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

[MINUTES] W3C CCG Verifiable Credentials API Call - 2021-11-09

From: CCG Minutes Bot <ccgminutes@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2021 14:54:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <618afc1d.1c69fb81.31967.744c@mx.google.com>
Thanks to Dmitri Zagidulin for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's Verifiable Credentials API telecon are now available:

https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2021-11-09-vcapi 

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

----------------------------------------------------------------
Verifiable Credentials API Telecon Minutes for 2021-11-09

Agenda:
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2021Nov/0039.html
Topics:
  1. Relevant Community Updates
  2. Pull Requests
  3. Issue Processing
Organizer:
  Manu Sporny
Scribe:
  Dmitri Zagidulin
Present:
  Bob Wyman, Manu Sporny, Brent Zundel, TallTed // Ted Thibodeau 
  (he/him) (OpenLinkSw.com), Charles E. Lehner, Ted Thibodeau, Eric 
  Schuh, Adrian Gropper, Juan Caballero, Mahmoud Alkhraishi, David 
  Chadwick, Dmitri Zagidulin, Brian Richter, Andy Miller
Audio:
  https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2021-11-09/audio.ogg

Dmitri Zagidulin is scribing.
Manu Sporny:  (Summarizes agenda -- mostly issue processing)
Manu Sporny:  The focus is on closing issues.
  ... any other updates or changes to agenda?
Manu Sporny:  Let's start with Intros & Re-Intros

Topic: Relevant Community Updates

Manu Sporny:  First update - the VC v1.1 spec is out
<manu_sporny> Verifiable Credentials v1.1 proposed corrections: 
  https://www.w3.org/TR/2021/REC-vc-data-model-20211109/
  ... for review, right now
  ... Mike Prorock covered this earlier today, on the main weekly 
  call
  ... this is version 1.1, fully backwards compatible. There's 
  some substantive changes, but mostly about standardizing the Date 
  Format, loosening some of the restrictions on ZKPs,
  ... stuff like that
  ... it's out for the Advisory Committee vote
  ... to accept, formally object, & everything in between.
  ... vote is open til Jan 18, 2022
  ... so if you're a W3C member, and you know who your AC 
  representative is, please ask them to vote
  ... any questions?
  ... the only other kind of question (specifically for this 
  group) -- there's a question about using VC API in places that
  ... could use better test coverage. Such as the VC Data Model 
  spec, the DID Core spec
  ... for example, there was a demonstration of using the did:key 
  spec for interop of signatures
  ... and it used VC API, to do DID interop testing
  ... of course, when we do the VC 2.0 work, we'll also be doing 
  Linked Data Integrity testing
  ... the 1.0 test suite required you command-line things, to 
  validate the VCs
  ... the 2.0 test suite, I'm suggesting, should use the VC API
  ... any objections to going down that path? (~2 years from now)
  ... any philosophical / principled objection to using the VC 
  API, to test LD & JWT proofs, in the VC 2.0 work?
David Chadwick:  Clarification question -- I thought the VC API 
  was intended to be primarily internal, within one trust domain?
  ... interop testing would necessarily require crossing trust 
  zones, no?
  ... could we use OpenID Connect instead?
Brent Zundel:  The decision will ultimately be up to the VC WG
Manu Sporny:  Yes, +1 to that, the decision is in the VC WG's 
  hands. Just wanting to check if this group has objections though
  ... David, the question you raised -- the way I'd see it 
  potentially working is that the test suite itself is making the 
  call to the Issuer API and the Verifier API.
  ... so, the test suite IS a single trust zone
  ... so you can still consider it internal use
  ... (it would be given the appropriate credentials to invoke 
  the Issuer & Verifier API)
  ... for example, see Charles's implementation for the did:key 
  interop work
  ... any other relevant community updates / items?

Topic: Pull Requests

Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/pulls
Manu Sporny:  We're going to skip the two draft ones on the 
  security framework, and my PR for authorization delegations
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/pull/237
  ... the new Architectural Overview, something that Joe put 
  together & we presented the last 2 weeks
Adrian Gropper:  I have an objection to merging pr 237
  ... and I commented on the thread
Manu Sporny:  Ah ok, it wasn't clear that it was an objection. 
  Can you clarify, in the comment?
Adrian Gropper:  Yes
Manu Sporny:  And please suggest a concrete change that would 
  address the objection
Adrian Gropper:  I'm not sure I can propose spec test
  ... but these things are foundational, and need to be dealt 
  with up front, in an overview doc
  ... right now, these things are buried, if there at all
Manu Sporny:  It sounds like you'd like the acknowledgement of 
  the importance of delegation
Adrian Gropper:  Not only delegation. but specifically the 
  separation of concerns, for "zero trust architecture" designs
Manu Sporny:  Adrian, the easiest thing would be to suggest some 
  phrasing. It doesn't have to be super technically accurate, but 
  it's hard to guess what you're looking for
  ... and ideally, we don't couple that concern to the diagram 
  itself. But it's up to you, if you feel that it's related to the 
  diagram specifically
Manu Sporny:  Ok, that's 237. Next up, Juan's global search & 
  replace of VC HTTP API to VC API
  ... looks like it's good to go
Juan Caballero:  If anything breaks, just tag me
Manu Sporny:  I'd like to merge it asap, so we can get other PRs 
  after it
Manu Sporny:  PR 241 (adding meeting info to README).
  ... looks like it may need to be re-targeted to the other PR
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/pull/241
<manu_sporny> Next one is: 
  https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/pull/242
  ... next one is 242 on regenerating the revocation list.
Manu Sporny:  Charles, would you like to give us some background?
Charles E. Lehner:  Sure, there's a Revocation List in this repo, 
  and it's used in the VC API test suite
  ... but since the repos were renamed, the URL no longer works
  ... so, the PR fixes the test suite to use the new (renamed) 
  url
  ... fixes the revocation list's url specifically
Manu Sporny:  Yes, let's fix the url
  ... brings up the question of -- do we want the revocation list 
  example in this repo, or move it to the test suite?
  ... my suggestion is to move it to the test suite
Charles E. Lehner:  I can update the PR & test suite to add the 
  credential there
Manu Sporny:  That would probably be the best
  ... but I'm fine with doing that in a separate PR
Charles E. Lehner:  The way these two PRs are set up, it should 
  apply to both of them, and then changes could be made afterwards
Manu Sporny:  Does that mean you'd like it  merged as-is?
Charles E. Lehner:  It would un-break the test suite, at least
Manu Sporny:  Ok, ready for merge, then
  ... the other question that came up was -- would implementers 
  be willing to move over to Ed25519Signature2020 suite, for the 
  next round of interop testing?
  ... 2018 is a bit janky, and 2020 is a bit cleaner. I know a 
  couple of implementers can use 2020...
  ... any thoughts on this?
Charles E. Lehner:  I'm prepared to change it to a 2020 test 
  vector (Spruce has a 2020 impl.)
Manu Sporny:  We should ask at least 2 other implementers, to see 
  if they're willing to make the jump
  ... it's a simple change, but we should ensure everyone's cool 
  with that
Charles E. Lehner:  Would we still want to keep the 2018 
  credential example?
Manu Sporny:  Good question, let's check with everyone.
  ... we could demonstrate that you can use 2 crypto suites, that 
  are two years apart, that you can switch between
  ... maybe the right question to ask in this repo is -- 
  remember, we all made a decision that it's just did:key
  ... so the other thing we can do is decide on just one crypto 
  suite.
  ... so, the VC API test suite will only work with did:key, and 
  only one signature suite
  ... my suggestion would be the ed 2020 suite.
  ... and we can mention "and then there are these optional 
  suites you can support"
  ...but the base tests can at least lock it to one did method & 
  one suite
  ... but if we can't agree, then we can support all the 
  variations people want
  ... ok, those are the PRs.
  ... I'm hearing that all but one of them can go in
  ... Juan, you're going to clean up the meeting info one, and 
  the others will go in immediately
  ... re 237 - Adrian, you're going to try and propose some text
  ... anything else on PRs?

Topic: Issue Processing

Manu Sporny: 
  https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc
Manu Sporny:  Our goal is to close old issues (mark them pending 
  closed)
  ... trying to avoid a huge discussion. The other thing we'll 
  want to do is assign people
  ... the assignment of a person means - you're willing to try 
  and push the conversation forward
  ... doesn't mean you have the solution or the answer, just that 
  you're willing to shepherd
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/issues/58
Manu Sporny:  First up, state proofs on crossing trust boundaries
  ... raised by Daniel H.
  ... does anybody have thoughts on this issue?
  ... ok, I think this is answered by having an Authorization -- 
  you're making a call to a system you fundamentally trust
  ... so, we'd need to state which endpoints are trusted 
  endpoints, and which ones are not
  ... which ones are within the trust boundary
David Chadwick:  When we're talking about trust boundaries -- we 
  still have to authenticate and authorize, no?
  ... is that what we're saying?
Manu Sporny:  Yeah, I think you're right, David. We'd need to 
  write spec test that says,
  ... if you're calling one of these APIs, then you're trusting 
  them to do what's in the spec.
  ... if you're calling the /issue endpoint, you'll authenticate 
  & authorize as appropriate.
  ... and you're trusting the system to issue a valid VC
David Chadwick:  I agree, I think that's the right approach
Adrian Gropper:  Quick question - what is a state proof?
Manu Sporny:  It's something where you don't have to trust the 
  entity giving you the info, you can only trust the info itself
Adrian Gropper:  Wouldn't that be entirely out of scope, for what 
  we're talking about?
Manu Sporny:  My gut reaction says yes, but I'm sure there's some 
  kind of way you could depend on a state proof for a VC
Adrian Gropper:  Just seems like an extra complication
Manu Sporny:  I think we're going to address that, with the 
  proposed text.
  ... maybe we can add an endpoint, that explicitly gives you a 
  state proof in the future
  ... but our general suggestion here is - don't call an endpoint 
  you don't trust to do the thing (to issue the VC)
  ... next up, issue 60, about swagger
  ... We already do this. so, my suggestion is -- we've 
  implemented the source of truth Swagger/OAS format
  ... so, this is done. (we use it to generate ReSpec docs)
<manu_sporny> That was 
  https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/issues/60
<manu_sporny> Next up is 
  https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/issues/45
Manu Sporny:  Next up, issue 45, distinguishing cred-issuer 
  relationship in URI namespace
Dmitri Zagidulin:  This seems to propose breaking up the issuer 
  endpoint to multiple endpoints to cover various use cases. 
  [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
David Chadwick:  I thought we got this already, in the latest 
  design?
Manu Sporny:  Not quite - we don't break it up like this 
  proposes.
  ... we just say "any server can implement the Issuer and 
  Verifier API all on one server"
Adrian Gropper:  I recommend marking this with 'Authorization' 
  tag as well.
  ... in general, if we adopt the model that GNAP uses (where we 
  acknowledge that the protocol has a request component, and an 
  access token component), then this becomes a lot easier to 
  process
  ... I'd treat this as an authz issue
Manu Sporny:  Looking at the last sentence (about the same party 
  can play multiple roles)
  ... I think we already have this today
Dmitri Zagidulin:  What if we reply that we request use cases -- 
  some day in future we might want x, need concrete use cases. 
  [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Juan Caballero:  We were already going to (ideally before next 
  Tues) go through the use cases, and mark which app/service is 
  hitting which
  ... if you look at the usecase doc now, it just lists which 
  endpoints get hit, but not /whose/ endpoints.
  ... we tried to sort it out, on another call, and it was hard 
  to figure out
Adrian Gropper:  This is exactly the problem that GNAP has worked 
  on for a year
  ... in that, they separate out the requesting party from the 
  role of the requesting party
Manu Sporny:  Ok, so, what are we doing with the issue
  ... leaving comment, requesting concrete usecase related to the 
  issue. also mentioned GNAP relevance to this issue
  ... also discussed that perhaps the API already supports this 
  viewpoint
David Chadwick:  I think I've got a use case for this. The power 
  of attourney
  ... where the holder wants to get a VC for their parent. and 
  what they present is a PoA credential, to show they're authorized
Adrian Gropper:  I'd be happy to also be assigned
Manu Sporny:  Will do (I need to add you to the Assignees group), 
  please remind me
<manu_sporny> Next issue: 
  https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/issues/68
  ... next up, issue 68, use of the 'created' option in verify 
  request
Charles E. Lehner:  I'm wondering about - what does the 'created' 
  option mean in the verification options param?
  ... I understand what it means in the context of issuance, but 
  what does it mean wrt verification?
Dmitri Zagidulin:  Maybe it was a cut & paste from issuer 
  options?
Manu Sporny:  Yeah, probably. Charles, do you mind suggesting 
  something, if we assign the issue to you?
Charles E. Lehner:  Sure.
Manu Sporny:  So, the two options are -- 1) we take it out (if we 
  don't know what it's for), until someone complains
  ... I forget, when we verify, do we pay any attention to 
  'created' at all? No, we just care about expires
Charles E. Lehner:  We probably care if the 'created' is in the 
  future
Manu Sporny:  Right, so if created is in the future, it should 
  throw an error
  ... my suggestion is, we just remove this for now, for 
  verification.
  ... and re-add it only if somebody has a concrete usecase
Dmitri Zagidulin: Cel: +1
Manu Sporny:  Next up, issue 67, default verificationMethod 
  option
Charles E. Lehner:  I'd need to look at it again, not sure it's 
  still relevant
Charles E. Lehner:  Is there an expectation that there's a 
  default verificationMethod, for an issuer?
Manu Sporny:  Sure, I imagine you can configure that, on the 
  issuer
  ... reasonable that there'd be a default (if you don't specify 
  one)
Charles E. Lehner:  I'd also apply that to verification
Manu Sporny:  I'm not sure it makes sense for verification.
Charles E. Lehner:  What about requesting an allow-list (only 
  permit VCs from these issuers)
Manu Sporny:  I think we need more discussion, then
  ... the issuer case is simple, the verifier case - potentially 
  complicated
Manu Sporny:  Ok, we're at the top of the hour.
  ... we're going to keep plugging away at issues like these.
  ... and PRs welcome, as always
  ... the other thing to raise, before we leave -- there are a 
  lot of calls happening around all the standards work
  ... I wonder if we should pause the VC API calls for the month 
  of December
  ... I'll raise the question again on next week's call
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2021 22:54:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:25:24 UTC