Re: [MINUTES] W3C CCG Credentials CG Call - 2022-03-15

On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 10:48 PM Melvin Carvalho <>

> On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 3:36 PM Orie Steele <>
> wrote:
>> This might be helpful:
> Thanks Orie.  That was helpful.
> The document seems to describe the ipfs:// URI scheme ( as well as ipns:
> and dweb: )
> Slight nit is that the scheme seems quite closely coupled to IPFS, and
> while IPFS uses multihash, multihash itself seems, as far as I can tell, to
> be designed to used in a loosely coupled manner.
> So perhaps there is some utility in a more generic, multihash:, scheme.

Thanks for the feedback, I raised an issue on this here:

>> OS
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 8:17 AM Daniel Buchner <>
>> wrote:
>>> Not that I'm aware; it's based on leading bytes and doesn't have a
>>> scheme registered in IANA (
>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2022, 7:50 AM Melvin Carvalho <>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Quick question:
>>>> Does "multhash" have its own URI scheme?
>>>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 4:04 PM CCG Minutes Bot <>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 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:
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> W3C CCG Weekly Teleconference Transcript for 2022-03-15
>>>>> Agenda:
>>>>> Topics:
>>>>>   1. Introductions and Reintroductions
>>>>>   2. Announcements and Reminders
>>>>>   3. CCG Work Items for promotion to VC WG
>>>>> Organizer:
>>>>>   Heather Vescent, Mike Prorock, Kimberly Linson
>>>>> Scribe:
>>>>>   Our Robot Overlords
>>>>> Present:
>>>>>   Kimberly Linson, Manu Sporny, Brian, Ryan Grant, Dmitri
>>>>>   Zagidulin, Shawn Butterfield, Chris Abernethy (, Markus
>>>>>   Sabadello, Leo, Kerri Lemoie, Mike Prorock, Andy Miller, Orie
>>>>>   Steele, Charles E. Lehner, Kaliya Young, Adrian Gropper, Brent
>>>>>   Zundel, David I. Lehn, Kayode Ezike, Jeff Orgel, TallTed // Ted
>>>>>   Thibodeau (he/him) (, Mahmoud Alkhraishi, Juan
>>>>>   Caballero, Heather Vescent
>>>>> Our Robot Overlords are scribing.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  Recording is on.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:   I just.
>>>>> <kerri_lemoie> high five back!
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  High five to the air so we're all good okay so
>>>>>   let's kind of walk through just our agenda review we're going to
>>>>>   talk about the will go through sort of our housekeeping items and
>>>>>   then we're going to do our main topic today which is that man is
>>>>>   going to frame the context for us around the new VC working group
>>>>>   Charter and some of the work items that we have that are going to
>>>>>   move or potentially move to.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:   To to that group.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  Go ahead and run through our housekeeping
>>>>>   stuff.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  So first off anyone is welcome to participate
>>>>>   in these calls however if you are wanting to make substantive
>>>>>   contributions we really would invite you to join the ccg you have
>>>>>   to do two things in order to to be a full contributor one is join
>>>>>   the ccg the link to do that to have an account its free to anyone
>>>>>   is in that link is in that.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  Into that I sent.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  That's step one step two is to sign the
>>>>>   community contributor license agreement and the link to that is
>>>>>   also in in the agenda so I would definitely if you have not
>>>>>   already done that please do then just a couple of things about
>>>>>   how to participate in the call first of all you're in jitsi which
>>>>>   means that you've done step one and if you have audio issues or
>>>>>   something doesn't seem to be quiet.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  Right we do know that.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  They're sort of.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  Be sometimes be some issues in the system
>>>>>   couple workarounds or one too just refresh to is to try a
>>>>>   different browser and know that that's worked for me on a couple
>>>>>   of different occasions to just switch over to Safari the minutes
>>>>>   and audio are of everything that's said on this call are recorded
>>>>>   and archived and they are also that link to that archive is also
>>>>>   in the agenda and so you can go there to look at those.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:   We use iirc to.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  Jurors during the call as well as to take
>>>>>   minutes we have this awesome CG bought that you can see that is
>>>>>   transcribing and recording everything so hopefully we won't need
>>>>>   a scribe but just to give your give you a few little tips on how
>>>>>   to to use the are see if you aren't familiar with it one is it if
>>>>>   you have something you want to say just add yourself to the queue
>>>>>   by typing q+ if you change your mind you can pick you -.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:   If you see something in the transcription that
>>>>>   the CG Bot got wrong.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  Our that the CG bought got wrong then you can
>>>>>   do s: / whatever was incorrect Bob / what's correct Robert and so
>>>>>   you can fix anything and I've actually asked that as an entire
>>>>>   Community we do that and thanks man you for putting that in there
>>>>>   yes so so I'd asked us all to kind of keep an eye especially on
>>>>>   the things that you say and make sure that that.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:   It is represented correctly.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  And let's see so now I think we're too we'll
>>>>>   skip the Scribe selection I don't think we need that because
>>>>>   hopefully the CG bot will do that for us and we get to do
>>>>>   introductions do we have anybody new to the community or who
>>>>>   would like to hasn't been here for a while who'd like to
>>>>>   reintroduce themselves.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:   We'd love to welcome you.
>>>>> Topic: Introductions and Reintroductions
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  And is a former educator I know to give that a
>>>>>   very long pause but I don't see anybody and I recognize most of
>>>>>   the names here so I'll go ahead and move to announcements and
>>>>>   reminders.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  Anybody have an announcement for us.
>>>>> Topic: Announcements and Reminders
>>>>> Manu Sporny:
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Yeah just two things the first one is reminder this
>>>>>   is the weekly reminder that the verifiable credentials working
>>>>>   group Charter is under active development please read it provide
>>>>>   some input we're going to be talking about it today but things
>>>>>   really do seem to be wrapping up on it so please kind of read it
>>>>>   as it stands right now and you know.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  You're running out of time the chart looks is
>>>>>   starting to look pretty good right now so I don't think this
>>>>>   community would have any objections with it but just a reminder
>>>>>   that that's happening the other kind of news is that it looks
>>>>>   like the did formal objections or moving forward a bit with the
>>>>>   director can't say much more than that but looks like there's
>>>>>   some movement there so that's good and that's it.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  Great thank you any other announcements
>>>>>   reminders.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  All right I checked and it doesn't seem like we
>>>>>   have any action items that we need to talk about but if somebody
>>>>>   has somebody thing that they want to bring up there now would be
>>>>>   the time to do so.
>>>>> Topic: CCG Work Items for promotion to VC WG
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  Okay great then let's get into to the main
>>>>>   topic for for today as I said at the beginning this was a good
>>>>>   topic for me to have as my first one because it really gave me
>>>>>   the opportunity to dive in and see what it is that we're doing
>>>>>   and I have to save it as a community group it is amazing the
>>>>>   amount of work and expertise that were contributing and I know
>>>>>   you all know that in parallel to our work the the.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  Is also doing their work and so today's topic
>>>>>   is really to as man you said think about those items that we've
>>>>>   been working on and do they need to be promoted to to the formal
>>>>>   BC working group so I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to
>>>>>   Manu to walk us through the context and then we can have a good
>>>>>   discussion around that after he's finished.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Okay thanks Kimberly Bryant I don't know if you
>>>>>   would also I'm sorry to put you on the spot print but I don't
>>>>>   know if you would like to say some things to kind of start at
>>>>>   Brent's Brent's one of the co-chairs of the verifiable
>>>>>   credentials working group or if you want me to just dive into
>>>>>   things.
>>>>> Brent Zundel:  Manu I will certainly leave it to you to dive into
>>>>>   things and I'm happy to chime in if folks want me to talk.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Okay awesome thanks Brent okay so Brent is our
>>>>>   fearless leader in the verifiable credentials working group and
>>>>>   has been a chair therefore since the since the dawn of time for a
>>>>>   long time and currently as I mentioned we've been working on this
>>>>>   verifiable credentials working group Charter I'm going to go
>>>>>   ahead and share going to tempt fate and share my screen.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Sorry to do this to you on your first first time
>>>>>   Kimberly butt.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  That's okay you said if you said if it was if
>>>>>   it got broken to just call on you so since you're in charge there
>>>>>   you go you can break it and then fix it.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Exactly okay so here's the charter so the
>>>>>   verifiable credentials working group Charter and there's a
>>>>>   portion of the charter that talks about the group's deliverables
>>>>>   and typically this group The credentials community group has been
>>>>>   a feeder of incubated specifications to the verifiable credential
>>>>>   working group now this not the only path.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   Earth to the VC.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  G but it is a path and we have a number of
>>>>>   community work items that have found themselves in the verifiable
>>>>>   credentials working group Charter so there's a part of the
>>>>>   process here where this community hands are work items over to
>>>>>   the official working group and there is a process there's a
>>>>>   community group process for that you publish what I think is
>>>>>   called a final community group report.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  People in this community then if you worked on it
>>>>>   make concrete IP our commitments basically is asserting that yes
>>>>>   I worked on it no I don't know about any patents or if I do know
>>>>>   about patents I will bring them to light I will let everyone know
>>>>>   about it in in in in most cases contribute the patents for the
>>>>>   specific purposes of the specification so that process so if you.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   Dissipated in any of these items there's.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Asian that you're going to make that patent
>>>>>   commitment on the specification so what items are in this group
>>>>>   that are moving over currently we have listed the data Integrity
>>>>>   specification Jason Webb signature 2020 Edwards curve signature
>>>>>   for David data Integrity the same thing for the nist.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   T curve.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Thing for the Bitcoin also known as the Cobell its
>>>>>   curves theory mises that stuff as well and then we have
>>>>>   conditional normative specifications that basically say if these
>>>>>   things progress in some groups outside of the group we will take
>>>>>   the work up as well so there's the pgp crypto Suite which is
>>>>>   currently in or he's repo here we've got BBS plus which.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   Which you know work is happening.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  At ietf in diff on that and we've got the jwp stuff
>>>>>   where work is happening at diff in ITF on that so the the whole
>>>>>   discussion today is really around like this section of the of the
>>>>>   specification I'm sorry I forgot to mention the post Quantum
>>>>>   crypto stuff as well that mic Pro Rock and in that groups working
>>>>>   on so but but.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Basically we're talking about this section.
>>>>> <mprorock> * i feel slighted ;)
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Write all the all the stuff in here I sent out a
>>>>>   kind of every year we present this roadmap about what the group
>>>>>   is doing and this I tried to update it I'm sorry if I missed
>>>>>   something there's a lot of stuff to keep track of I tried to
>>>>>   include all the things this community has been working on since
>>>>>   like you know 2010 ish.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   14 Ish all the way to present.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  A and then try to predict out that like 20:27 based
>>>>>   on the stuff that we know this does not include work items that
>>>>>   for example diff is working on it doesn't include work items that
>>>>>   are happening at ietf unless they originated in the ccg so it's
>>>>>   missing some things with the Hope here is that it gives everyone
>>>>>   a pretty good idea of like the types of things we've worked on in
>>>>>   the past and what we're getting ready to move over so.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   Cific Lee if we if we scroll down here.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  The red line is today so this is this is where we
>>>>>   are today and if we scroll down here to the cryptography section
>>>>>   right here so the cryptography section this is where we are today
>>>>>   in each one of these items is an official work item in a official
>>>>>   w3c working group so as you can see we are getting ready to hold
>>>>>   like hand over a.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   A huge amount of.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  From this group to official working groups at w3c
>>>>>   so that is like a huge success story I think they're not all
>>>>>   going to the same working group this one here at the top actually
>>>>>   you know what let me let me pause for a second I've kind of fire
>>>>>   hose the group with information are there any questions at least
>>>>>   at a high level about what we're talking about today or just
>>>>>   general questions about the.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Okay so that's either everyone understand well
>>>>>   let's see where's the queue right so either everyone understands
>>>>>   or we're all totally lost one of the do I'll keep going feel free
>>>>>   to put yourself on the Queue if there's any any questions so
>>>>>   they're really two working groups at w3c that ccg work is going.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   To the first world.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  In group is a very specialized working group to
>>>>>   standardize this spec up here rdf data set canonicalization this
>>>>>   spec has been incubated in this group and other groups for a
>>>>>   decade now literally this work has been going on for a decade and
>>>>>   it's finally moving over to an official working group with the
>>>>>   time span of two years to standardize it the good news here is
>>>>>   that this thing has been pretty settled for six years now.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   Now 7 years now but it.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Goes to show you sometimes how long some of these
>>>>>   things can take to actually get it into an official working group
>>>>>   so rdf data set canonicalization is going into a working group
>>>>>   called rdf data set canonicalization hashing working group at w3c
>>>>>   that group will run in parallel with the re-chartered verifiable
>>>>>   credentials 2.0 working group The VC 20 working group will build
>>>>>   upon this work and and.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   Their work elsewhere.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Um and it will be taking all of these
>>>>>   specifications in right so things like data Integrity multi base
>>>>>   multi hash and multi key this one's a little gray area right now
>>>>>   but other things like Jason Webb signature the Edwards curve
>>>>>   crypto sweet the nist crypto sweet the Cobell it's Bitcoin
>>>>>   ethereum crypto sweet.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  All you know fairly well formed and inspects that
>>>>>   can be pulled in the BBS Plus work needs more work at ietf but
>>>>>   we've been able to basically phrase the charter so I'm going to
>>>>>   switch back over to the Charter we've been able to phrase the
>>>>>   charter in the in this kind of conditional normative
>>>>>   specification term so basically this means that.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Plan to publish official standards for these
>>>>>   Technologies if the base work for these Technologies are
>>>>>   completed before the working group ends so there's base
>>>>>   technology for BBS plus that has to happen at ITF and there's
>>>>>   base technology for J WP s that has to happen at ietf before the
>>>>>   verifiable credentials working group can take it over.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   Over so these things are.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Like optional we may not get to them we really hope
>>>>>   we get to them but it's totally dependent on groups that are kind
>>>>>   of external to the VC WG to deliver on the things that they said
>>>>>   they were going to deliver on okay so going back to kind of this
>>>>>   diagram that's why BBS plus doesn't start for maybe another year
>>>>>   in the group there's some pre-work there that needs to be done.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Let me stop there to see if there any questions.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  Well I was trying to keep question mark But I
>>>>>   added myself to the queue so I will ask you so so the official
>>>>>   Charter like how long of a period of time does that VC working
>>>>>   group Charter span.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Right great question so the charter span see oh wow
>>>>>   they don't have it it's two years basically right in once we know
>>>>>   the start date will will lock those time periods in there so at
>>>>>   the top it's typically two years and they really don't like w3c
>>>>>   members really don't like giving Charters more time than that
>>>>>   they don't like work that doesn't complete in something concrete
>>>>>   so we basically have.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   Two years.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Extensions but and they're typically granted if
>>>>>   they're reasonable but if you have like failed to produce
>>>>>   something implementable at two years that you basically just acts
>>>>>   the group they shut you down which is why it's so important that
>>>>>   we go in with pre incubated work the other thing that's
>>>>>   interesting to look at here from timeline is section 2 6 where it
>>>>>   talks about like what happens a month after two months after five
>>>>>   months after 6 months.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   After most w3c Charters have.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Are and and language like f PW d means first public
>>>>>   working draft CR means candidate recommendation like for
>>>>>   implementation implementer should start implementing at that
>>>>>   point and Rec means recommendation also known as kind of like an
>>>>>   official global standard so that's the time frame two years and
>>>>>   it's kind of broken down a bit in here and it's everyone that's
>>>>>   been in a w3c working group can attest to this is largely.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   A work of fiction.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Things don't always go according to plan but you
>>>>>   know should give you a rough idea of what we intend to do.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  Thanks Charles is on the queue.
>>>>> Charles E. Lehner:  Hi can you hear me.
>>>>> Charles E. Lehner:  Hi I was wondering about the IP our
>>>>>   commitment process you mentioned how it works coming from with
>>>>>   documents coming from ccg and I was wondering how it works if
>>>>>   it's the same for the other potential documents coming from other
>>>>>   organizations.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  That's a great question documents coming from other
>>>>>   organizations that have their own IP are mode or tend to be very
>>>>>   problematic in that it takes us a while to figure it out now if
>>>>>   that organization has a w3c mode like for example diff does
>>>>>   moving things overs typically much easier for the lawyers to
>>>>>   reason their way through it so Charles was your question mostly
>>>>>   about external documents coming in.
>>>>> Charles E. Lehner:  Yeah about the conditional normative
>>>>>   specification documents but.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Okay okay that's a great question because these are
>>>>>   there are two partners here this there's a two parts to the
>>>>>   answer here right so the BBS plus crypto Suite is a ccg work item
>>>>>   so at some point not now but maybe in a year maybe in six months
>>>>>   this group will have to create a final community group report on
>>>>>   the BBS plus specification and then hand it over to the be cwg.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   Ever the base.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Primitives will be ITF work items so ietf doesn't
>>>>>   hand that stuff over to w3c ITF just basically says we've got it
>>>>>   we will standardize the base cryptographic Primitives and ITF in
>>>>>   you ccwg in your crypto sweet can refer to our specs so in the VC
>>>>>   w g what we would do if everything is in order at ITF the V CW G
>>>>>   would start pointing normatively.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   Lie to the BBS.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  ITF specifications did that help Charles.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  The other part of that question which is also
>>>>>   interesting that I don't think many of us have been through here
>>>>>   is this whole concept of a final community group report in so if
>>>>>   you'll notice on our community group webpage we have these final
>>>>>   reports in like the vc10 use cases was one of those things the
>>>>>   data model 10 was one of those things in the did Speck was one of
>>>>>   those things there was.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   A point in time where we did.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Doing today where we said okay we need to hand over
>>>>>   a bunch of specs and the editors of those specs publish them as
>>>>>   final reports in got licensing commitments on those final reports
>>>>>   so if I go and I click on like the did licensing commitments it's
>>>>>   takes a while to load because it's got a load all 460 people in
>>>>>   the group but you'll see these commitments from the credentials
>>>>>   community group on this did spec so you'll see you.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   Like Dan burn.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Commitment reuven made a commitment Michael Zoo
>>>>>   Pele I mean all these people that worked on the did spec made
>>>>>   commitments right so all this yes stuff our commitments basically
>>>>>   saying we are not withholding any kind of intellectual property
>>>>>   or anything on the spec but if you go down far enough like there
>>>>>   are a lot of people that that made commitments.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   A lot of people made commitments.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  You'll see that some people did not write and that
>>>>>   might be because they didn't contribute anything to it it might
>>>>>   be because they don't feel like what they did contribute you know
>>>>>   would make a difference some of these people might not have been
>>>>>   a part of the group at the time right so really what we're
>>>>>   looking for are commitments from people that actually contributed
>>>>>   material and specifically things that are substantive to the
>>>>>   specification so.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   The editor.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  A document will put it out there and publish it and
>>>>>   then we'll publish it as a final report and then we will ask the
>>>>>   community hey we need you to you know make a commitment if you
>>>>>   contributed anything make a commitment and the editors themselves
>>>>>   will know like these five people absolutely definitely me need to
>>>>>   make commitments or we need to know now that they're not going to
>>>>>   make a commitment because then that that creates an air of you
>>>>>   know.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   Auntie around IP are so if somebody.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Substantive thing like a something fundamental and
>>>>>   they're refusing to make and I pee our commitments then that's an
>>>>>   immediate red flag that you know it's raised now that has never
>>>>>   happened either that as far as I know in this group ever but what
>>>>>   we are expecting here is that for this work.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   People we're.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Publish F CG s is final community group
>>>>>   specifications for these items and people are going to make those
>>>>>   IP our commitments on these documents hopefully that made
>>>>>   hopefully that made sense.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  Thank you does anybody have any questions for
>>>>>   me a new queue is currently empty.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  All right man who are the things that we want
>>>>>   to dive into on specifics or.
>>>>> Mike Prorock: +1 That or dive on VC-API implications
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  We might want to ask each of the editors where they
>>>>>   think they are on prepping you know each document so we might
>>>>>   want to dive into each one individually that's one thing we could
>>>>>   do the other thing we could do is look at the rest of the road
>>>>>   map I don't know if folks would be interested in doing that and
>>>>>   asking questions about why things are staged in the way they are
>>>>>   or there's X is missing.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   You know why is that.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Where does it fit in here.
>>>>> Dmitri Zagidulin: +1 To roadmap
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Either either you know we could we could go either
>>>>>   way.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  Mike just brought up a really good point that
>>>>>   maybe we should discuss is the VC API work and maybe we can
>>>>>   discuss that and then talk about the roadmap so that makes sense.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Oh yeah plus one.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  Mike do you want to jump in and give us kind of
>>>>>   an overview of the.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:  Yeah well like yeah sure and I guess really the
>>>>>   thing that is a little bit concerning to me and I think we're
>>>>>   making good progress now especially with some of the PRS that are
>>>>>   in queue on VC API but there's kind of two things if that work
>>>>>   moves over into the working group I think we should have it at a
>>>>>   reasonable does not have to be perfect but a reasonable steady
>>>>>   state.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:  Which would mean.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:  In the VC API work item we would want to kind of
>>>>>   formalize and say Yep this is what we're considering in scope and
>>>>>   we're just going to kind of lock this in a certain point and then
>>>>>   re pick up work inside the working group but since that would be
>>>>>   moving to a non-normative item that is the other question I have
>>>>>   around kind of what are the implications of that.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:   That could be detrimental.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:  Normative item it may set up the path to a more
>>>>>   normative item once we show people working on it so there's a
>>>>>   variety of ways that could go strategically and politically and
>>>>>   so that's kind of an open for I'd like man whose thoughts on that
>>>>>   and then I think that might spur some interesting conversation
>>>>>   there so.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  Great guy had manna.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Yeah I think that yeah Mike's totally right the
>>>>>   this is like a very this is a super interesting what's the word
>>>>>   conundrum that that were in with the VC API so so we've got
>>>>>   multiple people implementing the VC API and I know the trace
>>>>>   folks are doing it I know digital bazaars committed to it you
>>>>>   know number of organizations committed to interrupt through the
>>>>>   VC API but.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   There have been some.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  See members that have pushed really hard to keep
>>>>>   protocol out of scope for the verifiable credentials working
>>>>>   group so you will know that there is.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Out of scope right normative specification of apis
>>>>>   are protocols and we are expecting that if we try to put it in
>>>>>   scope it would be challenged heavily if not formal objections so
>>>>>   the what we've tried to do here is to basically say the group is
>>>>>   going to work on a developer guide the VC to working group is
>>>>>   going to work on a developer guide and there's going to be input
>>>>>   to that one of them is the VC API.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   II just be Capi.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Other ones can app like we want to be able to talk
>>>>>   about protocols that are carrying verifiable credentials over
>>>>>   them but we're not allowed to say anything normatively about
>>>>>   those things so how are we you know how is this group going to
>>>>>   feed VC API into the VC to working group The verifiable
>>>>>   credential 20 working group.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   One option.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  When is we just handed over completely and it stops
>>>>>   being a ccg work item and then it's up to the verifiable
>>>>>   credentials working group to determine what what should happen to
>>>>>   the VC API upside there is like hey it's in the group that's
>>>>>   great but the only thing they can do is publish it as a note and
>>>>>   one of the implications of that that Kyle did hartog brought up
>>>>>   which I thought was a great point.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   Point is that because it's a note it.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Kind of IPR protection whatsoever 0 IPR protection
>>>>>   so people can start injecting all kinds of horrible proprietary
>>>>>   patented stuff in there and there is no requirement to say
>>>>>   anything about that now we know I think all of us don't think
>>>>>   like that's going to happen but that is one of the concerns there
>>>>>   so option one is give it completely over to the verifiable
>>>>>   credential working group but all they can really do is work on it
>>>>>   as kind of like a note a developer guide that kind of thing.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Option two is that we keep it as a ccg work item
>>>>>   and we continue to incubate it here it has IPR protection in this
>>>>>   group and will continue to have IPR protection in the group and
>>>>>   what we can do is hand over snapshots to the verifiable
>>>>>   credentials to working group we can basically tell them hey can
>>>>>   you snap shot this in they can publish it as a note and they can
>>>>>   snapshot you know couple times throughout the year the benefit
>>>>>   there is that it has IPR protection and we can continue to
>>>>>   incubate it as kind of.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   A high priority item.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  So it'll get like the air it needs to breathe here
>>>>>   and have protection while also signaling to the w3c membership
>>>>>   that we do plan on doing protocols at some point like maybe not
>>>>>   right now but maybe in the VC 30 working group the recharter we
>>>>>   plan to put protocols in scope so that's option two option three
>>>>>   is to just keep it in the ccg and keep working on it and it would
>>>>>   be good you know I don't know.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   If there are other options too.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Other options of the things that we could do with
>>>>>   it or it would also be good to hear back like what do folks feel
>>>>>   we should do with that item.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Let me ask a more pointed question traceability
>>>>>   folks what do you want to do with that item I mean you guys
>>>>>   depend on it right.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:  Yeah I mean I am honestly fine with it going in as
>>>>>   a note on the w3c side one of the kind of bigger picture items
>>>>>   that we have to balance as kind of the multiple aspects of
>>>>>   traceability because a lot of digital traceability is also coming
>>>>>   up and there seems to be a critical mass actually on the ietf
>>>>>   side right with some working groups there and that's where.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:   We have to still find out.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:  Willing to be friendly to use of VCS and Ed's
>>>>>   right in especially linked data usage and that's a bit of an
>>>>>   unknown right now and that's kind of a high risk I don't know or
>>>>>   eicu on the queue as well.
>>>>> Orie Steele:  Yeah I agree with the what Mike said you know I
>>>>>   think when we consider technologies that are related to
>>>>>   verifiable credentials dids and the sort of basic cryptographic
>>>>>   envelope formats like Jose Jose come to mind and I would want to
>>>>>   make sure that I think you know just speaking frankly the
>>>>>   verifiable credentials a.
>>>>> Orie Steele:  P I work for her.
>>>>> Orie Steele:  That's not the only thing that's important support
>>>>>   for traditional Jose and cozy a is also really important
>>>>>   especially for kids and and so I think.
>>>>> Orie Steele:  My experience with the w3c you know especially
>>>>>   after the did working group I'm not sure that the w3c is really
>>>>>   the best place to do anything related to protocols I think I
>>>>>   agree in large part with some of the positions that other w3c
>>>>>   members have held that the w3c is not really great at developing
>>>>>   protocols and in particular support for Jose and cozy which are.
>>>>> Orie Steele:  Of users are actively contributing to and
>>>>>   maintaining them at ietf I think there is a future where the VC
>>>>>   apis that exist today might be better served becoming more of a
>>>>>   dids plus Jose and cozy at ITF but that is the kind of thing that
>>>>>   you know it's about going to where the contributors are and
>>>>>   asking them how they want to see these Technologies working
>>>>>   together.
>>>>> Orie Steele:   And recognizing that.
>>>>> <mprorock> it is really nebulous and makes me highly nervous
>>>>> <mprorock> I don't think CCG helps it long term either
>>>>> Orie Steele:  Not everyone wants to use the same tools to build
>>>>>   their favorite sandcastles so I think the verifiable credentials
>>>>>   API as a non normative item at the w3c obviously doesn't really
>>>>>   do anything to secure its future anywhere like it could just
>>>>>   become a non-normative item and then never be defined further
>>>>>   could become a normatively defined API at W3 for support for the
>>>>>   defined verifiable potential formats.
>>>>> Orie Steele:   I think that's a best-case scenario but.
>>>>> Orie Steele:  My experience over the last few years is that even
>>>>>   when you plan for something like that you may not actually be in
>>>>>   control of achieving it especially given the you know kinds of
>>>>>   contributions we see the w3c standards so if it feels nebulous
>>>>>   and scary the yeah that's kind of how I feel about it.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  Go ahead manu.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Yeah so I mean this is this is this is new to me
>>>>>   and that does seem like a very big change in scope and Direction
>>>>>   Ori.
>>>>> <orie> there is OIDF as well, working on protcols related to this
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  And so where it's so I haven't seen work like this
>>>>>   done at ITF ever there's low-level protocol bits and bytes stuff
>>>>>   that does happen at ITF but not application you know layer
>>>>>   protocols like sip is an example HTTP an example but those are
>>>>>   you know much more lower lower level than the VC API we're in the
>>>>>   w3c has.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   Unlike application.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Linked data platform you know they did you know
>>>>>   protocol work there we're at ietf are both of you thinking the
>>>>>   work would fit in like it would be a complete rewrite of the
>>>>>   specification I think that's what I mean that's what I'm hearing
>>>>>   is like hey let's not use verifiable credentials let's use
>>>>>   something else and let's not do a w3c spec Let's do an ITF spec
>>>>>   so it sounds to me like this is a totally different
>>>>>   specification.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   And you guys talk.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  What where where did IETF with the work happen.
>>>>> Orie Steele:  So I'm not saying any work what happened ietf I'm
>>>>>   saying that ITF works on things that I care about deeply and if
>>>>>   you look at you know the work on an app that's happening and ietf
>>>>>   you can see that you know clearly ITF has ability to gather folks
>>>>>   who are passionate about these issues and work on standards there
>>>>>   I'm mostly saying that from a software supply chain or hardware
>>>>>   supply chain use cases dids and VCS are.
>>>>> Orie Steele:   Obviously an important part of that but I think
>>>>>   also.
>>>>> Orie Steele:  Port for existing cryptosystems like pgp Jose and
>>>>>   cozy is an important part of that and bgp Jose and Jose have been
>>>>>   defined at ITF so I'm mostly just saying that work will happen
>>>>>   where people are and you know obviously the VC API is currently
>>>>>   being incubated here in the w3c ccg and the plan is to work on it
>>>>>   as a non normative note in the w3c verifiable credentials working
>>>>>   group assuming the charter is approved.
>>>>> Orie Steele:   It's all I can say about that as I.
>>>>> Orie Steele:  I'm just noting that like there are also other
>>>>>   things that are happening out in the ecosystem like now and the
>>>>>   open ID connect verifiable presentation Flows at open ID
>>>>>   foundation and you know I'm interested in contributing to these
>>>>>   items as well so maybe really what I'm saying is that work
>>>>>   happens outside of the ccg and w3c as well.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  Thanks Orie,  Mike did you want to add some
>>>>>   something to that.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:  Yeah I mean I can add some color and then some
>>>>>   concern I mean the I think a I think fundamentally having the VC
>>>>>   API live as a were even traceability for that matter live as a
>>>>>   long-term ccg non-normative items not going to be helpful to
>>>>>   adoption right and that's that's concerning to me so we have to
>>>>>   start thinking even if it's a way down the line where's this
>>>>>   going to work in a graduate to in quotes right.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:
>>>>> Mike Prorock:  The I think you know Trends I am seeing in ietf
>>>>>   are for sure more work going on on exactly this kind of thing and
>>>>>   a case in point there's I'm going to link an individual draft
>>>>>   that's dealing more with supply chain from a software supply
>>>>>   chain like s bomb and things like that this this work is going
>>>>>   on.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:   Whether we like.
>>>>> <bumblefudge> Fraunhofer SIT 🤩
>>>>> Mike Prorock:  And so it's kind of forcing some decisions like
>>>>>   can we you know try to engage in a positive way and help move
>>>>>   those work items forward while also making sure our needs are met
>>>>>   from a like I have no desire to move away from verifiable
>>>>>   credentials like none whatsoever so you know it's stuff we just
>>>>>   kind of have to be aware of that is happening and unfortunately
>>>>>   because the players involved that stuff.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:   I'll get critical mass.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:  Like there's not only you know major players
>>>>>   involved in this kind of stuff and at that actual like protocol
>>>>>   API level type definition in architecture level definition but it
>>>>>   dition Ali there is regulatory momentum to go ahead and push some
>>>>>   of that stuff through I mean we're seeing increasing amounts of
>>>>>   executive orders on like how do you respond to zero trust
>>>>>   architecture things like that so these are you know items at
>>>>>   least from the US perspective.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:   Spective as well as also you know increased.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:  On the EU perspective that we're going to see some
>>>>>   of this stuff either you know get moved out of our hands because
>>>>>   we're not getting stuff ready quick enough or you know in a
>>>>>   presentable State quick enough or sometimes is as as I've seen
>>>>>   happen a couple of times lately take the work too far before
>>>>>   getting the conversation going with other players right and then
>>>>>   then it does become one of those like worst-case scenarios where
>>>>>   you're sitting down and rewriting stuff or readapting.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:   Whatever you just.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:  Forced into using and we want to avoid that as
>>>>>   well so so it's a complex it's a complex issue and it does make
>>>>>   me nervous and I think it should ultimately anyone who is working
>>>>>   heavily on things like VC API or off shoots of it and profiles
>>>>>   should be thinking about this stuff you know broadly and from a
>>>>>   big picture with you know who are the players in the ecosystem
>>>>>   taking this stuff seriously.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:   You know who made.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:  Out-compete whether we want them to or not.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Yeah I guess it's so I what I'm hearing is that
>>>>>   there are other groups out there that are working on technologies
>>>>>   that either directly compete with verifiable credentials or
>>>>>   directly compete with the verifiable credential API and we should
>>>>>   be aware of those initiatives I think that's the one of the
>>>>>   things I'm hearing the other thing I'm hearing is that.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Ricci might not be the best place for some of this
>>>>>   work and I think there was a finger pointed at the VC API
>>>>>   potentially so those are the two things I heard both Orion and
>>>>>   Mike you saying please correct me if I didn't hear that correctly
>>>>>   the third thing is a bit it's so nebulous it's hard for me to
>>>>>   understand what you're asking the community to do.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   Do other than be.
>>>>> <orie> I am not asking for anyone to do anything.
>>>>> <orie> contribute where you think you should.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  In the be aware even that is kind of like it's you
>>>>>   know it's not clear to me what the alternate plan wouldn't what
>>>>>   an alternate plan would be so I'm not hearing a very okay so are
>>>>>   you saying he's not asking anyone to do anything just be aware
>>>>>   that other work is happening elsewhere so let me let me stop
>>>>>   talking no mics on the Q I'm having a hard time.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:  Yeah I can get I can get into some very specifics
>>>>>   you know from like my personal and this is not chair hat right
>>>>>   this is just like me personal member of the community writing and
>>>>>   deploying software that is dependent on these specs right and
>>>>>   building a business that touches all this stuff you know you know
>>>>>   I think this is one of the reasons I fought very hard to make
>>>>>   sure in.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:   The working group.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:  Order for the next version of the VC API that we
>>>>>   can discuss from a practical developer standpoint what are the
>>>>>   implications of this and how do you work with these things and I
>>>>>   fought very strongly for the inclusion of two key items one was
>>>>>   the ability for us to discuss the oid see work going on you know
>>>>>   for exchange of credentials right over oid see that is obviously
>>>>>   work that is going on outside the w3c that is directly related.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:   And impacting on VCs I don't think that's.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:  I think that's just a thing right but we when we
>>>>>   think about it from a broader verifiable credential standpoint we
>>>>>   need to be able to guide and provide advice around how do you
>>>>>   actually interact with that stuff are we so you know what is
>>>>>   helpful etcetera same thing with the VC API and I don't see a
>>>>>   problem and I'm fact I plan to and I've stated multiple times in
>>>>>   the working group you know plan to one author you know or make
>>>>>   significant contributions.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:   Tribution stew that developer guide for both.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:  And for the VC API aspect if not fully flushing
>>>>>   and helping to fully flush out into find the VC API in a note
>>>>>   standpoint so I that is the path that I am proceeding down that
>>>>>   does not negate more detailed you know specific work that may
>>>>>   have normative requirements either in w3c or elsewhere right and
>>>>>   so that's I think the hit man who does that help clarify a bit
>>>>>   like you know but I.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:   Yeah and in the main reason on like the be.
>>>>> <identitywoman> The Relying party problem  (where can  VCs be
>>>>>   accepted) is a really big one - the OIDC relying party "solution"
>>>>>   is reasonable - expecting everyone to rip and replace completely
>>>>>   to use VCs.
>>>>> <identitywoman> is not reasonable
>>>>> Mike Prorock:  It's like especially from you know and I'm you
>>>>>   know being blunt here but like especially when we look at the
>>>>>   Microsoft's the IBM's the sap is the world right these are the
>>>>>   folks that to date have had a Stranglehold on this kind of
>>>>>   information exchange possibly also with GSX if you want to go
>>>>>   down the EDI path also you know additionally and so we need to be
>>>>>   aware that they will do you know players that have an established
>>>>>   foothold will do what they can to prevent losing.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:   That established footholds.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:  And it's just something we talked around that
>>>>>   issue a lot but we should be aware of it concretely and also be
>>>>>   very much Mindful and watching carefully what they are doing in a
>>>>>   standards basis to that could potentially serve as something that
>>>>>   is a competing standard that is a standard possibly even
>>>>>   sometimes in name only in order to justify a proprietary solution
>>>>>   and those are things we need to avoid from a lock-in standpoint
>>>>>   etcetera.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  Thanks Mike Adrian you're on the Queue next.
>>>>> Adrian Gropper:  Yes after working on this issue that we're
>>>>>   talking about now for about a year and talking to a lot of people
>>>>>   my conclusion has is that the protocol work that's going on here
>>>>>   under the very reasonable flag of self Sovereign identity and
>>>>>   authentication things does not Translate.
>>>>> Adrian Gropper:   Late in.
>>>>> Adrian Gropper:  Moving those under that decentralisation self
>>>>>   Sovereign flag to protocol work as it's being done in w3c and so
>>>>>   I at least you know have am completely moving the protocol
>>>>>   attention to ietf basically because you know the things that are
>>>>>   very much in the news these days whether you want to call.
>>>>> Adrian Gropper:   Them human.
>>>>> Adrian Gropper:  You trust or other things like that have to do
>>>>>   with the platform issues regulating the platforms and and things
>>>>>   like that and we just seeing that every day and to me the
>>>>>   protocol work that I've witnessed here is just completely
>>>>>   detached from the reality of what the world is worried about in
>>>>>   Europe and different cultures.
>>>>> Adrian Gropper:  Seeing again from this antitrust and human
>>>>>   rights perspective thank you that's it.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  Man who I have you on the queue.
>>>>> Mike Prorock: +1 Manu
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Yeah just real quick to Adrian Adrian that is just
>>>>>   not true we have gotten delegate abby'll authorization
>>>>>   capabilities working for the VC API full delegation so it
>>>>>   achieves the things you've been asking for for a long time we
>>>>>   have yet to put it in scope because the group's not ready to do
>>>>>   it yet so I strongly strongly disagree with your notion that
>>>>>   we're not paying attention to things like human rights and
>>>>>   delegation.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   And specifically.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Ensuring that providers don't prevent you know
>>>>>   those holders from delegation so that's the first point the
>>>>>   second Point Orion Mike maybe I read what you two are saying as
>>>>>   in as a you're abandoning the be Capi work I don't think that's
>>>>>   what you meant to communicate but that's how I read it or even
>>>>>   abandon the be Capi work at w3c so.
>>>>> Manu Sporny: +1 To support VC-API, yes, DB is fully committed to
>>>>>   that work item.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:  Okay quite the yeah and I'm on Q I'm just going to
>>>>>   act myself because of time and quite the opposite I mean that's
>>>>>   why I stated clearly like I plan on you know if not being a
>>>>>   primary author like major contributions on the actual developer
>>>>>   guide node or whatever that ends up becoming and that will
>>>>>   include how do we do restful exchange and handling of verifiable
>>>>>   credentials period end of sentence right but so and I'm assuming
>>>>>   that we'll start with the.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:  Capi we bring that in and then we evolve it as
>>>>>   well.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:  Group I'd be that's.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:  That is absolutely my attention there so I don't I
>>>>>   think that Baseline how do you do this stuff over rest is such a
>>>>>   core implied thing that we have to talk about it as working group
>>>>>   right and to the point where I am willing to sacrifice a lot of
>>>>>   my own time to go make sure that gets done so.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  Thanks  Mike, Orie.
>>>>> Manu Sporny: +1 To what MikeP was saying.
>>>>> Orie Steele:  Yeah I'm you know working with folks on the
>>>>>   verifiable credentials Charter on in support of the work items
>>>>>   that have been added both you know as normative deliverables on
>>>>>   non-normative deliverables and in the VC working group is going
>>>>>   to be the place where the VC API even gets defined better or it
>>>>>   doesn't but good news is that it's a note in either case so I
>>>>>   mean I'm contribute to working in that workgroup on the item and
>>>>>   yes like at some point this community.
>>>>> Orie Steele:   Group should theoretically.
>>>>> Orie Steele:  Each day final Community Draft before handing that
>>>>>   work to them but if it's going to go into a note it doesn't seem
>>>>>   like that really matters and so really what I'm saying is I'll
>>>>>   continue to do work on the item wherever it is.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Yeah okay plus 1 that's so that's that's crystal
>>>>>   clear and that's good thank you for making clarification like a
>>>>>   Nori the note thing a w3c has traditionally been used to signal
>>>>>   that the group would like to pick something up like groups
>>>>>   actually right in the top of the document we intend to pick this
>>>>>   up as a normative work item at some point in the future and that
>>>>>   is usually a very good signal that leads to a smoother each
>>>>>   ordering process so that's why.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Some groups have published notes for things.
>>>>> Mike Prorock: +1 Manu
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  To take wreck track in Annex recharter it just
>>>>>   makes it all you know it makes all of it much much easier my
>>>>>   suggestion is that we can do both we can continue to work on that
>>>>>   in this group and refine it and get the test Suites get
>>>>>   interoperability working while throwing snapshots over the wall
>>>>>   to the verifiable credential working group I think that gets us
>>>>>   the best of both worlds.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   And keeps us very nimble.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  In ensures that we keep it at number one priority
>>>>>   will not be a number one priority in the verifiable credentials
>>>>>   working group but we as the ccg for the VCA be I can keep in a
>>>>>   you know very high priority and in finish it up with respect to
>>>>>   like work going on elsewhere yes indeed be again to be to be
>>>>>   blunt I think that there is damaging work happening in other
>>>>>   organizations when it comes to protocols and verifiable
>>>>>   credentials.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:   And I don't expect that to be.
>>>>> Manu Sporny:  Traversal will point fingers at which organizations
>>>>>   are doing it but you know I think you're both Orion my core right
>>>>>   we need to be on top of that we need to pay attention to the work
>>>>>   happening elsewhere in there are very powerful Market forces that
>>>>>   could either accidentally re centralize everything or on purpose
>>>>>   centralized things for you know the purposes of market dominance
>>>>>   and things of that nature that's it.
>>>>> <orie> Many folks feel the same way about the CCG manu... it's
>>>>>   the nature of human tribalism.
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  Mike you've got 30 seconds.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:  Yeah and in conclusion I would also say that and
>>>>>   you know in a little bit of clarification man who around like
>>>>>   damaging work I think in some cases like the software supply
>>>>>   chain stuff I think it's extremely well intentioned and really
>>>>>   important work just that VCS weren't on their radar neither were
>>>>>   kids but there was a desire to go after there is a desire to go
>>>>>   after decentralisation so they seem willing to learn and engage
>>>>>   at least at the you know early stages.
>>>>> <bumblefudge> perhaps they were really wed to COSE?
>>>>> <orie> yes, some folks like COSE over JSON.
>>>>> <manu_sporny> I know folks feel the same way about CCG, Orie :)
>>>>>   -- and it is the unfortunate nature of tribalism. People spend
>>>>>   time on the things that they want to contribute to, where they
>>>>>   want to contribute to them.
>>>>> Mike Prorock:  They can write and ultimately could help adoption
>>>>>   if you know if we approach the right way if we don't approach it
>>>>>   in a you know we can't you know like anything right you can't go
>>>>>   in assuming that we have the only right path and everything else
>>>>>   right it's yes we have a a path it is right in many many ways but
>>>>>   it also can be adopted into other things right or as a piece of
>>>>>   other things so.
>>>>> <bumblefudge> patience!?
>>>>> Kimberly Linson:  Great thank you this was a really interesting
>>>>>   discussion and I'm I learned a lot about sort of how the
>>>>>   community group and and the working groups work together and so I
>>>>>   really appreciate everybody's input we're just about at time so
>>>>>   I'm going to go ahead and wrap us up I'll let you know that next
>>>>>   week I'm going to be talking about decentralized storage thank
>>>>>   you everybody for your patience with me today and have a great
>>>>>   rest of your day thank you.
>>>>> <manu_sporny> You did great, Kimberly! :)
>>>>> <heather_vescent> Great job Kimberly!!
>>>>> <bumblefudge> you're doing great! thanks so much
>>>>> <kerri_lemoie> Thank you!
>> --
>> Chief Technical Officer
>> <>

Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2022 13:50:04 UTC