - would be a fan
<juan_caballero> Gnap?
<orie> GNO
<mprorock> @anil basically
Adrian Hope-Bailie:  What I would like to see is the document 
  speak to the prescription or referral use case that I often 
  champion. If it can be done with one specification, fine.
<anil_john> So unanimous agreement and not consensus?
<identitywoman> consensus means unanimous agreement Anil
Strong disagreement Anil.
<juan_caballero> Adrian can u write that out ?
<identitywoman> this was an issue with NSTIC and I told them that 
  the word didn't mean what they thought it means.
<juan_caballero> Scribe missed it
<anil_john> No it DOES NOT! It just means that everyone can live 
  w/ the decision
Manu Sporny:  Next meeting: same time/same place.  Thank you all.
<identitywoman> mmm...
Manu Sporny:  Here is the W3C definition of consensus for those 
  that are curious -- 
  https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#Consensus -- it's a 
  critical read [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
<mike_varley> thanks all
Received on Friday, 23 April 2021 00:35:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 23 April 2021 00:35:06 UTC