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

Re: [MINUTES] W3C CCG Traceability Call - 2022-07-19

From: Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 14:34:49 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN8C-_+eBo0Pyw_my4qYGAj0wRhGva1+KV2TXLokPxR2mc3www@mail.gmail.com>
To: CCG Minutes Bot <minutes@w3c-ccg.org>
Cc: "W3C Credentials CG (Public List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
hmm seems the minutes did not publish properly.


On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 2:33 PM CCG Minutes Bot <minutes@w3c-ccg.org> wrote:

> Thanks to Our Robot Overlords for scribing this week!
> The transcript for the call is now available here:
> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2022-07-19-traceability/
> Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes.
> Audio of the meeting is available at the following location:
> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2022-07-19-traceability/audio.ogg
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Verifiable Traceability Task Force Transcript for 2022-07-19
> Agenda:
>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/AGENDA.md
> Topics:
>   1. IP Note, Agenda Review, Scribe Selection
>   2. GitHub Issue & PR review
> Organizer:
>   Orie Steele, Mike Prorock, Mahmoud Alkhraishi
> Scribe:
>   Our Robot Overlords
> Present:
>   Chris Abernethy, Russell Hofvendahl (mesur.io), Ben - Transmute,
>   nis, TallTed // Ted Thibodeau (he/him) (OpenLinkSw.com), Orie
>   Steele, Ted Thibodeau, Vivien
> Our Robot Overlords are scribing.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Yeah maybe we could switch do like 30 minutes or
>   30 minutes or something.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Yeah all right I'll definitely I'll definitely
>   take thirst first 30 minutes okay so the first thing we need to
>   do is read the meeting notes so this meeting is held up by
>   voiceover jitsi at the link and covers for requesting issues on
>   items related to the various pieces of ccg projects related to
>   traceability and the supply chain primary repositories are
>   directed Track by the group for discussion or the traceability
>   roof vocabulary and traceability intro.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Perpetuity alternates between each of the above
>   two repositories.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Channel note the.
> Ben_-_Transmute: For the weekend start up meeting so this week I
>   believe we are in vocab correct.
> Topic: IP Note, Agenda Review, Scribe Selection
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay we have a standing Agenda One IP note
>   agenda review subscribe section agenda review IP note anyone can
>   participate in these calls however all substantial contributions
>   to any ccg work items must be members of the ccg with full IP are
>   agreements signed in the URL and sure you have a w3c account that
>   we three can carry license agreement and call notes these minutes
>   and audio recording of everything set on the collar archived at.
> Ben_-_Transmute:  the link and then let's see and Jeff.
> Topic: GitHub Issue & PR review
> Ben_-_Transmute: I think we're okay to skip the rest of this
>   after that Q other good stuff as we go so I guess let's go ahead
>   and get started with traceability vocab pull requests.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/474
> Ben_-_Transmute: And we have one that is merged marked as merch
>   first so I will go ahead and start with pull request or 74.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay so since this is my poor request what this
>   does is this goes through a lot of the verifiable credential or
>   other verify credentials that I know adds a tag to The yellow
>   section of them and Mahmood made a note on this to say can we
>   have multiple tags and the answer is absolutely yes this there's
>   nothing service for these tags currently the main reason I wanted
>   to add them is because number one it makes scripting.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Through credentials and searching through them.
> <tallted> best path forward after 474 --
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc
> Ben_-_Transmute
> <https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-ascBen_-_Transmute>:
> Here to say like hey give me all the credentials
>   that relate to e-commerce I can search them and then write
>   scripts and make changes as needed and then also later on we can
>   service this and the respect document and the open API spec as
>   needed to make how these are used more visible.
> Ben_-_Transmute:  so if there are no.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Sentence to emerging 474 I will go ahead and do
>   so.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay merging 474.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/471
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay and then going back and starting from
>   oldest to newest I'll just go ahead and order the next one is
>   pull request for 71 by this so feel free to take it.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay any objections to emerging pull requests
>   for 71.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay merging for because 471.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/472
> Ben_-_Transmute: Next pull request is for 72 this is also mine
>   and what it does is it updates our CI script for schemas to vote
>   count that Jess and what this does is it reads through all the
>   credentials as we're building the HTML for the gets built into
>   the respect document and it looks for dependencies that are used
>   inside the credential and it adds some has links under the schema
>   credit under the exam.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Just as a side note testing this locally really
>   improved readability because you can quickly jump to other
>   credentials that are related to these so thank you 40 any
>   objections to merging pull requests for 72.
> Chris_Abernethy: Yeah I like this one a lot.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/473
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay it was it was a small change by I'm very
>   happy with how it turned out so the next one is pull request for
>   73 posting in chat this is a very small change there is no
>   description in the commercial invoice certificate example Jason
>   and all this does is just add a quick description too.
> Ben_-_Transmute: To that effect.
> Ben_-_Transmute: So I think this should be a pretty easy one to
>   merge our there any objections.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay emerging 473.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay then the next one is for request for 75.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/475
> Ben_-_Transmute: I guess I was pretty active this week I was
>   looking through tickets that our backlog and just looking for
>   easy ones to snipe this addresses issue 235 which we have issue
>   which is we're using the issue for a issue and Trace vocab as a
>   placeholder for our example Jason and this room looks at and
>   updates it with new data for the relocation list 2020 status and
>   your objections to merging 475.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/476
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay the next one is 476 by 40.
> Orie Steele:  Right clean up workflow definitions this PR
>   basically just updates the way that we were referring to some
>   terms it gives us a way to link directly to the extensions we've
>   made to the technical recommendation for verifiable credentials.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay any objections to emerging 476.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay the next one is fixing a crown description
>   478 -.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/478
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay very small change I think everyone is okay
>   with this says to approvals merging or some gate.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/479
> Ben_-_Transmute: Next one is for 79 by this looks like Russell
>   yes what do you want to discuss for Sunday night.
> Russell_Hofvendahl_(mesur.io): Yeah sure this provides a lot of
>   this provides the credentials that will be needed for people to
>   submit information about the CTE s critical tracking events and
>   key data elements they can comply with the the new traceability
>   rule by the FDA.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay it looks like there is a bunch of
>   conversations on the pull request nothing that is specifically
>   blocking are there any objections or any final challenges before
>   we merge 479.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay merging it's okay.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Merging for Sunday night.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/480
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay the next one is 86 intend to important
>   priority.
> Orie Steele:  Right talked with Mike Baroque about this this is a
>   pull request which essentially just changes the name of a example
>   credential I think Miss had mentioned something about a pull
>   request that was based off of this that might be coming late so
>   if Miss if you've already done that then we should merge yours
>   instead of mine right.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/486
> Ben_-_Transmute: I think it's 486.
> Ben_-_Transmute: 40 50 in 1020 Fort certificate okay.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/485
> Orie Steele:  And it won't have any changes that I would merge to
>   mine like if I accept tall Ted's grammar correction it will then
>   create a conflict between these two and we would want to take
>   yours if it's more substantive first and then go back and make
>   that change.
> Orie Steele:  That's excellent so I would prefer we take yours
>   which is pull 485.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay so I will I will jump in order and merge 45
>   do we want to do give a quick summary of what intention Port is
>   covered.
> Orie Steele:  Now we've talked about it quite a lot it's
>   signaling your intent to import and it has a full description of
>   what it is in the pull request.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay I will go ahead and if there's no check
>   since I'll go ahead and merge both 45.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay porch 45 was merch.
> Ben_-_Transmute: You want to take a look at 40 and that actually
>   automatically closed or a pork roast or a tea I think.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/481
> Ben_-_Transmute: I was nuts I just was worried about not losing
>   those changes the next tournament is full of requests for 81
>   which is fixed term bug on raw material this is from this.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay any objections to merging 481.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/482
> Ben_-_Transmute: Everyone is we've got for approvals merging or
>   three and a half like this G forty-one next one is 482 which is
>   also notice would you care to describe the changes and.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay so if there's no objections to merging 482
>   I'm the only person who approved it but let's go ahead and now
>   okay we have to to approvals up merging 42 and the next one is.
> Ben_-_Transmute: 83 this is another.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/483
> Ben_-_Transmute: Fix so I think the same one applies I will go
>   ahead and add an approval and anyone else who would like to see
>   these changes fixed cannot improve on next two or three things.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay that's that's perfectly fine so just small
>   term changes emerging or 83.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/484
> Ben_-_Transmute: And the next one is 484 if this is what I think
>   it is Russell might become my new favorite person.
> Russell_Hofvendahl_(mesur.io): Yeah I hadn't thought of AG being
>   confused for silver.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay yeah that's the only thing I can either way
>   it looks like it just changes the agriculture abbreviations to
>   agriculture as a whole thing better Clarity better conventions I
>   am super on board with this change any objections to pull request
>   44.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Beautiful I agree merging 44.
> Russell_Hofvendahl_(mesur.io): Is that is that a property with
>   accidentally a capital name.
> Russell_Hofvendahl_(mesur.io): Just a little.
> Chris_Abernethy: Hang on hang on hang on I have what one question
>   about the agricultural inspection report line 23 should that be
>   capital I apologize I just saw it as we're looking through I
>   think it doesn't have a capital name.
> Orie Steele:  So attributes or properties should be camelcase and
>   classes or types should be title case that's the convention.
> Russell_Hofvendahl_(mesur.io): Um can you repeat what time it is.
> Chris_Abernethy: And I just created a change request.
> Chris_Abernethy: It was line 263 okay.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Let's see should I try birth the commit to go
>   ahead and.
> Orie Steele:  We should probably take a follow-up.
> Russell_Hofvendahl_(mesur.io): Yeah right away.
> Orie Steele:  Take a tissue or a subsequent pull request if it's
>   very smoke if I do that.
> Russell_Hofvendahl_(mesur.io): I can probably didn't real quick
>   but so.
> Ben_-_Transmute: All right so just handle another poll request I
>   think that would be perfectly fine.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Expert report yeah just handle than a holy
>   roller coasters.
> Russell_Hofvendahl_(mesur.io): Sure so another pull request you
>   said.
> Ben_-_Transmute: I think though easiest.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/486
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay important intend to import workflow so this
>   is 486.
> Chris_Abernethy: You do the other one.
> Orie Steele:  Let's do it.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/488
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay yeah I think although all of the remaining
>   four of us are from you traceability presentations is the same
>   thing that has uncommitted suggestions from Ted see my license
>   number and C mon let's do 488 as that one seems very simple I can
>   go ahead and describe this if you want to do commits such thing
>   as license number added this is a small change to Seema.
> Ben_-_Transmute: License where we a day.
> Ben_-_Transmute: We're a missing license number which is a
>   required attribute from the example and so this is just fixing a
>   small error in the an example Jason that was not addressed until
>   now so a 488 just fixes the example Jason for see my license this
>   is a small change I would be extremely surprised if there are any
>   objections any objections to merging poor request for Ada.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay merging radiate.
> Ben_-_Transmute: And what's up Russell.
> Russell_Hofvendahl_(mesur.io): Actually I was just looking at
>   your suggestion Chris and I'm not sure if I understand it
>   currently agriculture package is lower case because it is a
>   property named I don't understand why that would be capitalized.
> Orie Steele:  Seems correct if it's a property name that it
>   should be camel case.
> Chris_Abernethy: Yeah if my suggestion is not valid that's fine I
>   was just going off of what I was seeing in that file as far as
>   like patterns and how you were making these changes and that one
>   seem different to me.
> Russell_Hofvendahl_(mesur.io): Okay there are some where it says
>   type agriculture package and those are referencing a file rather
>   than a property there's somewhere there's a property name that
>   matches with a schema name later.
> Orie Steele:  I'm tight yeah.
> Russell_Hofvendahl_(mesur.io): Cool so that one might be
>   measurable then.
> Orie Steele:  That one was emerged as far as I'm aware.
> Russell_Hofvendahl_(mesur.io): No rape your breasts are great.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Yeah yeah so if there if there's no changes then
>   there's no need to put up a subsequent PR to address those
>   changes.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/489
> Russell_Hofvendahl_(mesur.io): Great thank you.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay the next one to draw attention to is 489 so
>   we get feedback from just which said that rather than the PHD a
>   status message this credential or specifically refers to the
>   status of a shipment and they wanted to make that a lot easier to
>   understand in terms of shipment status and that is why this
>   credential has been changed to from PJ status message to PGA
>   shipment status.
> Ben_-_Transmute: It looks like there is.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Request on conflict on the on the on the pull
>   request is there any objections to merging this outside the call
>   or a sink as soon as this conflict has been resolved.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Not I will make a.
> Orie Steele:  No I'll leave a comment saying that.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/486
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay and that looks like we gave Miss enough
>   time to address the feedback so do you want to come back to 486.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/487
> Ben_-_Transmute: It says outdated suggestion so it looks like
>   there might have been.
> Orie Steele:  Can you link to the comment in the chat.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/487#discussion_r924637141
> TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com)
> <https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/487#discussion_r924637141TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com)>:
> Sorry I'm
>   looking at it now.
> TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Right in the
>   that line in the line 5 that you had changed.
> TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): You put into
>   that description it's at the far end but the far right.
> TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): That's the
>   same description that was up above so.
> TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Intention to
>   intended use that's all.
> TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): You took the
>   notes to myself there you go yep.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay so are we saying it's are we okay for all
>   requests for 87.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Or are we or do we want to say that it can be
>   marched outside of meeting once it's been addressed which one
>   would you prefer this.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay any objections to the Virgin 4:15 87.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Searching for Ethan.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/486
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay 486 is green and gray to be addressed I
>   think we already talked about this door okay and there is
>   currently no approvals on it everything has been resolved in the
>   comments adding a approval hear any objections to emerging for
>   requests for 86.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay merging poor quest for 86.
> Ben_-_Transmute: And then that leaves us with our last poll
>   requests which is opj tell update which will be merged as soon as
>   the conflict has been resolved so that concludes traceability
>   vocab.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Okay that was one of the Lagos for questions I
>   think we've hacked this do you want do you want to do
>   traceability interrupt you two want to switch off 30 minutes like
>   that.
> Ben_-_Transmute: All right shows yours.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pulls
> Chris_Abernethy: Right so this is if you remember last time we
>   spoke I had a pull request to create two workflows that would
>   allow you to rotate the G key and onboard new users with an
>   encrypted environment file or a suggested that it would be
>   helpful if we can do this on the command line so folks didn't
>   have to generate personal access tokens with Google so I added a
>   couple of wrapper script.
> Chris_Abernethy: Is that you can run from the command line.
> <orie> thank for the wrapper scripts... much nicer devx
> Chris_Abernethy: Then call out and reuse this code that I already
>   developed certain to run the workflows I also modify the
>   documentation to indicate that instead of generating the personal
>   access token you could use the personal access token from the
>   command line the GitHub command line will dump that for you if
>   you do I think it was GH off minus t so added functionality with
>   some rapper Scripts.
> <orie> excellent documentation!
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pull/288
> <orie> awesome work!
> Chris_Abernethy: Yep so 288 is a modification to the open API
>   spec when you are issuing a credential the that the issuer ID is
>   required the spec was not correctly requiring it if it was
>   presented to issue is presented as an object with an ID parameter
>   so this adds a requirement on the ID parameter when it's an
>   object for.
> Chris_Abernethy: Yeah that's the embedded schema for conformance
>   testing.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pull/290
> Chris_Abernethy: So this is one of many conformance tests
>   additions I've added this particular one let's see ads
>   conformance testing for the did Jason and point and the
>   identifiers did and point.
> Chris_Abernethy: Not for those two endpoints but for additional
>   conformance testing.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pull/292
> Chris_Abernethy: I'm so 292 this is the first of I think what is
>   going to be several conflicts but the essence of this one is
>   modifying the variable name used to hold the response schema for
>   validation of the credentials issue endpoint initially it was
>   called response schema 201 which is not very descriptive and will
>   Clash when we do a response game of 2001 validation for
>   presentations proof so simply renamed.
> Chris_Abernethy: That it was a bit more descriptive and won't
>   clash with other variables doing similar schema work.
> Chris_Abernethy: Or he just added one.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pull/295
> <orie> This is excellent as well
> Chris_Abernethy: This one is mine as well so when the new
>   conformance reports list all of the tests that are run the
>   assertions on the left hand side and they did not include any
>   sort of name spacing to indicate which end point they were for
>   and we're going to be having a lot of these and many of them will
>   have similar names so this change request adds a bit of name
>   spacing so that it's easily identifiable identifiable which.
> Chris_Abernethy: Test the assertions belong.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pull/296
> Orie Steele:  Can you link the pull request in chat please.
> Orie Steele:  Grade I've spoken to Mike about this I think we
>   should merge over his objection and I can close the loop with him
>   offline.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pull/298
> Orie Steele:  This is to support did web essentially the did webs
>   are unresolvable if you don't accept this this change.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pull/300
> Chris_Abernethy: Okay so this one.
> Chris_Abernethy: This one started because there was a difference
>   in what I was seeing in the facet view which was the list of
>   tests with the boxes and what I was seeing in the Sunburst and
>   the tree charts and the reason for that is that each test has
>   multiple assertions and the Order of those assertions in the data
>   frame is being used to drive this visualization is undefined so
>   depending on when you ran it they.
> Chris_Abernethy:  might show.
> <orie> go on, you can make a canonicalization joke
> Chris_Abernethy: Singer Phelan so the first modification I did
>   was to aggregate those so that we could determine you know if how
>   many of these assertions passed and how many failed so that we
>   could accurately reflect whether a test was fully passing fully
>   failing or partially failing and in addition to fixing that are I
>   also added a new color to the Chart so that we can visually see
>   which ones were partially failing and if you scroll down there's
>   a couple.
> Chris_Abernethy:  love pictures.
> Chris_Abernethy: That show what it looks like now.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pull/301
> <orie> great name change
> Chris_Abernethy: Okay so in a previous poll request there was a
>   suggestion to rename the folder titled happy path to positive
>   testing so I just carry that over to some of the other tests that
>   were already in place so we are aligned on naming.
> <orie> more professional looking
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pull/303
> Chris_Abernethy: So this one is in relation to the context in a
>   did document this is defined by did core to be either a string or
>   an array that contains both or either strings or objects our spec
>   said it had to be an array of strings so it admitted the just a
>   string and the array containing objects possibilities so this
>   modifies the spec to allow for those.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pull/304
> Chris_Abernethy: Three or four is adding the OS to related
>   conformance - testing for credentials update so verifies that
>   oauth is required in the request fail if it's not present there
>   are several of these the first one you merge will merge the rest
>   will conflict.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pull/305
> Chris_Abernethy: I believe it will look like this as well 306.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pull/308
> Chris_Abernethy: So this one has to do with changes that we made
>   when we added the conformance testing we now publish report
>   artifacts into separate folders under the reports folder and
>   GitHub documents get a page excuse me so this modifies the
>   reporters so that you can specify which of those two folders to
>   use as the source when you're running it locally and it downloads
>   the latest.
> Chris_Abernethy: Ada and it does that by adding two different
>   command line options either - see for conformance - I for
>   interoperability they both also have long versions and this also
>   sets the stage for 272 which is another issue that is around
>   modifying the HTML template to be more specific depending on
>   which type of report is being generated.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pull/309
> Chris_Abernethy: This one has a conflict wasn't expecting that
>   but I'm not surprised because it's also modifies the postman test
>   so this adds a test that when the issuer ID is provided in a
>   credentials issue requests if it is a string but it is not in URI
>   format then the expected result is a 400 bad request in this ad
>   it's.
> Chris_Abernethy: Appropriate - testing to be conformed.
> Chris_Abernethy: I believe that was added last week.
> Orie Steele:  It's it's it's a requirement that comes from
>   understanding verifiable credentials all ID values in verifiable
>   credential are an alias of a tidy which must be a valid iri.
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pull/312
> Chris_Abernethy: So this is ticketed or reopens while back
>   regarding making the challenge property of presentation options
>   be required this is simple schema change to implement that
>   request.
> Orie Steele:  While we're on it just a comment regarding
>   challenge challenge if it's a uuid requires sort of stateful
>   management on the verifier side like the verifier has to remember
>   that they've given you this uuid and that you know they're going
>   to theoretically not accept the presentation over it if it comes
>   to years later because that could be like indicating a problem
>   you can fix this by making the challenge a Json web token or.
> Orie Steele:  Something that's signed by the verifier and then.
> Orie Steele:  Are Fire doesn't need to.
> Orie Steele:  Member all of the uuids that it's handed out and
>   this has been raised on a few issues and I'm just pointing it out
>   here because the structure of challenges and a string it doesn't
>   say that challenge has to be a uuid and there's a really good
>   reason why you might want that challenge to be a JWT namely the
>   example that I just gave so I'm just providing verbal context
>   because I'm sure we eventually we will see those issues come up
>   and hopefully people will remember what it said.
> Orie Steele:  Yeah it's amazing amazing work truly amazing.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Darkness you want to post the minutes at the end
>   of the meeting we want to repeat that.
> Orie Steele:  Yeah I don't think you at least that long to post
>   the minutes.
> Chris_Abernethy: I missed you want to do the the publishing of
>   the minutes on the call so that we can go through it together.
> Orie Steele:  Let's do it.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Yes you can you can still get a screen.
> Chris_Abernethy: I'm happy to guide you I'm familiar with the
>   process.
> Ben_-_Transmute: And then Prince do you need to stop recording
>   for this.
> Chris_Abernethy: Do we do we want this recorded as part of the
>   call or know I think we can probably.
> Chris_Abernethy: That is indeed true.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Yeah that's that's what I was just thinking.
> Orie Steele:  Actually it'd be great to return if the problem
>   will be that you won't get the minutes until you stop recording I
>   think right it would be amazing if we could record the process of
>   publishing the minutes.
> Chris_Abernethy: Perhaps we should plan on doing a screen capture
>   next time if anyone has it to the appropriate software to do
>   that.
> Ben_-_Transmute: Hi I don't think so I was able to grab yeah.
> Chris_Abernethy: I don't believe so okay so I'll stop recording
>   now then and we can proceed with the process.
> Chris_Abernethy: Okay so the first thing you need to do is in the
>   bottom right you need to select the appropriate meeting where it
>   says weekly meeting there.
> Ben_-_Transmute: On the meeting spread to on the back on the
>   second project that one.
> Chris_Abernethy: Yes like today and change it from weekly meeting
>   to believe it's traceability.

Chief Technical Officer

Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2022 19:41:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 19 July 2022 19:41:53 UTC