Re: Publication of VC API as VCWG Draft Note

Some of us have been swamped by IETF 115 in London, has there been any
additional comments on this?

OS

On Sun, Nov 6, 2022 at 3:10 PM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> Hi CCG Chairs, VCWG Chairs, and community members,
>
> As many of you are aware, we have been working on a Verifiable
> Credentials API[1][2] for the better part of two years, meeting
> weekly[3] to move the specification forward. The Traceability
> Interoperability[4] group builds upon parts of this specification and
> specializes it for use with supply chain use cases. We have VC API
> interoperability test suites[5] and it is what drives the
> interoperability mechanism used in the CHAPI VC Issuer Playground[6].
>
> We currently have 11 implementations[5][6] of the Verifiable
> Credentials API with more in development.
>
> The W3C Verifiable Credentials Working Group Charter lists this
> specification as a non-normative deliverable[7]. The expectation is
> that it will be published as a Note given that it documents one
> mechanism that the market is using to move Verifiable Credentials from
> Issuers to Holders to Verifiers. It is also expected that the VC API
> will power the VCWG's new test suite.
>
> The CCG VC API Work Item group has prepared the first publishable
> Draft Note of the specification[8] for publication by the VCWG. This
> version of the specification is a stripped down version that only
> contains VC issuing, VC status changing, VC verifying, and VP creation
> and is what we have consensus to publish via the CCG VC API Work Item
> group.
>
> Now, here's where things get a bit weird. The CCG VC API Work Item
> group intends to continue to work on the VC API. W3C Notes have zero
> Intellectual Property Release (IPR) protection on them, which means
> that if we hand over the VC API repo to VCWG, we will introduce an IPR
> gap to the work. That is, in this instance, we have better IPR
> protection on it when it's hosted by CCG than if we were to transfer
> it over to the VCWG. What we can do, however, is keep the repo in the
> CCG (so it continues to enjoy IPR protection) and publish an updatable
> fork of the specification via VCWG (we have tested this in the VC API
> group, and it works great). For example, you can view what this looks
> like here (this is a fork of the VC API spec, specific to VCWG, that
> is hosted from my personal Github location):
>
> https://msporny.github.io/vc-api-vcwg-note/
>
> The only thing that would change when we move it to VCWG is that the
> URL would change to:
>
> https://w3c.github.io/vc-api-note/
>
> As far as action items are concerned:
>
> 1. W3C CCG Chairs along with W3C VCWG Chairs and Staff will need to
> discuss and determine if this is an acceptable path forward.
>
> 2. There will need to be a proposal in the CCG to allow VCWG to
> publish snapshots of the VC API via the VCWG.
>
> 3. There will need to be a proposal in the VCWG to publish the VC API
> as a Draft Note.
>
> This is a request to the CCG and VCWG Chairs to start that process
> given that 1) we have achieved consensus in the CCG VC API Work Item
> group to do the above, and 2) it is listed as a VCWG charter
> deliverable.
>
> -- manu
>
> [1]https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-api/
> [2]https://w3c-ccg.github.io/traceability-interop/draft/
> [3]https://w3c-ccg.github.io/traceability-vocab/
> [4]https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-api-issuer-test-suite/#conformance
> [5]https://playground.chapi.io/issuer
> [6]https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/
> [7]
> https://www.w3.org/2022/06/verifiable-credentials-wg-charter.html#ig-other-deliverables
> [8]https://msporny.github.io/vc-api-vcwg-note/
>
> --
> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies
> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
>
>

-- 
*ORIE STEELE*
Chief Technical Officer
www.transmute.industries

<https://www.transmute.industries>