W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > April 2022

[MINUTES] W3C CCG Verifiable Credentials API Call - 2022-04-05

From: CCG Minutes Bot <minutes@w3c-ccg.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2022 22:10:46 +0000
Message-ID: <E1nbrNr-0006yj-QQ@titan.w3.org>
Thanks to Our Robot Overlords for scribing this week!

The transcript for the call is now available here:


Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes.
Audio of the meeting is available at the following location:


VC API Task Force Transcript for 2022-04-05

  1. Agenda Review, Introductions, Relevant Community Updates
  2. VC API Issuer/Verifier Test Suites (WIP)
  3. VC API and Wallet Protocol Analysis
  4. Should vc http api use PE Spec for query format?
  5. did:web issuer uses publicKey instead of verificationMethod
  6. Mediated Holder Exchanges
  7. Retro-documentation efforts towards UCR documentation
  8. Ensure that GNAP can be an Authorization protocol extension 
  Manu Sporny, Orie Steele, Markus Sabadello, Mike Varley, Mahmoud Alkhraishi
  Our Robot Overlords
  Manu Sporny, Justin Richer, Dave Longley, Dmitri Zagidulin, Joe 
  Andrieu, Mahmoud Alkhraishi, TallTed // Ted Thibodeau (he/him) 
  (OpenLinkSw.com), PL, James Chartrand, Tomislav Markovski, Marty 
  Reed, Kaliya Young, Mike Varley, Ted Thibodeau

Our Robot Overlords are scribing.
Manu Sporny:  Right welcome everyone to the April 5th 2022 VC API 
  call our agenda is here.
Manu Sporny:  On the agenda today we let me go ahead and get this 
  set up on the agenda today we've got.
<mahmoud_alkhraishi> is the VC-API openapi spec hosted somewhere?
<mahmoud_alkhraishi> i tried looking for it today couldn't find 
Manu Sporny:  Just relevant Community updates some test Suites 
  that we've been working on around the issue and verifier just 
  pointing people to the BC API and wallet protocol analysis 
  document that's ongoing and then issue processing after that so 
  should we use the presentation explain exchange spec for the 
  query format.
Manu Sporny:   Did web.
Manu Sporny:  The key instead of verification method mediator 
  hold mediated holder exchanges use case documentation and then 
  other issues any other updates or changes to the agenda anything 
  folks want to discuss today.
Manu Sporny:  I think my mood you had a question about where the 
  OAS spec is posted.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  Yeah last week or week before I think Mike 
  updated the OAS back also it's really hard to find where that's 
  from like the from our spec will be really nice if we can fix 
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api
<mahmoud_alkhraishi> oh ok awesome
Manu Sporny:  Yes so there's been an issue that I think Chris 
  Abernathy has had assigned to him to fix the build process so the 
  commits that Mike put together yesterday broke the spec and broke 
  the build and all that kind of stuff and I think we're just 
  waiting on Chris Abernathy to go in and fix that and if Chris 
  doesn't get to that by this weekend I will go in and fix that.
Manu Sporny:  Everything is broken right now.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  No just checking if it's mirror.
Manu Sporny:  Nope nope everything is just broken right now.
Manu Sporny:  Let's go ahead and get started then.
Manu Sporny:  Sorry I'm juggling windows.

Topic: Agenda Review, Introductions, Relevant Community Updates

Manu Sporny:  So the first topic is agenda review introductions 
  relevant Community updates any any Community updates that anyone 
  wants to share.
Manu Sporny:  All right I'm think most of you are on the weekly 
  call earlier today the charter the VC to working group Charters 
  out for vote so just heads up on that if you know who your AC rep 
  is make sure they're aware to look out for a charter boat that 
  will be open for about a month after the vote opens and of course 
<mahmoud_alkhraishi> absolutely
Manu Sporny:  VC API is a topic of conversation in the wallet 
  protocol analysis stuff so there's protocol section to that 
  document that goes into things the VC API with a VPR can and 
  can't do that's a particular interest to the trace folks I think 
  Mom would so if you don't mind conveying that to Horry and mic 
  Pro Rock on the trace call I think that would be be good.
Manu Sporny:   Any other.
Manu Sporny:  Any updates before we move on.

Topic: VC API Issuer/Verifier Test Suites (WIP)

Manu Sporny:  Alright next up is.
Manu Sporny:  VC I don't know why I put hdp in there the VC API 
  issuer verifier test Suites so let me go ahead and share my 
  screen here.
Manu Sporny:  There is can everyone see this.
<mahmoud_alkhraishi> yes
Manu Sporny:  Okay let me go ahead and.
Manu Sporny:  Okay so there is.
Manu Sporny:  So we've had a test Suite we've had kind of like 
  this all-encompassing test suite for a while I think my mood 
  correct me if I'm wrong or not I think the trace folks have their 
  own test Suite that they have for traceability stuff is that 
  right okay.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  Yes we have our own it's a trace that 
  General it's all posting based rather than being jobs replaced by 
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: 
Manu Sporny:  Okay okay so there's that thing what we found 
  meaning just bizarre found was that we needed just some basic 
  tests to test the spec that we're working on in this group and 
  that it's basically like just the most basic issue or test and 
  just the most basic verifier test based on the Json schema and 
  everything else that we had in the spec so.
Manu Sporny:   We've had to engineer.
Manu Sporny:  From our side work on a verifier interop test suite 
  and an issuer interrupt test Suite it only checks the spec as it 
  exists today right so we have these kinds of tests in here there 
  are four categories so the verifier in points that we have right 
  now are for verifying a credential and verifying a presentation 
  there's a data Integrity version of it and a JWT version of it.
Manu Sporny:  So this is like the verifiable credential data 
  Integrity test right there and this is just the things run on a 
  on a regular basis right so I think we're going to run it on a 
  nightly basis but the only thing this test report reports back on 
  is verifier tests so if you have a b c API verifier 
  implementation you can point this test suite at it and it will 
  run all the tests that we have.
<mahmoud_alkhraishi> we haven't updated our endpoint
Manu Sporny:  Her the VC API spec to be clear here I don't think 
  my mood I don't think we've gotten kind of credentials from from 
  you or measure transmute yet right so these are only failing 
  because authentications failing and we can't access the apis 
  right but the second that we get that in point in there then all 
  of a sudden will see certain things working these things over 
Manu Sporny:   Are all these greens over here are.
Manu Sporny:  Because these are negative test so it's basically 
  saying it must not verifier if at context property is missing but 
  the reason we're getting the proper response code quote-unquote 
  the proper response code is because authentications failing so 
  it's like oh yeah the verification failed but the verification 
  failed because we failed to off not you know the actual Caulfield 
  itself so this is a work in progress and will need further work.
Manu Sporny:   For it too.
Manu Sporny:  Really really test the spec the other thing of 
  course is that you know all of these tests this prove these proof 
  type tests make no sense for the JWT version of it and so will 
  have different tests for the the JWT version of it in most of 
  these tests are negative tests right so we have one positive test 
  that says does the verification succeed or not for a valid BC and 
  then everything else here are you know - tests these tests.
Manu Sporny:   It's also test the.
Manu Sporny:  Json schema itself so whatever Json schema we're 
  defining in the be Capi OS file is what's being tested here in 
  some of these things well anyway so all that to say that we found 
  some bugs in the Json schema as well as we went through it Mahmud 
  you're on the queue.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  Are the test right now actually that's the 
  idea and their codes or is it just you know status code is it 
  right or.
<mahmoud_alkhraishi> sounds fun
Manu Sporny:  Status it's checking the status code right now 
  which it's so this is a problem with the current test Suite or or 
  the spec or both right so this this testing uncovered like a 
  whole bunch of concerns that we have like like I think I think 
  we're using the exact same error code for an authentication 
  failure versus actual verification failure in so we met as a 
  group want to look into that.
Manu Sporny:  It I think I think we're doing the wrong thing in 
  the in the spec right now anyway I mean this is good this is why 
  we build test Suites and you know do that kind of testing a 
  couple of other things on the on the test Suite so this is the 
  verifier here's the there's also one for the issuer so these are 
  the issuer and points Force reload this.
Manu Sporny:  At the end this is what the issuer you know 
  endpoint testings looking like so for jots and for you know data 
  Integrity stuff so as you can see like there are a lot of 
  failures across the board the the matter Maven that measure well 
  I don't know why measures passing but you know these failures are 
  just because we're failing authentication but as you can see 
  digit bazaars failing a couple of things here like for example.
Manu Sporny:   All credentials.
Manu Sporny:  Must be an array the Json schema says that but that 
  is non-compliant with the VC data model so we uncovered a bug in 
  the Json schema in again this is why we write test Suites to make 
  sure that you know the the things that we actually have in the 
  scheme I actually follow you know the other specs so again this 
  this test we just dues issuing and of course the grand plan is 
Manu Sporny:   To export each one of.
Manu Sporny:  Each one of these test Suites on a nightly basis 
  and then export the data so that we can do one gigantic roll up 
  test for the entire ecosystem to see you know which implementers 
  Implement which features and you know what's conformant what 
  isn't that kind of thing so these are because it's kind of the 
  first approach to the kind of having more smaller more focused 
  test Suites a couple of other things that.
Manu Sporny:   The engineers here focused on.
Manu Sporny:  Is breaking all the implementations out into their 
  own repo and having Secrets environmental secrets so that we 
  don't have to the implementers don't have to keep going into 
  every single one of these GitHub repos and setting up all of 
  their endpoints and secrets you know across 10 20 30 40 different 
  test Suites so we're working on extracting that out so that 
  implementers can just set up their implementation and points.
Manu Sporny:   In one place.
<mahmoud_alkhraishi> does the w3c ccg github org have the ability 
  to set org level secrets?
Manu Sporny:  And then basically just basically like make it 
  easier to manage and then that sort of thing any questions on 
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  Yeah I had a question does the ccg Oregon 
  GitHub have the blade is that for a couple secrets.
Manu Sporny:  No so these are running off of so this is the read 
  this is one of the things we need to chat about today VC API is a 
  work item in ccg and in theory all these test Suites are work 
  items as well but I did not want to presume and just move the 
  test Suites over to ccg I wanted to see if this group thought 
  that like the appropriate thing to do would be to move these 
  these test Suites over if that's.
<mahmoud_alkhraishi> that would make a ton of stuff easier
Manu Sporny:  Ccg has the ability to create organizational 
  organization-wide Secrets like environmental secrets that we can 
  pull into a variety of different repositories I guess the 
  question to like the implementers would it would be like are you 
  okay with us doing that like in theory you should be able to set 
  your configure software so that you give.
Manu Sporny:  You know oauth token or z cap to ccg to just run 
  the tests like you can't you know do production e things with it 
  and you can't do like 5 billion calls against the API with it and 
  for that reason we think that having environmental Secrets shared 
  across all these different repos and like one implementation you 
  know configuration repo is probably going to help everybody to 
  just set it.
Manu Sporny:   Once and then not have to worry.
<mahmoud_alkhraishi> we don't have oauth scopes in vc-api
<mahmoud_alkhraishi> atleast not defined
Manu Sporny:  About it again do folks would folks well the first 
  question is would there be any implementer of that would be 
  opposed to setting environmental secrets so that we can access 
  their apis in ccg and then the second question is does having 
  just one repository with all the VC API implementation just 
  configs sound like it's going to be beneficial.
<mahmoud_alkhraishi> on our end we're happy to do that
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  A couple points overall I think like on my 
  even upside we're happy to do that the one thing I want to point 
  out is that we don't actually have any obstacles to find in the 
  VC API so it's going to end up being that each org limits the w3c 
  access in whatever way they want and so you know it's not going 
  to be a standardized I'm getting up.
Manu Sporny:  I think I see what you're saying.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  We've taken a stab at having some on the 
  trace interrupt side but I know there's been a lot of pushback on 
  it on the VC API calls.
Manu Sporny:  You mean having Scopes like defining scopes.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  Yeah the finding Scopes or using like asking 
  the first place.
Manu Sporny:  Yeah I think what we were what I what internally we 
  have that discussion I think because of the pushback on that we 
  made it just like a configuration option like you can set 
  configuration options to specify you know the Scopes and in that 
  kind of thing.
Manu Sporny:  I anyway I think we're just going to have to talk 
  to all the implementers to see how they what they're thinking and 
  maybe the implementers get together and Define what you know if 
  they want a common set of Scopes defining that.
Manu Sporny:  As part of just the test Suite implementation.
<mahmoud_alkhraishi> yeah if we restrict it to test suite i dont 
  see pushback happening
Manu Sporny:  That's my mood would you like that's the only way I 
  can think of to do that.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  No no I think if we just restrict that's me 
  I don't think there's going to be any perspective I think that 
  makes a ton of sense.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  I think the biggest push back was if we put 
  it on a spec like VC API spec level but I can't talk to people 
  working in love.
Manu Sporny:  Okay okay well let's let's just start you know by 
  defining that for the test Suite itself and then we can have the 
  open that old wound back up you know in in a couple of weeks or 
  months if we if we if the implementers get to the point where 
  they have agreed on you no scopes and that kind of thing.
Manu Sporny:  Okay let's see I think the other thing of note here 
  is that digital bazaars authorization mechanism RZ caps so we 
  have that implemented as a authz mechanism but we will of course 
  also support oauth 2 okay that's it I think for the test Suites 
  any other questions concerns.
<mahmoud_alkhraishi> excited to get it working!

Topic: VC API and Wallet Protocol Analysis

Manu Sporny: 
Manu Sporny:  I like The Artsy mechanism mistake that the 
  transcriber meant okay next up is the VC API and wallet protocol 
  analysis discussion that link in here.
Manu Sporny:  So let me open that here as well so as some of you 
  probably have seen the there's been a huge discussion about open 
  ID connect and did Cam and chappy and every everything right and 
  that has resulted you know it started out kind of as like a 
Manu Sporny:  It was a it was a wallet invocation comparison at 
  this point like how do you invoke a wallet and then once you 
  invoke a wallet what protocols can you run over it so it had to 
  do with presentation exchange data models like VP are you know 
  IDC for VP and diff pecs and Aries I forget what this stands for 
  PPI the presentation proof protocol.
Manu Sporny:  End it also discussed presentation exchange 
  protocols like VPR it's really be C API and YDC for VCI and for 
  VP and then wacky did come V2 in this is you know this is the 
  column that this group is most familiar with than working on in 
  there's been an attempt to try and compare it against some of the 
  other protocols because there was a lot of confusion about.
Manu Sporny:   About what does what and.
Manu Sporny:  And that conversation is actually resulted in a 
  good everyone I think learning something about the other 
  protocols and where the boundaries are and what that protocol 
  supposed to do and when it's not supposed to be due and in that 
  kind of thing right so the teasing apart of chappie from oid see 
  and why they're very different I think was a useful outcome there 
  for those that are engaged in that discussion all all I think all 
  we're doing here.
Manu Sporny:   Is just pointing out that.
Manu Sporny:  This document exists in their conversations 
  happening there was a lot of conversation in the in the Google 
  sheet last week during this call people like please make it into 
  a Google doc that was done over the weekend and now conversation 
  continues here there are some conversations that are you know in 
  line here there's some conversation that's happening you know in 
  the margins over here my.
Manu Sporny:   Question is that.
Manu Sporny:  Not in the wall discussion so this is probably more 
  to the trace folks you might want to take a look at what's being 
  said about VC API and BP are here to see if you agree disagree or 
  want to comment on it so that work continues it's also work in 
  progress who knows when it's going to end but the conversations 
  bearing a decent bit of fruit part.
Manu Sporny:   Out of.
Manu Sporny:  There have been other things that have come up 
  during that conversation like does the exchanges and point need 
  authorization so if some of you are unaware of this conversation 
  that's you know 40 to 45 long there's tons of like flow diagrams 
  in here VCA pi plus VP are as well as let's see ones for open ID 
  right in.
Manu Sporny:  Why DC and choppy and that kind of stuff so there's 
  a lot of really good discussion that's happening here around 
  wallet protocols right so just a heads up that we've we are 
  having active discussion around all to see around VC API here 
  there has also been an issue raised about how do you detect 
  client features like do you support.
Manu Sporny:  Which did methods do you support.
<mahmoud_alkhraishi> yes
Manu Sporny:  Which crypto sweets do you support Muhammad my 
  understanding is that Trace abilities doing that kind of 
  negotiation through did web is that is that right.
<mahmoud_alkhraishi> sorry background dogs
Manu Sporny:  Yes okay so Mom and said yes and chat channel so 
  NASA we should you know probably talk about you know how VPR does 
  it versus how did web does it I think did web is the server 
  saying it's just their different different ways of expressing 
  what did methods and what crypto Suites you support in there's a 
  way of publishing the information.
Manu Sporny:   Ian through.
Manu Sporny:  Reopen IDC Discovery and there's ways of expressing 
  that information in a in a did document like it did web document 
  and then this example has you expressing that information in line 
  and the did author request itself with by saying you know you 
  accept certain did methods and accept certain crypto sweets so we 
  should probably there that discussion is kind of ongoing there as 
Manu Sporny:   All this to say that.
Manu Sporny:  It protocol discussion has generated a number of 
  big discussions in the VC API issue tracker as well any questions 
  concerns before we move on to the next item.

Topic: Should vc http api use PE Spec for query format?

<manu_sporny> Should vc http api use PE Spec for query format?
Manu Sporny:  All right if there are none the next item is issue 
  174 issue 174 ask the question on whether or not the VC HTTP API 
  should use the presentation exchange specification for the query 
Manu Sporny:  This is raised by Ori.
Manu Sporny:  It was assigned to you my mood but automatically.
Manu Sporny:  It sounds like everyone you know it sounds like 
  most of the folks here are implementing VPR is there anyone here 
  that is working with presentation exchange and VC API.
Manu Sporny:  Is anyone planning to implement presentation 
  Exchange in VC API.
Manu Sporny:  Okay does anyone know of anyone that is going to 
  implement presentation Exchange and be Capi.
Dave Longley:  Might be the case that secure key has based on 
  that Mike's comment on the screen.
Manu Sporny:  Yeah you're right.
Manu Sporny:  Okay um what if folks want to do I'm the VP our 
  supports arbitrary query languages and presentation exchange 
  could be one of those that that can be just injected in at some 
  point in the future.
Manu Sporny:  As Mike has elaborated here.
Manu Sporny:  I want to say that in the VP R-Spec.
Manu Sporny:  We want to stay silent until someone actually 
  implements it.
Manu Sporny:  Thoughts feelings one way or the other.
Dave Longley:  The seems like it would end up falling under the 
  same sort of things that came up with the VC data model with 
  terms of use and evidence and things like that where we can talk 
  about there are in VPR we Define a couple of very simplistic 
  query languages or query types that cover a lot of use cases but.
Dave Longley:  You something else just you know as Mike has shown 
  his example here you can use a different Korean language and we 
  can say where that goes and we I'm not sure if if we wanted to 
  use an example of something else probably the best thing to use 
  as an example of something else is probably.
Dave Longley:  Presentation exchange language.
Manu Sporny:  Okay so maybe it's Show an example using 
  presentation Exchange in VPR.
Manu Sporny:  Well how about this does anyone believe 
  presentation exchange should be a top-level primitive in the VC 
<mahmoud_alkhraishi> i don't think it should
Manu Sporny:  As we do I mean VPR is a top-level primitive right 
  now my mood is saying no I don't think it should.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  Well it's not a little bit I don't think it 
  should because they don't think there's enough support for it in 
  the sense of if we get a bunch of people asking for it that I'm 
  all I'm very happy to add it in but as right now.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:   We're like.
Dave Longley: -1 Because it can travel in VPR
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  Trying to find people who use it and the 
  spec is already big enough as is I don't think we need to look 
  for more.
Dave Longley:  Yeah I agree we shouldn't make it a top level 
  primitive right now especially because we have a place where any 
  query language can travel in VPR so you know we've got a we have 
  a place to slot that in and to slide in any any other query 
  language that might become popular over time that other people 
  come up with.
Manu Sporny:  It would there be any objections if we put a 7-Day 
  close on this I did ask Mike if secure keep plans to work on the 
Manu Sporny:  And we can put a 7-Day close on it and Mike can you 
  know object or say no no no we are planning on implementing this 
  and in we can keep it open.
Manu Sporny:  Okay not hearing objections that plan of action.
Manu Sporny:  And then clothes.
Manu Sporny:  K next up.

Topic: did:web issuer uses publicKey instead of verificationMethod

Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/issues/175
Manu Sporny:  Did web this was raised by Charles a while ago 
  almost a year ago more than a year ago did web the issuer uses 
  public key instead of verification method.
Manu Sporny:  This is really it is in the test Suite isn't it but 
  look he is no longer in did Coke or lean into verification 
Manu Sporny:  Is anyone expected to support public key for 
  backwards compatibility I think the suggestion is like no 
  definitely not.
Dave Longley: -1 To support publicKey
Manu Sporny:  Yeah this dude document was using an older context.
<mahmoud_alkhraishi> yeah its outdated
<mahmoud_alkhraishi> i think its good to close issue
Dave Longley: +1 To close
Manu Sporny:  I think the clear answer here is its outdated 
  nobody but should be using public key if anybody's using public 
  key it's a bug everyone should be using verification method okay 
  well moons agreeing Dave's agreeing okay so the any any 
  objections to closing this issue based on that.
Manu Sporny:  It was agreed that public key is out of date and 
  shouldn't be used and patient method should be used instead 
  closing do we need to fix anything here.
Manu Sporny:  This is in the super super old test Suite which 
  doesn't exist here anymore also the test Suite does not live in 
  this repository anymore and you.
Manu Sporny:  Don't use public key cleansing.
Manu Sporny:  All right that one's closed.
Manu Sporny:  An up is mediator holder X mediated holder 

Topic: Mediated Holder Exchanges

Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/issues/176
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  The median holder exchanges so I went 
  through it when I was trying to do some cleanup it's basically 
  ready to be closed except for the last bit where it's a call-out 
  to fix our spec and add some diagrams and I didn't want to close 
  it because our spec is broken I didn't know what exactly is the 
  current state so that's basically just where we are it's ready to 
  close assuming that the spec diagrams are.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:   Are up-to-date.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  There was a lot of really good discussion on 
  it but we've already talked old exchanging from cigarettes.
Manu Sporny:  Okay we need so we need to make sure that the 
  diagrams in the specification are up.
Manu Sporny:  And updated it's not right.
Manu Sporny:  Okay yeah we don't have that diagram.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  Yeah so there's diagrams so we need to make 
  sure that we have an exchange diagram that shows that you can 
  just do holder to holder I guess or like just a direct exchange 
  without the need for an issue in the middle but I don't think we 
  have that diagram we but I can't you know say yes or no without 
  actually looking at the cream which is.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  But we also do.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  A lot of diagrams and there's a bunch of 
  issues outlining the missing diagrams so I don't know if it makes 
  sense to keep this open or to point out like I think there's I 
  know there's at least like five or six issues with X diagrams 
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  Then maybe Market ready for PR.
Manu Sporny:  Well I mean I it doesn't hurt us too much to keep 
  it open and just say hey someone's got to create a diagram here 
  right because it becomes really easy to close this when the 
  diagram exist in the spec that okay yep sounds good.
Manu Sporny:  All right there we go.
Manu Sporny:  One Respec extension I'm trying to work on trying 
  to find some spare time to work on is emerge mermaid JS renderer 
  for Respec so that we can just you know do the flow diagrams 
  there in the meantime you can use mermaid JS to create the flow 
  diagram and just copy the SVG over by my hope is that we'll be 
  able to do inline SVG Auto generation who knows at some point in 
  the future all that to say.
Manu Sporny:  That if you can.
Manu Sporny:  A mermaid Jazz save the source code use the SVG 
  today but we will hopefully have a life ranger.
Manu Sporny:  Some point in the next couple of months.
Manu Sporny:  Okay that's media to hold the exchanges ready for 
Manu Sporny:  Anything else on that before moving on.

Topic: Retro-documentation efforts towards UCR documentation

Manu Sporny:  Okay this is documentation around use cases.
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/issues/180
Manu Sporny:  So here's 180.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  So there was nothing actionable here and the 
  end of the conversation was basically we don't need to open a new 
  repo from the document and as far as I know we're completely done 
  with the use case requirements Gathering right we just don't know 
  we didn't talk about if it's going to be added to the spec in any 
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:   But yeah.
Joe Andrieu:  Let me let me time in on that.
Joe Andrieu:  So I don't think the use case work is complete I do 
  think we've exhausted the momentum we got from the last call for 
  input but I know Eric was working through a number of diagrams to 
  convert to which we were going to convert to mermaid JS actually 
  so I know there's still some work to be done there and our 
  expectation was that that would be maintained as a separate 
  document which is a pattern we did for.
Joe Andrieu:   The did use cases in the VC use case.
Manu Sporny:  Okay that sounds good okay so let's see this on the 
  2022 405 call Joe provided an update to note that out that work 
  continues on these cases documented.
Manu Sporny:  Speculation is that it will be placed to its own 
  repository after it has been cleaned cleaned up.
Joe Andrieu:  Another another process now just for folks who 
  maybe haven't been through this before the my experience I came 
  in late to the VC use case work but was there for the whole did 
  you use case and I expect we're gonna have a similar pattern here 
  which is there's a lot of activity up front as people are trying 
  to define the work through the use cases and then as the API 
  matures we're going to realize some of the use cases that are 
  important maybe weren't in that first batch so the use cases tend 
  to be an ongoing documentation as consensus.
Joe Andrieu:   It develops so I expect that work to continue 
  alongside state.
Manu Sporny:  Yep plus 1 to that okay so the next the next step 
  here is let's see.
<mahmoud_alkhraishi> next step is status update and roadmap on 
Manu Sporny:  Joe is is the expectation here that Eric's going to 
  take the use cases document in make it into a Respec like thing 
  and then we'll publish in a ccg repo.
Joe Andrieu:  I think that is the right plan it would be good to 
  memorialize it here I don't know if the use case document is 
  currently a ccg work item so we may need to inject that step 
  before we move it over but that feels like the right way to go.
Joe Andrieu:  As a precursor to whatever we're going to Charter 
  the VC API work to be done under.
Manu Sporny:  Right that does create a question at least for me 
  the next time you the current is to take the current use cases 
  document and convert it into a nice pack adopt it as a ccg work 
  item so so I'm wondering if the BC API is already a ccg work item 
  do we do we really need to make the.
Manu Sporny:  Item and then what about test Suites like do all of 
  those need to be taken one at a time or does the fact that we 
  decided to work on VC API mean that we can just like a working 
  group does like break that work up in whatever form we see fit.
Joe Andrieu:  I think that's a great question for the current 
  chairs I know you know when Chris Kim and I were running saying 
  is we would have treated them as separate work items I think you 
  could it could go either way.
Joe Andrieu:  I don't think I've chartered limited is what I'm 
Ted Thibodeau:  We should not need distinct work items for UCR 
  docs or test suites on things we've already set up as work items 
  [scribe assist by Ted Thibodeau]
Manu Sporny:  Okay yeah my concern is yeah got gotcha yeah my 
  concern is you know a lot of process over these documents but 
  yeah okay so we'll put a question out to the mailing list ccg 
  work item if necessary and publish as.
Joe Andrieu:  There's yeah there's no reason that a work item has 
  to be one-to-one map to a repo so maybe we could just create two 
  new repos under that work item.
Manu Sporny:  Yep okay well we'll put it out to the mailing list 
  because this is I don't know if we've ever asked that question on 
  the mailing list of the chairs before okay but next step here is 
  to take the current use cases document converted to Respec 
  adopted as a ccg work item if necessary and publish as a separate 
Manu Sporny:  All right does anyone know Eric's GitHub handle.
Manu Sporny:  Maybe he's not a part of this maybe he's not a part 
  of the CC no I thought he was added.
Manu Sporny:  If you don't mind you once you find the his handle 
  if you can add it to the bottom here so we know it who who it's 
  assigned to.
Manu Sporny:  And ideally we can remove my mood from this and 
  just put Eric as The assignee.
Manu Sporny:  All right we're out of issues and we have 10 went 
  not we're not out of issues we got to the bottom of our list.
Manu Sporny:  Let's see next item up um.

Topic: Ensure that GNAP can be an Authorization protocol extension authorization

Manu Sporny:  I'm sure that can app can be an authorization 
  protocol extension.
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api/issues/181
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  So there was a merge commit to this a while 
  ago but that doesn't actually isn't.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  The spec right now does not mention enough 
  as far as I can tell in anyway so I'm not really sure if this is 
  even still an issue if you go to the authorization section right 
  now we have two parts on it we have a forbidden authorization we 
  have an oauth 2.0 authorization and I believe there was an issue 
  at one point that said we can add a good nap one here but I also 
  can't remember if we resolve that yes or no.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:   This issue however.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi:  Doesn't do anything like it's an issue that 
  has a PR that's emerged but doesn't actually you know have an 
  action item.
Manu Sporny:  Got You Justin my memory was that we've selected 
  this language very carefully to ensure that it was Kanab 
  compatible do you know if that you do you have the same agree.
Justin Richer:  So I mean I remember going around and around 
  about the language and honestly what's in there is practically an 
  on statement because it says if you do this then you're allowed 
  to do what's in that spec which makes absolutely no sense to have 
  as a normative requirement whatsoever and so.
Justin Richer:  There's there's so much in here that is so ill 
  defined that technically you are correct that this does allow 
  somebody to use an app it also allows somebody to use smoke 
  signals I mean I could get completely absurd and come up with a 
  perfectly compliant way to.
Justin Richer:  Comply with this section it is.
Justin Richer:  From a specification and interoperability 
  standpoint functionally useless dead weight.
Manu Sporny:  Okay so what are the concrete.
Manu Sporny:  What's what's the concrete thing where's the 
  concrete place we can go from here.
Manu Sporny:  All right so I think what I'm taking away from that 
  Justin is we need to Define more concrete language in the 
  specification that covers authorization mechanisms such as auth 
  to Etc or say nothing at all.
Manu Sporny:  Is that a fair summary.
Justin Richer:  Are you looking for my approval for that text.
Manu Sporny:  Engineer was just a it was a yes one and then 
  General it question to everyone else like we need to write some 
  spec text or we need to just close these issues.
Justin Richer:  I strongly believe that the correct answer is to 
  write spec.
Manu Sporny:  Okay and I don't think I'm we can try again I know 
  Justin you said you know that doesn't sound like fun to you but 
  you know it's been a couple of months and maybe we can get 
  somewhere with the.
<mike.varley> I joined late but +1 to the comment on 181.
Manu Sporny:  Anyway I think this is just a general invitation 
  for whoever wants to feel that kind of pain again to write a 
  write a PR and we will review it and maybe it'll go somewhere 
  this time and maybe the same thing that happened last time will 
  happen again The Next Step here is to write a concrete and we 
  write a PR with more concrete language than exists in the.
Manu Sporny:  Shouldn't be related to any authorization mechanism 
  that a proposer would like to see ya I specification so this is 
  ready for PR.
Manu Sporny:  Okay that was that item we have three minutes left.
Manu Sporny:  Let's go ahead and end on that note primarily 
  because I think this will be more than three-minute conversation 
  okay any other comments concerns that I'm sorry Joe were you on 
  the queue.
Manu Sporny:  I just might need.
Joe Andrieu:  Yes I think I was I added Eric to also noted we do 
  already have a repo but it's not really up to Snuff so it looks 
  like Eric started on that process and then ran into some 
  difficulties so I'll help him with that.
Manu Sporny:  Okay sounds good all right with that thank you 
  everyone for the call today thanks for the discussion we will 
  meet again next week and keep going through these issues we may 
  have a couple more test Suites to share with folks as well thanks 
  everyone have a wonderful day ciao.
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2022 22:10:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 April 2022 22:10:47 UTC