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

VC HTTP API telecon minutes for 2021-09-21

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 12:11:49 -0600
To: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <af22658d-ef4b-c9ce-8f6f-59bb4931299e@digitalbazaar.com>
Thanks to Juan Caballero for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's 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).

  Telecon Minutes for 2021-09-21

   1. Introductions and Reintroductions
   2. Merge Windows
   3. Renaming VC HTTP API to VC API
   4. Pull Request 224 - Resolutions in Spec
   5. Pull Request 226 - RAR and GNAP
   6. Pull Request 227 - Single Word Change
   7. Pull Request 228 - Intro to Authz Section
   8. Pull Request 229 - Forbidden Authorization
   9. Pull Request 230 - Authorization Delegation
   10. Pull Request 231 - OAuth 2.0 Bearer Tokens
   1. Any editorial PR can be merged as soon as 2 code owners
     approve the PR.
   2. Any non-editorial PR can be merged as soon as 2 code owners
     approve the PR, if it has been open for a minimum of 7 days and
     change requests have been addressed.
   3. Rename the VC HTTP API to become the VC API.
   Manu Sporny
   Juan Caballero
   Manu Sporny, Mahmoud Alkhraishi, Juan Caballero, Eric Schuh, Joe
   Andrieu, Mike Prorock, Justin Richer, Orie Steele, David
   Chadwick, Kerri Lemoie, Brent Zundel, Brian Richter, Adrian
   Gropper, Heather Vescent, Dmitri Zagidulin, Marty Reed, Ted
   Thibodeau, Bob Wyman

Juan Caballero is scribing.
Manu Sporny:  Agenda review
   ... lots of PRs to review
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: +1
Mike Prorock: +1
Joe Andrieu: +1
Orie Steele:  Call times for PRs is fine, but could we come up
   with a codeowner independent merge consensus?
   ... async work mode would be helpful
Manu Sporny:  SGTM, lots of +1s in chat
Juan Caballero: +1
<mprorock> Whoo hoo!!!! thanks Joe
Joe Andrieu:  Mike Proroclk and Orie Steele have worked with me
   and Eric to map out the flow of that use-case in more detail
   ... the mapping exercise teased out some edits to the usecase
   and it's really helpful
   ... to the editorial process
   ... I will add that URL to the minutes shortly
Mike Prorock:
Manu Sporny:  Intros and Reintros
<joe_andrieu> the sequence diagram email in the archives:

Topic: Introductions and Reintroductions

Kerri Lemoie:  Co-chairing VC-EDU and schedule just allowed me to
   attend these this week! Excited to be here
Manu Sporny:  For those of you that don't know Kerri, she is
<joe_andrieu> Hi Kerri!
Juan Caballero: +1 To awesomeness
<kerri_lemoie> Thanks Manu :)

Topic: Merge Windows

Orie Steele:  Since this isn't a formal WG, we should leverage
   that freedom and work faster, particularly since working fast
   increases chances of this going standards track later
   ... aiming for faster PRs, more frequent PRs, and operate under
   ... merging major changes with positive feedback and 1 or 2
   reviews could be merged on day 7 without discussion on call, and
   minor PRs even faster, is a policy i would support
   ... I would recommend no PR stay open over a week if there are
   no changes requested by 2+ reviewers
<orie> yes
Manu Sporny:  To clarify, editorial and non-substantive at
   discretion of editors, for substantive feedback, leave open for 7
   or longer if it takes longer to resolve change requests
<orie> PROPOSAL 1: Any editorial PR can be merged as soon as 2
   code owners approve the PR.
<orie> PROPOSAL 2: Any none editorial PR can be merged as soon as
   2 code owners approve the PR, and its been open without change
   request for a minimum of 7 days.

PROPOSAL:  Any editorial PR can be merged as soon as 2 code
   owners approve the PR.

Manu Sporny: +1
Joe Andrieu: +1
Orie Steele: +1
Mike Prorock: +1
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: +1
Adrian Gropper: +1
Juan Caballero: +1

RESOLUTION: Any editorial PR can be merged as soon as 2 code
   owners approve the PR.

PROPOSAL:  Any none editorial PR can be merged as soon as 2 code
   owners approve the PR, and its been open without change request
   for a minimum of 7 days.

Mike Prorock: +1 Lots of gaming on that kind of thing
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  7 Days since last change req?
<orie> YES
Manu Sporny:  But that opens the door to a lot of gaming
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  Would adding code owners req'd for approval
Orie Steele:  I don't think that helps, 2 will tag the 3rd if
   there's a problem
   ... and besides if our codeowners can't triage this many PRs in
   a timely manner we can get new ones
   ... and we should use change request feature in github to be
   very clear and direct
   ... even if the change request is "i will not support any form
   of this PR" (written into the CR window of the GH interface)
Orie Steele: +1 To being early in the game... we should not be
   processing contributors to death...
Mike Prorock: +1 Joe - it is also pretty easy to go put another
   PR in to adjust something as needed
Joe Andrieu:  I think we should remind ourselves we're in
   INCUBATION MODE and other processes in incubation mode work in
   google docs and very quickly
<brent> I think 7 days is fine, especially in view of the desired
   iterative process.
   ... so we shouldn't let the GH format put us into a very
   deliberative process autopilot
Manu Sporny:  I sympathize with both sides of this, we can't be
   too cautious but there are reasons to be cautious even though
   we're at such an early stage
<mahmoud> happy 2 or 3
   ... so we can go ahead with Brent's version, then, if Mahmoud
   is happy

PROPOSAL:   Any non-editorial PR can be merged as soon as 2 code
   owners approve the PR, if it has been open for a minimum of 7
   days and change requests have been addressed.

Mahmoud Alkhraishi: +1
Manu Sporny: +1
Brent Zundel: +1
Mike Prorock: +1
Orie Steele: +1
Adrian Gropper: +1
Joe Andrieu: +1
Juan Caballero: +1
Eric Schuh: +1

RESOLUTION: Any non-editorial PR can be merged as soon as 2 code
   owners approve the PR, if it has been open for a minimum of 7
   days and change requests have been addressed.

Manu Sporny:  That work for you, Orie?
Orie Steele:  Yup, I might suggest we start using this
   immediately (like, the rest of this call)

Topic: Renaming VC HTTP API to VC API

Manu Sporny:
Mike Prorock:  You can't object to non-resolutions
   ...it was informative, so no action needs to be taken to the
   "formal" objection
Manu Sporny:  Call for objections to renaming
No objections raised

PROPOSAL:  Rename the VC HTTP API to become the VC API.

Orie Steele: +1
Manu Sporny:  <Types proposal while reading it out loud>
Manu Sporny: +1
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: +1
Juan Caballero: +1
<joe_andrieu> +100
Kerri Lemoie: +1
Mike Prorock: +1
Adrian Gropper: +1
Juan Caballero:  I feel you, Joe
Brent Zundel: -0
<mprorock> lol
<mprorock> yes
<kerri_lemoie> HaH

RESOLUTION: Rename the VC HTTP API to become the VC API.

Joe Andrieu:  Just want to remark a famous remark of Tim
   Berners-Lee that he would never have named it HTTP if he'd known
   people would be saying URLs out loud every day
<orie> its cool, some browser vendors hide it anyway...
<manu> Just to clarify, the full name of the renamed
   specification should be "The Verifiable Credential API"
<mprorock> i insist on RPC /s
Justin Richer: Did:vc:soap
Orie Steele: +1 To soap.
<justin_richer> why does : vc : turn into :vc: here??
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-http-api/pull/224
<justin_richer> (jitsie has a flag, fwiw)
^ 👀

Topic: Pull Request 224 - Resolutions in Spec

Mike Prorock: +1 To closing
<orie> please close confusing and outdated PRs.
<mahmoud> close
Joe Andrieu: +1 To close
<mprorock> we can cherry pick good language out to use in other
<orie> 9

Topic: Pull Request 226 - RAR and GNAP

Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-http-api/pull/226
Manu Sporny:  Thanks to Justin for writing this up, lots of
   discussion.  some of this content has been moved to other PRs
Manu Sporny:  How should we move forward with this, workflow and
   order of operations a little confusing
Justin Richer:  I marked this as a draft so as NOT to be merged.
   I put this in as a straw man/examples of the language the group
   *could* write
   ... i think open or closed, this PR would be a good thing to
   cut and paste.  I wanted it in the repo because I felt words kept
   getting put in my mouth
Mike Prorock: +1 Some very good language in here - note I think a
   lot has already been pulled out into other PRs
   ... I think this group has been happy to do things like work
   with scope strings, and I think the comments in this thread are
   good questions about designing APIs with actions in mind
<orie> I provided feedback on the PR, but it has not been
Manu Sporny:  I would recommend we leave it open as a draft PR so
   that we keep referring to it
<mprorock> @orie - this is a draft PR - have some of the other
   PRs covered your comments?
   ... I think the AuthZ PRs that have been broken out of it
   already, and leaving it open keeps our options open if we add
   sections later that could also borrow from this
<orie> possibly... Im not against the idea behind his PR...
<orie> But it needs to graduate into a mergeable state.
Adrian Gropper:  I'm glad to keep this open, and propose we not
   return to it until AuthZ sections have been substanciated a bit
<orie> Justin is correct
<orie> we can't merge a draft.
Draft status is fine
<justin_richer> I marked it draft so it wouldn't be merged, it
   would be discussed.
<orie> draft is fine, I won't approve it until it is mergeable
   and feedback is addressed.
Manu Sporny:  A label would be technically redundant but help
   scanning a long list of PRs
<justin_richer> I suggest "draft" because it has mechanical
<orie> ^ i think Justin did the right thin.
Mike Prorock: +1 Orie
<justin_richer> I don't care if you label it
<mahmoud> draft is fine
Draft is displayed in faint grey on the list by default
So it technically already displays it... just not in bright
   colors :D
<orie> its called "request changes"
<orie> ffs
Justin Richer: +1 To orie
I think repo admins can bump a PR from or to draft
<justin_richer> we can't
<justin_richer> ?
<mprorock> there is a do not merge label in there
Juan Caballero: +1
<brent> sorry for jumping queue
<justin_richer> labels don't block merge either
Ted Thibodeau:  Yes you can merge with requested changes open,
   and yes, you can mark someone else's PR as draft
<orie> they do in the ccgg
   ... if you have admin rights
<orie> we just agreed to that...
<mprorock> there is a do not merge label
Ted Thibodeau: +1 Create label, apply it to this PR.  it may be
   rarely used, but it's useful nonetheless.
<orie> you ccan mere over the do not merge label too
Mike Prorock: +1 Orie
Orie Steele: +1 Justin!
Manu Sporny:  I think you can only mark draft on a PR from a fork
<mprorock> we need to trust the editors to read the comments for
   objections, changes requestd, etc
Justin Richer:  I'm not a fan of "do not merge" because it can be
   used passive-aggressively
<brent> on github repos where I have proper access I can convert
   any PR to draft.
<tallted> draft theoretically means that its author doesn't think
   it's ready for others to review, it exits draft for others to
   review, and *then* the merge question comes up.
Orie Steele:  These descriptive labels are kind of orthogonal to
   the behavior we're expecting in the code owners
   ... i think we need to remember the editors have power and
Manu Sporny:  No op and move on?
<justin_richer> moving on is nice
Mike Prorock: +1 Justin

Topic: Pull Request 227 - Single Word Change

Manu Sporny:  Good example of new policy, SHIP IT

Topic: Pull Request 228 - Intro to Authz Section

<justin_richer> as an aside, this group is absolutely killing
   itself with process, in my opinion
Orie Steele: +1 Justin.
Mike Prorock: +1 Justin
<orie> The same applies to this PR.
<orie> its been open for 10 days, no change requests
<orie> it should be merged immediatly
<orie> please merge it @manu.
<orie> they had 10 days to review it....
<orie> we just agreed to apply that policy.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: +1 To Orie's point, assuming adrian's new
   CR's regarding the new name are accepted
Manu Sporny:  Here is a good test case where I'm worried about
   the new policy being applied literally
<orie> just request changes if you want to block the PR... its
   trivial to do.
<orie> thanks Justin!
Justin Richer:  Here is an editorial hackjob that takes the
   letter of my comment and not the spirit. I do not like this PR
<tallted> Multiple open change requests ... and says it's a
   partial substitute for #226, which also remains open, so what's
   the actual choice to be made?
Mike Prorock: Note: Joe has good editorial changes requested
Manu Sporny:  That sounds like no objection to merge to me
Adrian Gropper:  I think this reflects a particular API AuthZ
   strategy and I'd rather this PR stay open
<orie> there are no change requests, blocking the PR....
Ted Thibodeau:  This opens with a confusing "Partial alternate to
   another open PR" disclaimer so it feels hedgey
<orie> use the "request for change feature"
   ... I think the 226 versus alternatives thing is hard to parse
Mike Prorock:  But if 226 is in draft and it's intended as a
   reference, this isn't an alternative, it's an offshoot of!
<orie> I requested changes
<orie> now it can't be mergged

Topic: Pull Request 229 - Forbidden Authorization

<orie> I have requested changes on this PR.

Topic: Pull Request 230 - Authorization Delegation

<justin_richer> ZCAP and GNAP solve completely different
   problems, though ...
<orie> a normative statemen in a community draft...
Manu Sporny:  Adrian does this make you happy or sad?
<orie> I suggest approving or requesting changes Adrian and
<orie> I don't care about your feelings, but would love to see a
   PR review on this ;)
<orie> ( I do care about your feelings )
Adrian Gropper:  As I've said before, I am interested in
   consensus on ideological questions, not low-level spec language.
<orie> :)
Manu Sporny:  I don't know how to help, we are working on spec
   language here.  I keep trying to channel your comments as best I
   can in drafting these PRs
Orie Steele: +1 David
<orie> I will request changes
<juan_caballero>	david_chadwick: i'm putting a comment in that
   should --> MAY because in some spec contexts, SHOULDs are
   interpreted as MUSTS
Ted Thibodeau:  I strongly disagree, SHOULD means MUST UNLESS YOU
   KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING.  MAY is way too open/loose
<orie> I agree with David, and I requested changes.
<orie> it now can't be merged.
Adrian Gropper:  In contexts I've worked on, SHOULD has to be
   tested by conformance tests even if at deployment it isn't
Adrian's comment on testing conforms with my understanding
<dmitri_zagidulin>	orie: i'd be interested to know why (re should
   -> MAY), from you
<orie> I don't think anyone SHOULD use GNAP or ZCAPs ; )
<dmitri_zagidulin> thanks.

Topic: Pull Request 231 - OAuth 2.0 Bearer Tokens

Manu Sporny:  I think these PRs parallelizes and
   compartmentalizes the options for AuthZ
<mprorock> can we accept Ted's changes and merge it?
Orie Steele:  Manu could you accept Ted's changes and merge on
   the call now?
<orie> Thanks for the change request @TallTed!
Justin Richer:  I think the language in this PR doesn't make
   sense to me, needs work
<orie> Justin, try using the "PR Review feature" of GitHub : )
<justin> Orie, Try using less snark :)
<orie> I learned from the best
Manu Sporny:  I think there is a new PR (233) that I'd love the
   group to review
<mprorock> this call was all snark
<Juan> Thanks all
Received on Friday, 24 September 2021 18:12:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:25:22 UTC