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

Re: VC HTTP API Telecon Minutes for 2021-07-13

From: Alan Karp <alanhkarp@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 17:58:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CANpA1Z0rztqUS7+fTjHao9pdr=mf5HZWbzQSznXrhoCFkLBBXw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Adrian Gropper:  Just to make sure how we are using Client
  Credentials: does that mean there can be no delegation?
<justin_richer> yes, that's exactly what that means
  ... by the whoever is in control of the credential - whether
  the subject (typically)...
  ... Is this making a statement on the ability to delegate?
Orie Steele: https://oauth.net/2/grant-types/client-credentials/
Manu Sporny:  It is saying you cannot delegate if you are using
  OAuth2 Client Credentials, but not saying you can't use another
  protocol than Client Credentials


There is a long history of trying to prevent delegation, SPKI (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2692) being the most notable.  The
RFC even says, "but there's nothing to stop someone who wishes to delegate
against the rules from also loaning out their private key."  The inability
to prevent credential sharing means that blocking delegation results in a
system that is harder to use, because people must use ad hoc mechanisms to
share the credentials, and less secure, because people end up granting much
more authority than they need to.

--------------
Alan Karp


On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 4:59 PM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> Thanks to Charles E. Lehner for scribing this week! The minutes
> for this week's Verifiable Credentials HTTP API telecon are now available:
>
> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2021-07-13-vchttpapi
>
> Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes.
> Audio from the meeting is available as well (link provided below).
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Verifiable Credentials HTTP API Telecon Minutes for 2021-07-13
>
> Agenda:
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2021Jul/0067.html
> Topics:
>   1. Use Cases Update
>   2. Pull Requests - Revocation API
>   3. Issue Processing - Revocation API Proposal
>   4. Authorization Proposals
> Resolutions:
>   1. The VC HTTP API work item group will separate GNAP from
>     OAuth2 until it is clear how much extra work GNAP would add
>     within the scope of the specification.
>   2. One of the authorization mechanisms defined for the
>     VC-HTTP-API MUST be OAuth 2 Bearer tokens.
>   3. How a VC HTTP API server validates an authorization token is
>     out of scope.
>   4. One of the authorization protocols that will be defined for
>     use in the VC-HTTP-API MUST be OAuth 2 Client Credentials.
>   5. One of the authorization mechanisms defined for the VC HTTP
>     API MUST be GNAP key-bound access tokens.
> Organizer:
>   Manu Sporny
> Scribe:
>   Charles E. Lehner
> Present:
>   Manu Sporny, Charles Edebiri, Mike Prorock, Justin Richer, Brian
>   Sletten, Orie Steele, Sanuja (Diwala), Mahmoud Alkhraishi,
>   Charles E. Lehner, Brent Zundel, Markus Sabadello, Eric Schuh,
>   Juan Caballero, Joe Andrieu, Aaron Coburn, Phil L (P1), Adrian
>   Gropper, Michael Herman, Marty Reed, Ted Thibodeau
> Audio:
>   https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2021-07-13/audio.ogg
>
> Charles E. Lehner is scribing.
> Manu Sporny:  Getting started
> Manu Sporny:  Welcome to the VC HTTP API call for ~June~ July 13,
>   2021
> Manu Sporny:  Agenda: intros, updates on use cases, PR issue
>   processing, authorization discussion
> Manu Sporny:  If anyone has Adrian's contact info, please ping
>   him so he can be on the call
> Manu Sporny:  Most of call on authorization proposals. Any
>   updates/changes to agenda?
>   ... Anyone new on the call today?
>   ... Anyone want to re-introduce themselves?
>   ... Changes in job, living situation, etc.
>   ... Moving on to Use Cases update.
>
> Topic: Use Cases Update
>
> Eric Schuh:  Reached end up initial use case triaging. have five
>   in the well-formed category. general plan is to move from the
>   google doc back into github to a document more like the did or vc
>   use cases document, starting with those five.
>   ... We'll be working on putting that together through the next
>   week or two. Still plenty of time for thoughts and feedback.
> Juan Caballero:  Sounds good. My only comment is that we have a
>   bunch of well-formed ones that are currently usable, and a couple
>   - not a really good spread yet of interesting holder use cases
>   yet - that might just have to come with time; feel like that is
>   the murkiest of the 3 scopes. Semantic fields... might have to
>   proceed with less coverage for now.
>   ... Will present with more detail in 2 meetings.
> Manu Sporny:  Do you want to put aside time on agenda to go
>   through it?
> Juan Caballero:  Maybe ten minutes next call, to do quick review
>   of the ones we're more confident of - to scan them a minute each.
>   Good this week not presenting
> Manu Sporny:  Thank you for the update. Really appreciate your
>   work on tha document. Important to get it into shape for people
>   to look at.
>
> Topic: Pull Requests - Revocation API
>
> Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-http-api/pull/211
> Manu Sporny:  Pull Request 211 is basically about a revocable
>   indicator. It raises the question of how do we say that a VC
>   should be revoked.
>   ... End result is the group needs to discuss it.
> Orie Steele:  To summarize one more time, the way the API works
>   today, if you want to issue a revocable credential, you must
>   construct a flawless credential to hand to the API. So the index
>   must be handled by you when you call the issuer API. Putting a
>   big burden on the caller, but keeps the API simple.
>   ... I think either we need to document that better, or change
>   its behavior.
>   ... I'm requesting changes since would rather document would
>   have, and today you have to submit a credential with a credential
>   status for revocation status
> Manu Sporny:  Two options... what do you want to do next? Raise
>   another PR to do what you said, or have discussion and then raise
>   PR?
> Orie Steele:  I want the changes I'm requesting to be implemented
>   on the PR that's open, instead of doing what it's doing now. I'll
>   continue requesting changes until it has that behavior.
>   ... Full disclosure: he is on our team. He's on vacation now.
>   When he gets back, I'll have him update it.
> <adrian_gropper> Sorry to be late - family issues
> Manu Sporny:  Thank you, that covers that PR
>
> Topic: Issue Processing - Revocation API Proposal
>
> Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-http-api/issues/204
> Manu Sporny:  Issue 204... has to do with the PR... Question
>   about how we are doing revocation lists. Orie?
> Orie Steele:  If you want to use RevocationList2020 as a way of
>   managing revocation list credentials, you can in fact do that
>   with the current API. You just need to know how to construct your
>   revocation credential to have it issued. Then have it hosted
>   somewhere resolvable. Then consume indexes...
>   ... Comments before about issuer endpoint not describing...
>   Issue is about are we are really testing revocation
>   interoperably, or just that people can make well-formed JSON-LD.
>   ... There is a question here about how the interoperability
>   tests could cover or not revocation. I'm proposing we not until
>   document how it currently works,
>   ... to say you can already, and how. Then decide if want tests
>   to cover it.
> Manu Sporny:
>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-http-api/issues/204#issuecomment-877641360
> Manu Sporny:  I've added a comment that proposes part of what
>   Orie... I think we're agreed the first step is document what's
>   happening today.
>   ... We could provide an option. Issuer specifies type of
>   revocation list, magic happens on issuer.
> <orie> I am in favor of your proposal AFTER we complete
>   documenting the current behavior :)
>   ... If they want to manage that list using some other
>   mechanism, they can do that by putting a full-blown piece of data
>   in the credential - basically what we're doing today - or have
>   the issuer ... manage it
>   ... +1 to document current behavior. Expectation is updating PR
>   to document current behavior; then discuss issue, update
>   documentation to match the proposal
> Markus Sabadello:  In this issue, one point brought up is that
>   credentials don't require an id. Is that relevant to this issue?
>   I find the issue not generally very well described - don't
>   understand from comment. Is it related to the topic of
>   credentials having id?
> Orie Steele:  You can't revoke credentials by id if it doesn't
>   have an ID. The current API assumes credentials that will be
>   revocable will have an id.
> Markus Sabadello:  Is this what manu's suggestion is about or
>   something else?
> Orie Steele:  I think not the same thing. Are you asking about a
>   revocation system that works with credentials that don't have an
>   id.
> Markus Sabadello:  I'm not sure I understand issue 204. Starts
>   with example... but no explanation. Then suggestion by Manu that
>   I don't understand what has to do with the first comment... Maybe
>   just me not understanding
> Manu Sporny:  My suggestion, Markus, is that you raise that
>   question in the issue so that we can clarify and continue the
>   discussion there
> Markus Sabadello:  I did that
> Manu Sporny:  It's clear that it's not clear. We'll have to
>   clarify that later on. I don't think it's the same question, as
>   Orie said, but wouldn't be surprised if others are also wondering
>   the scope of the question. We'll put it on the agenda.
> Manu Sporny:  Noting that Adrian is here, let's switch to the
>   topic of authorization.
>   ... Please folks provide feedback on 204 if you have a strong
>   feeling on what the API should support.
>
> Topic: Authorization Proposals
>
> Manu Sporny:  These proposals were circulated on the mailing list
>   and debated heavily. Have been having discussion for about a
>   month now.
>   ... These are kindof the proposals that have resulted. I'm
>   going to put as pre-proposals here. Effectively the same as what
>   was on the mailing list.
> Manu Sporny: PRE-PROPOSAL: The VC HTTP API work item group will
>   not separate GNAP from OAuth2 until it is clear how much extra
>   work GNAP would add within the scope of the VC-HTTP API
>   specification once that scope is established by consensus.
> Manu Sporny: PRE-PROPOSAL: The VC HTTP API work item group will
>   separate GNAP from OAuth2 until it is clear how much extra work
>   GNAP would add within the scope of the specification.
> Manu Sporny: PRE-PROPOSAL: One of the authorization mechanisms
>   for the VC-HTTP-API MUST be OAuth 2 Bearer tokens.
> Manu Sporny: PRE-PROPOSAL: How a VC HTTP API server validates an
>   authorization token is out of scope.
> Manu Sporny: PRE-PROPOSAL: One of the authorization protocols for
>   the VC-HTTP-API MUST be OAuth 2 Client Credentials.
> Manu Sporny: PRE-PROPOSAL: One of the authorization mechanisms
>   for the VC-HTTP-API SHOULD be GNAP key-bound access tokens.
>   ... Adrian, I've modified yours to replace "We" with "the VC
>   HTTP API work item group"
> Manu Sporny: PRE-PROPOSAL: How a VC HTTP API client gets an
>   authorization token is out of scope.
> Manu Sporny: PRE-PROPOSAL: The VC HTTP API MUST define access
>   actions in terms of OAuth 2 RAR structures.
> Manu Sporny:  I believe we'll try to take them in that order.
>   ... Adrian, I've promised we would try to take your proposals
>   up.
>   ... Because it has been so difficult to achieve unanimous
>   consensus: on these proposals we are going to try for consensus;
>   if we don't reach it, we are going to back up to a majority vote.
>   ... Folks are getting frustrated and want to see forward
>   progress; this is one way to do it
>   ... Proposals with highest votes will go forward
>   ... Starting off with your proposal
> Manu Sporny:  We'll consider OAuth and GNAP together until it's
>   clear that one is too much work
>   ... we'll have a counter-proposal afterwards that changes "will
>   not separate" to "will separate"
>
> PROPOSAL:  The VC HTTP API work item group will not separate GNAP
>   from OAuth2 until it is clear how much extra work GNAP would add
>   within the scope of the VC-HTTP API specification once that scope
>   is established by consensus.
>
> Justin Richer: -1
> Adrian Gropper: +1
> Joe Andrieu: -1
> Orie Steele: -1
> <marty_reed> 0
> Mahmoud Alkhraishi: -1
> Mike Prorock: -1
> Manu Sporny: -1
> Charles Edebiri: -1
> <markus_sabadello> 0
> <michael_herman_(trusted_digital_web)> 0
> Manu Sporny:  Holding off a little longer... have 21 people on
>   the call
> <phil_l_(p1)> 0
> <eric_schuh> 0
>   ... not a popular proposal; let's try the opposite
>   ... that we could make decisions on one and not tie them
>   together
>
> PROPOSAL:  The VC HTTP API work item group will separate GNAP
>   from OAuth2 until it is clear how much extra work GNAP would add
>   within the scope of the specification.
>
> Manu Sporny: +1
> Justin Richer: -1 (These aren't the right questions at all)
> <marty_reed> 0
> <eric_schuh> 0
> Mike Prorock: +1
> Mahmoud Alkhraishi: +1
> Charles Edebiri: +1
> <aaron_coburn> 0
> <markus_sabadello> 0
> Orie Steele: -1
> Manu Sporny:  Adrian, do you want to speak after or before the
>   proposal
> Adrian Gropper:  Before. It's unclear, since you left the clause
>   in there about "until it's clear how much extra work it is" which
>   was the whole point of the first proposal
> <orie> (reason being GNAP should be ruled 100% out of scope)
>   ... so as it is, it's unclear what we're voting on
> <justin_richer> @Orie completely and wholeheartedly disagree with
>   that argument
>   ... My point is if we don't have a scope in mind, and unsure
>   about the work, why arguing
> Manu Sporny:  Proposal is to keep them separate until it's clear
>   how much work GNAP would be, until it's clear the group wants to
>   work on GNAP and OAuth2 together
> Adrian Gropper: +0
> Adrian Gropper: -1
> <michael_herman_(trusted_digital_web)> 0
> <agropper> CHANGED VOTE
>   ... waiting a bit more for people to weigh in
> <mprorock> +.5
> Orie Steele:
>
>
> https://auth0.com/docs/libraries/auth0-single-page-app-sdk#get-access-token-with-popup
> Juan Caballero:  Maybe would change the proposal a lot, but is
>   the proposal to try to talk only about OAuth until the scope is
>   clear enough to reconsider how much work GNAP is ...?
> <juan_caballero_(spruce)> +.5
> Manu Sporny:  That is what the proposal is attempting to put out
>   there.
> Juan Caballero:  That makes it easier, thanks.
> <justin_richer> @Orie change "scope" to "authorization_details"
>   and that's what I'm saying ...
> <justin_richer> or have been saying all along
> <justin_richer> <-- I'm on the queue
> Manu Sporny:  There is more support for this proposal than the
>   other one. Since these are two sides of the same coin, I'm going
>   to resolve this as the group's current position, at least as a
>   majority vote. Other decisions may influence this.
> Justin Richer:  I wholeheartedly disagree with that. This hasn't
>   been defined as to what "more work is", "separation" is, any
>   pieces of this. I cannot possibly agree to either of these
>   proposals on any of these grounds
>   ... Furthermore I think they are not asking the right
>   questions.
>   ... The differences here that I think people are talking about
>   shouldn't even be in consideration of scope for this working
>   group
>   ... I understand you want to lean back on majority work, but
>   think it is a disservice to this group
> Orie Steele: PROPSAL: the vc-http-api will only define OAuth 2.0
>   scopes using the string and colon syntax.
> Manu Sporny:  Thank you; do you have a proposal that you think
>   would gain majority vote on this topic?
> Justin Richer:  Proposals I would try to spitball over voice
>   amount to: the working group must define RAR type values for each
>   component; the API must define a means to accept OAuth2 bearer
>   access tokens and a means to accept GNAP key-bound bearer tokens
>   as defined in the specification
>   ... Don't say anything about ..... details where OAuth2 and
>   GNAP differ - which should be clearly out of scope. This API
>   should not care about any of that happening.
> <orie> GNAP and RAR should be out of scope. OAuth 2.0 and string
>   colon syntax should be in scope.
> Adrian Gropper: +1 Justin
>   ... Which is why I had such a visceral reaction to the client
>   credentials proposals on the ML. This API shouldn't care how I
>   got the token, just .... and that the token has ... rights
> <justin_richer> what do you mean "string-colon syntax"?
>
> RESOLUTION: The VC HTTP API work item group will separate GNAP
>   from OAuth2 until it is clear how much extra work GNAP would add
>   within the scope of the specification.
>
> Manu Sporny:  Thank you Justin. These proposals are in an order,
>   and those are coming up. I understand you disagree with this one;
>   noted
>   ... in scribing. Resolved and moving on
>
> PROPOSAL:  One of the authorization mechanisms for the
>   VC-HTTP-API MUST be OAuth 2 Bearer tokens.
>
>   ... Hopefully straightforward. Questions?
> <orie> justin_r see https://petstore3.swagger.io/ or
>
>
> https://auth0.com/docs/libraries/auth0-single-page-app-sdk#get-access-token-with-popup
>
>   for examples
> Justin Richer:  Is it mandatory to implement, or for the
>   specification to define?
> Manu Sporny:  It is must implement. The specification must define
>   it, and you must implement at least this.
> Justin Richer:  Thank you for the clarification
> Manu Sporny:  Do others in the group feel we should re-word this
>   to make it clear?
> Justin Richer: @Orie: RAR was invented to get away from
>   structured scopes because they are dangerous.
>   ... Is it clear what the question is asking based on Justin's
>   clarification, or need to reword?
> <justin_richer> @Orie I know because I invented colon-separated
>   structured scopes over a decade ago and know my mistakes :P
>
> PROPOSAL:  One of the authorization mechanisms for the
>   VC-HTTP-API MUST be OAuth 2 Bearer tokens.
>
> Manu Sporny: +1
> Justin Richer: -1
> Orie Steele: +1
> Adrian Gropper: -1
> Mike Prorock: +1
>   ... No change; the assumption is that one of the mechanisms
>   defined in the specification is going to be OAuth2 bearer tokens,
>   and an implementation must implement it. There's the proposal
> <eric_schuh> 0
> Mahmoud Alkhraishi: +1
> <marty_reed> 0
> <aaron_coburn> 0
> <michael_herman_(trusted_digital_web)> 0
> <justin_richer> (reason for -1: MTI and mandatory-to-define are
>   separate questions; API spec should define but not mandate use)
> Markus Sabadello: -1
> <juan_caballero_(spruce)> or @markus
>
> PROPOSAL:  One of the authorization mechanisms defined for the
>   VC-HTTP-API MUST be OAuth 2 Bearer tokens.
>
> Manu Sporny:  Is there a variation to this proposal, Justin,
>   Markus, that would change your -1 to a +1?
> <justin_richer> or more specifically:
> Markus Sabadello:  I have to admit I haven't fully thought
>   through and followed the discussion on OAuth 2 and all that; but
>   probably there are legitimate implementations of this API that
>   don't do OAuth 2 bearer tokens. Don't feel it's right to make it
>   a requirement to support it. Could change to SHOULD instead of
>   MUST
> <justin_richer> actually no:
> Manu Sporny:  Concern about the second proposal is it may get
>   -1s. Could split apart to say the spec must define it
>   ... Proposal is to pick up Justin's proposal ...
> <mprorock> why do we need RAR defined as a part of this proposal
> <justin_richer> @mprorock because otherwise it's just "get a
>   token somehow"
>
> PROPOSAL:  One of the authorization mechanisms defined for the
>   VC-HTTP-API MUST be OAuth 2 Bearer tokens.
>
> Manu Sporny: +1
> <justin_richer> and not "this kind of token can do these actions
>   on this API"
> Mahmoud Alkhraishi: +1
> Mike Prorock: +1
> <justin_richer> +0.5 (should be RAR)
> Orie Steele: +1
> Manu Sporny:  Basically saying the spec will define it; we
>   haven't said about whether you have to implement it
> Marty Reed: +1
> Joe Andrieu: +1
> <markus_sabadello> +0.5
> Adrian Gropper: -1 Must be RAR
> Eric Schuh: +1
> <michael_herman_(trusted_digital_web)> 0
> <justin_richer> if it's not defined as RAR by the spec, you get
>   people doing stupid ideas like colon-separated structure strings
>   for scopes :)
> Manu Sporny:  This is looking better. Adrian, we'll pick up the
>   RAR proposal later. Does that change your -1, or are you asking
>   specifically to bind the decision to having to use OAuth + RAR?
> <orie> yeah, i guess calling okta and auth 0 stupid is the kind
>   of inclusive and enterprise security culture we are lookin
>   for....
>
> RESOLUTION: One of the authorization mechanisms defined for the
>   VC-HTTP-API MUST be OAuth 2 Bearer tokens.
>
> Adrian Gropper:  I'm still grappling with the issue to understand
>   OAuth2 in our context. So don't worry... I can't speak to this
>   decision. Justin says SHOULD... so I'm happy with SHOULD.
> <justin_richer> that's not a normative should I'm arguing for,
>   fwiw...
> <mprorock> if it is not defined as RAR we can work with
>   commercial implementations out in the wild that are already using
>   our implementation of vc-http-api
> <juan_caballero_(spruce)> /me
>   what:an:embarassing:way:to:find:out:justin:thinks:i'm:stupid:D
> <mprorock> btw - i like RAR in principle
> Manu Sporny:  Moving on to whether implementations should
>   implement this. Or release some pressure and delay that decision.
>   This is a good position already. Unless people want to settle
>   this now, whether an implementation MUST or SHOULD implement it.
>   ... Do people want to put that before the group?
> Joe Andrieu: +1 To defer
>   ... seeing no opposition to that approach, going on to the next
>   proposal
>
> PROPOSAL:  How a VC HTTP API server validates an authorization
>   token is out of scope.
>
>   ... Next proposal: to put how an authorization token is
>   validated out of scope.
> Justin Richer: +1
> Adrian Gropper: +1
> Manu Sporny: +1
> Markus Sabadello: +1
> Marty Reed: +1
>   ... basically says the vc-http-api server is going to get an
>   authorization token as input, and the spec is not going to define
>   how that is a valid authorization token; it's out of scope; i
>   believe Justin proposed this on a previous call
> Eric Schuh: +1
> Orie Steele: +1
> Mike Prorock: +1
> Joe Andrieu: +1
> Mahmoud Alkhraishi: +1
>   ... holding a little longer... looking good
>
> RESOLUTION: How a VC HTTP API server validates an authorization
>   token is out of scope.
>
> Manu Sporny:  Good; my expectation is everyone already thought
>   that was out of scope, but good to get that on the record.
>   ... Next proposals have to do withi GNAP key-bound access
>   tokens and a protocol. request Orie had that one of the
>   authorization protocols must be OAuth2 client credentials. We
>   could change it in the same way Justin suggested we change the
>   other proposal...
> <mprorock> one of the possible... ?
>   ... Basically a "spec will define" thing.
> <orie> going from 0 authorization to 1 is the hardest :)
> <justin_richer> rewording won't make me like it more, fwiw...
>   ... One of the authorization protocols that would be defined
>   for use in the VC HTTP API must be OAuth2 client credentials
> Manu Sporny: PRE-PROPOSAL: One of the authorization protocols
>   that will be defined for use in the VC-HTTP-API MUST be OAuth 2
>   Client Credentials.
> Adrian Gropper:  Just to make sure how we are using Client
>   Credentials: does that mean there can be no delegation?
> <justin_richer> yes, that's exactly what that means
>   ... by the whoever is in control of the credential - whether
>   the subject (typically)...
>   ... Is this making a statement on the ability to delegate?
> Orie Steele: https://oauth.net/2/grant-types/client-credentials/
> Manu Sporny:  It is saying you cannot delegate if you are using
>   OAuth2 Client Credentials, but not saying you can't use another
>   protocol than Client Credentials
> Orie Steele:
>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6749#section-4.4
>   ... Meaning you can use GNAP, ZCaps, other mechanisms, we just
>   haven't all agreed to define that yet.
>   ... Does that help?
> Adrian Gropper:  I understand the explanation; I will vote
>   against Client Credentials given the context
> Mike Prorock:  Adding context... Understand the need for
>   delegation... There are tons of use cases, specifically in a
>   system-to-system context (e.g. supply chain use cases) where
>   delegation might not make sense, which is where the OAuth path
>   well established in enterprise is simplist to go forward
>   ... Important to say this is not the only forward
>   ... Would not say is only path forward; important to say other
>   more privacy-preserving use cases have paths, use cases other
>   than my own
> <agropper> Delegation is an essential human right - as the "law
>   of Agency" - it cannot be optional
>   ... There are other use cases beyond the scenarios we are
>   thinking of, that have broad adoption in the marketplace
> <justin_richer> /me puts soapbox away...
> Mike Prorock: +1 Understand
> Manu Sporny:  I appreciate that statement. We don't want everyone
>   to go on their soapbox. Have done that on the mailing list.
> <juan_caballero_(spruce)> /me just realized there was soap in
>   here
>   ... Want to get to proposals; don't have a lot of time.
>
> PROPOSAL:  One of the authorization protocols that will be
>   defined for use in the VC-HTTP-API MUST be OAuth 2 Client
>   Credentials.
>
> Manu Sporny:  Let's go ahead and run the proposal. To Mike's
>   point: this is saying that *one* of the protocols (not making
>   others illegal) that will be defined will be OAuth2 Client
>   Credentials
> Justin Richer: -1: The spec should have no say in the details of
>   how the token was gotten, this is unnecessarily limiting and
>   narrow for no benefit -- there's no need to call this out
>   explicitly. I would go further negative on the scale if possible.
> Orie Steele: +1
> Mike Prorock: +1
> Adrian Gropper: -1 Agency for the subject cannot be optional
> Manu Sporny: +1
> Ted Thibodeau: +1
> <marty_reed> 0
> <joe_andrieu> 0
> Mahmoud Alkhraishi: +1
> <eric_schuh> 0
> <justin_richer> to me this isn't about closing a door, it's about
>   defining a door we shouldn't
> <markus_sabadello> -0.5
> Ted Thibodeau:  I'm reaching an extreme level of frustration with
>   the blockage that is unquestionably coming from Adrian. We are
>   not closing doors to the other things he wants to do - which we
>   think are good - But he is throwing out the baby with the
>   bathwater. That's not okay here
> Manu Sporny:  Thanks for the input. That is the reason we have
>   moved to majority vote rather than consensus.
>   ... The reason there is pushback is there are people in the
>   group that feel this is a door we should not define - and
>   legitimate reasons
>   ... Reminder to please not litigate; we've done that over the
>   past month
> <justin_richer> This is a mistake and will hurt the
>   interoperability of the specification.
> Manu Sporny:  Resolving this, moving to the next one.
>
> RESOLUTION: One of the authorization protocols that will be
>   defined for use in the VC-HTTP-API MUST be OAuth 2 Client
>   Credentials.
>
>   ... The next item up is that one of the authorization
>   mechanisms for the VC HTTP API should be GNAP key-bound access
>   tokens
> Manu Sporny: PRE-PROPOSAL: One of the authorization mechanisms
>   for the VC-HTTP-API SHOULD be GNAP key-bound access tokens.
>   ... Justin, do you want to modify this in any way
> Justin Richer:  Yes, use same language as before - mechanisms
>   defined by the API - and MUST - talking about inclusion in the
>   API, not mandatory for use
> Manu Sporny: PRE-PROPOSAL: One of the authorization mechanisms
>   defined for the VC HTTP API MUST be GNAP key-bound access tokens.
>
> PROPOSAL:  One of the authorization mechanisms defined for the VC
>   HTTP API MUST be GNAP key-bound access tokens.
>
> Justin Richer:  That looks right to me
> <justin_richer> +1, it's an option to define
> Adrian Gropper: +1
> Mahmoud Alkhraishi: +1
> <mprorock> +.25 (like it in principle, but can't find a good gnap
>   impl anywhere)
> Orie Steele: -1
> Marty Reed: +1
> Joe Andrieu: -1
> <manu> -0.5 maybe later, want to focus on client credentials for
>   now.
> Markus Sabadello: +1
> <tallted> -0.2 GNAP seems too immature to MUST
> <eric_schuh> 0
> Justin Richer:  I just want to point out that if we limit the
>   scope of the WG to what i have been proposing, then the
>   definitions for OAuth2 and GNAP are effectively no different from
>   one another, and do not rely on the inner workings of either
>   protocol - which is why I am strongly against the definition of
>   client credentials - think that is way too far for an API to
>   define
>   ... For everyone saying this does not meet immediate commercial
>   objectives: I cannot buy this API off the shelf either.
> Manu Sporny:  Given where we are with this, I'm not going to run
>   the counter proposal, as I think it would be damaging.
>   ... If we follow that line of reasoning, it should become
>   obvious... Leaving the door open
> <justin_richer> it becomes especially obvious if you use RAR to
>   define access
> <mprorock> @Justin there are commercial and open source
>   implementations of the vc-http-api today fyi
> <juan_caballero_(spruce)> +1, would love to see some examples of
>   how hard/easy/deterministically a GNAP equivalent can be
>   derived/generated with concrete examples
> <justin_richer> @mprorock but the spec isn't finished yet, it's
>   not mature :P
> <mprorock> @justin ;)
> Adrian Gropper:  Buy the rules of majority voting today, I would
>   say it resolved as much as the previous ones.
> Justin Richer:  I agree, for what it's worth
> Manu Sporny:  I'm looking...
> <justin_richer> (thank you scribe, sorry for jumping queue)
>   ... That's correct
>   ... We'll resolve it as majority-supported; apologies for that.
> Joe Andrieu:  I would not have consented that we went from
>   consensus to bare majority. That's huge, like brexit. Is that the
>   policy here?
> Manu Sporny:  Just for this call
> <mahmoud> for future we should do supermajority
> Joe Andrieu:  Let's not do this again
>   ... I agree we don't have consensus... but disagree about it
>   becoming policy
> Mike Prorock: +1 Mahmoud - supermajority would be much better
> Manu Sporny:  Agreed
> Joe Andrieu:  Appreciated trying to get through the bottlenecks
>
> RESOLUTION: One of the authorization mechanisms defined for the
>   VC HTTP API MUST be GNAP key-bound access tokens.
>
> Manu Sporny:  Resolved, as the way we're running the call
>   ... Last proposal... think it's pretty straightforward
> Manu Sporny: PRE-PROPOSAL: The VC HTTP API MUST define access
>   actions in terms of OAuth 2 RAR structures.
> Justin Richer:  Just to mirror point on previous ones: this is
>   something the spec has to define. If you want to use horrible
>   colon-delimited scope strings, go ahead; this is saying what the
>   spec defines, not what is mandatory to use. Want the group to
>   keep that in mind
> Manu Sporny:  Justin, are you ok with this wording?
> Manu Sporny: PRE-PROPOSAL: The VC HTTP API MUST define access
>   actions (stuff you can do with the API) in terms of OAuth 2 RAR
>   structures.
> Justin Richer:  As long as it's clear that access actions are
>   "stuff you can do with the API"
> Mike Prorock: -1 Not well enough detined
>   ... That's fine Don't know how informal you want it to be.
>   Thanks
> Manu Sporny:  Mike, not yet running proposal. -1 about wording of
>   proposal?
>   ... How would you change the proposal to be better defined?
> Mike Prorock:  Something... to make clear that based on the
>   previous proposals it's not just GNAP, OAuth2, then we should
>   define access actions, and then what those structures are.
> Manu Sporny:  Makes sense, but doesn't help me write the proposal
> Justin Richer:  I hear you on the call for clarity, but the
>   exceptions you are asking for are already incorporated into the
>   looseness of the proposal text, at least how I read it
> <mprorock> that helps justin
>   ... The spec says that for this action, you have a RAR type
>   with fields... there for you to use if using ... access token.
> <mprorock> thanks
>   ... Saying is there and available, not mandating particular use
> Manu Sporny:  Noting we are out of time. Will bring this up on
>   the next call.
>   ... Thanks everyone for your feedback, I know this was a rough
>   call, but I think we've made progress, which is good, unsticks
>   us.
> <justin_richer> by e all
>   ... Have a wonderful week.
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021)
> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2021 00:59:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 14 July 2021 00:59:59 UTC