W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > January 2023

[MINUTES] W3C CCG Credentials CG Call - 2023-01-03

From: CCG Minutes Bot <minutes@w3c-ccg.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2023 12:52:40 +0000
Message-ID: <E1pD3G1-002HEB-81@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:


W3C CCG Weekly Teleconference Transcript for 2023-01-03

  Mike Prorock, Kimberly Linson, Harrison Tang
  Our Robot Overlords
  Harrison Tang, Mike Prorock, Greg Bernstein, Gregory Natran, Phil 
  L (P1), Manu Sporny, Andres, Paul Dietrich GS1, Kaliya Young, 
  TallTed // Ted Thibodeau (he/him) (OpenLinkSw.com), Kimberly 
  Linson, Ryan Grant, Lucy Yang, Sandy Aggarwal, Stuart Freeman, 
  Andrew Whitehead, Matthieu Collé, Orie Steele, Leo, Joe Andrieu, 
  Julien Fraichot, Dmitri Zagidulin, Geun-Hyung, Will, Marty Reed, 
  Erica Connell, George Lund, Jeff O - HumanOS, Kayode Ezike, Keith 
  Kowal, David I. Lehn, Ted Thibodeau, Markus Sabadello

Our Robot Overlords are scribing.
Mike Prorock: 
Mike Prorock:  Hello and welcome to Tuesday January thirds 
  Community credentials group meeting this is the first meeting of 
  the New Year and happy to see a whole lot of familiar and 
  friendly faces and names and looking forward to a fun New Year at 
  the ccg I have posted a link to the topic for today which is 
  basically work items activities and a year in advance so we might 
  talk about some things coming.
Mike Prorock:   Talk about.
<orie> I do like being able to not attend meetings.
Mike Prorock:  Up and stuff like that too Depending on time but 
  first foremost most importantly happy New Year to everyone I hope 
  everyone was able to get a bit of a winter break in or even if 
  that involves like Orie having six weekend projects in a row or 
  something like that so the we’ll primarily today just be going 
  down the line on work items and then Manu will also I know 
  there's a.
Mike Prorock:   The status list of so we'll take a motion on that 
  as well.
Mike Prorock: https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/join
Mike Prorock:  So that's really what's up on point before we move 
  on I am going to make a quick note that anyone can participate in 
  these calls however any and all substantive contribute 
  contributions to actual ccg work items if you're going to do that 
  you must be a member of the CCG with an IPR agreement signed 
  etcetera and I’ll put the link in there we do keep.
Mike Prorock:   Meeting minutes and audio recordings etc.
<mprorock> In IRC type “q+” to add yourself to the queue, with an 
Mike Prorock:  Up in GitHub and we do also manage our chat for 
  the queuing so whether you're on IRC or just in the jitsi chat if 
  you would like to put yourself on the Q type Q+ and that'll put 
  you in the queue and you can also give yourself a reminder that 
  I’ll paste in because that's sometimes it's helpful if you are 
  like some of us who tend to forget what you queued for if the 
  conversation is going on with that.
Mike Prorock:   I am going to pause and ask if there are any.
Mike Prorock:  Introductions anyone new to the meeting anyone who 
  has changed roles recently or anyone who would like to introduce 
  themselves to the group you may come off mute or queue and please 
  introduce yourself.
Sandy_Aggarwal: Hey hi this is Sandy here can you hear me okay.
Sandy_Aggarwal: Hi good morning and happy New Year to everybody 
  so this is Sandy Agarwal I'm actually a very new member to this 
  specific community group I believe I have my familiarity skid off 
  so I will double check on that but so should be able to 
  contribute basically I've been active in the hyper Ledger and 
  toip circles but it’s the first time I'm actually trying to 
  contribute and hoping to contribute directly in a different fee 
  if we see Circle here.
Sandy_Aggarwal: Mostly of course from the VC and identity upon 
  fee so today in here just to drink in and then see exactly how 
  these meetings are run but thank you very much for having me over 
Mike Prorock:  Awesome great to have you and fair warning this 
  will be a little different than normal typically we do kind of 
  run through like a set topic possibly with a speaker things like 
  that today's kind of processing a bunch of work items that are 
  getting created and moving that stuff through so you'll see a 
  little bit more of the process side of w3c so it should be a 
  slightly different view than just like hey let's Deep dive on a 
  fun topic but awesome to have you anyone else new.
Mike Prorock:  All right cool so with that I am going to move on 
  to the next side which is are there any announcements and or 
  reminders for the community Kaliya.
Kaliya Young: https://www.apacdigitalid.org/
Mike Prorock: +1
Kaliya Young:  Hi folks I'm really pleased to announce that we 
  have got the website up for the apac event that we’re pulling 
  together with local Partners in Bangkok inspired by IIW but not 
  meant to IIW is IIW it happens twice a year this is just for.
Kaliya Young:  To support Regional conversations and connections 
  so if you know folks who are in the region who are active in the 
  community please share the link with them and I'll put my email 
  as well if folks want to reach out and ask questions and I got 
  should also make a different announcement which is the thoughtful 
  Biometrics Workshop has been pushed out into March.
Kaliya Young:   So it's exactly a month.
Kaliya Young:  Later than we had expected to host it it's March 
  13 to 17 and that's going to go ahead for sure we have enough 
  sponsorship come through to make it happen.
Mike Prorock:  Oh very cool mr. Manu I see you on the queue.
Kaliya Young: https://www.thoughtfulbiometrics.org/
<kaliya_identitywoman> my e-mail if you want to ask questions 
  about either kaliya@identitywoman.net
Manu Sporny:  Hey yes so a couple of two two announcements the 
  first one is that the verifiable credentials working group is 
  going to have a face-to-face meeting in February Valentine's Day 
  and we're going to be meeting in Miami at Microsoft campus it is 
  typically open only to working group members but as with all of 
  these meetings there.
Manu Sporny:  Will be you know minutes and transcripts and things 
  like that for people to access so that's the first heads up 
  mid-February verifiable credentials working group meeting in 
  Miami in the United States second announcement is that it was 
  easy to miss but in mid-December the verifiable credential 
  working group adopted ccg spec the status list 2021.
<manu_sporny> VC Status List 2021 transition to VCWG: 
Manu Sporny:  Specification which is used to Signal whether 
  credential has been revoked or suspended or things of that nature 
  so that's been voted to be pulled in an email went out to the 
  mailing list about that I'll put that link in here vc status list 
  2021 transition to vcwg and Mike I saw your response that we’ll 
  do a call to consensus to move that over today and.
Manu Sporny:   That's it yeah that's it.
Mike Prorock:  Cool any other announcements group reminders Etc.
<manu_sporny> VC API is NOT happening... we'll start next week.
Mike Prorock:  Awesome and I think most of the kind of work item 
  meetings are resuming as of today I think traceability is 
  happening a few others so I think everyone has now worked their 
  way back from break here so just as a heads up if you were taking 
  the time to walk away from things unfortunately that's not coming 
  back so with that we're going to move into the main agenda and 
  thank you for that heads up manu so.
Mike Prorock:   VC API will be next week.
Mike Prorock:  Not this week.
Mike Prorock: 
Mike Prorock:  The uh which is to go through just a couple of 
  work items that need to be taking a look at and I'm going to 
  actually go oldest first and I'll paste a link to what I am 
  looking at basically there's a few items that have been opened up 
  and we need to vote on as a group to move forward I am going to 
  start with the first one which is proposed work item to deal with 
  DID linked
Mike Prorock: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/236
Mike Prorock:  Resources classification and I don't know if any 
  of the authors are on this call today but if so I would love it 
  if they would speak up Orie I see you on the queue.
Orie Steele:  Yeah so I'm not an author of the input document but 
  I'm a proponent of the community picking up the item and just to 
  sort of give a quick you know high level summary of what's this 
  item about the did core specification defines did and a did URL 
  format and the did URL format has path query in fragment 
  components and the did format does not have those components.
Orie Steele:   The path component is.
Orie Steele:  Reserved in the specification but not really used 
  ever for anything and the query components are not really very 
  well tested there are tests for them in the core specification 
  but because the did working group was forbidden by Charter for 
  concretely defining did resolution and did dereferencing the 
  ability to specify that stuff in the technical recommendation.
Orie Steele:   Is limited and so as a.
Orie Steele:  Consequence of that when you see did URLs that 
  contain path query parameters there it's difficult to get 
  interoperability around the path and query components of did URLs 
  and so this work item does a really good job of describing some 
  URL did URL formats that look really nice but there's additional 
  work that needs to happen in order to ensure that did resolvers 
  and did dereferences dereference will process those did urls.
Orie Steele:   Consistently and this work item proposes some 
  mechanisms for doing that.
Orie Steele:  And defines support for how some some parts of the 
  community have already been using that path component and I 
  suspect that you know if this work item were adopted by the 
  community and we were able to move it along it would be parallel 
  input to the next did working group along with the did resolution 
  spec I expect the did working group to have to Define resolution 
  and dereferencing substantially.
Orie Steele:   More than we did previously.
Orie Steele:  When we get the new working group so that's a kind 
  of summary of the work item what it's focused on what how would 
  be relevant to Future w3c working groups and I'm supportive of 
  the work item and I'd be willing to offer comments and edit as 
  appropriate thanks.
Mike Prorock:  Awesome thank you so much Orie hang on one second 
  here Joe I see you on the queue.
Mike Prorock:  Mr. Joe Andrew is your mic working.
<joe_andrieu> Apparently not
<joe_andrieu> I'd like to get a response to the comment I just 
  added to the issue, before moving forward
Mike Prorock:  Alright I do see that Joe is asking about relation 
  to some other just basic did methods I think the my read on this 
  orie correct me if I'm wrong is that this kind of spans multiple 
  like this is not specific to one did method or another this is 
  kind of how to handle functionality across did methods Paul I see 
  you on the queue.
<joe_andrieu> There is a specific linkedResource property defined 
  in did:cosmos.
Paul_Dietrich_GS1: Yeah I hope you can hear me Mike I just want 
  to hear from maybe orie someone else for kind of folks new to 
  this issue like to compare and contrast to just putting those 
  resources as service end points.
Orie Steele:  Yeah I can I can cover cover that so one of the 
  things that did spec did Define was relative references using 
  service end points and then in that case the path is 
  percent-encoded and so a did URL that makes use of relative ref 
  will have percent-encoded path component because that path is a 
  path on the resource.
Orie Steele:   Defined in the service end point.
Orie Steele:  Inside of the service inside of the did document 
  and that is a different location different path than using the 
  path component in a did URL directly so they're they're two 
  separate things but depending on how you've implemented did 
  resolution and did dereferencing they don't necessarily need to 
  be and this gets to the sort of first question about like is this 
  specific to a single did method.
Orie Steele:   I would argue.
Orie Steele:  I would argue all did resolution and dereferencing 
  are specific to a single did method currently because the course 
  back doesn't Define them concretely so you get basically a box of 
  either abstract data model or concrete representation 
  serializations and how that box is built is determined by how 
  that did method handles all of the components of the did URL 
  which includes the path to query in the fragment.
Orie Steele:   So I think.
<paul_dietrich_gs1> thanks
Orie Steele:  That's a kind of a long way of answering the 
  question I don't think this is specific to a single did method I 
  think Lessons Learned From what's been defined in this resource 
  are relevant to all did methods that design support for did URLs 
  that can include a path query or a fragment.
Mike Prorock:  Yeah that was kind of my read as well Orie is that 
  this might provide a path you know potential standard you know 
  eventually standards track type approach that could be used by 
  multiple did methods Joe I see you on the Queue there.
Joe Andrieu:  Yeah so I already have working again yeah okay 
  sorry sorry about that so so two things one I would just like to 
  get some language from the creators of this work item and 
  possibly the definition of the work item about the harmonization 
  because did Cosmo says a completely different way to do it and 
  we're now kind of in a weird race condition which I don't want to 
  create a position of conflict with multiple.
Joe Andrieu:   Definitions going into .
Joe Andrieu:  Some registry about which linked resource is the 
  official linked resource so to the extent that linked resources 
  are good I like that but I'm not convinced that this approach is 
  actually as generic as it has been described by Orie because 
  there are some weird specific things in there that we definitely 
  did not do at did Cosmos for good reason but I think it's it 
  might just be different styles whatever I want to explore it the 
  other answer about the difference between service endpoints is 
Joe Andrieu:  It's mostly in the did Cosmos work I can speak to 
  the difference was is what you're referring to something that is 
  an interactive end point or are you referring to something that's 
  a conceptually concrete asset and so you could have a for example 
  a hash to specify that this image is in fact the resource That 
  was supposed to be returned by this end point whereas service 
  descriptions don't usually have that kind of semantics.
Joe Andrieu:  So that's it those two comments.
Mike Prorock:  Orie any comment back or anything.
Orie Steele:  Just that I think I would just pointing out that 
  people are potentially handling did URLs differently and I want 
  to Echo that that's 100% what's happening based on the way the 
  did core specification defined resolution and dereferencing and 
  in many cases they're defining it in a method specific way like 
  you mentioned did Cosmos might handle dereferencing of something 
  that concludes path inquiry.
Orie Steele:   Very differently than some other.
Orie Steele:  Did method and so the more that we can publish you 
  know how are you handling dereferencing for your method the more 
  we can align between the various different cases because I think 
  you know one of the core components of building a did method is 
  that you as the method author get to Define these things and 
  method authors don't know whether they can Define it in a way 
  that would be compatible because there isn't a great group of 
  resources for defining this kind of thing and now there's.
Orie Steele:   Apparently a couple but it would be better to have 
Orie Steele:  Definitions and list them next to each other so 
  that as a method author when you create a new method you can 
  review the existing ways that this is handled and you can make 
  the decisions based on you know information that's available.
Mike Prorock:  I think that's well said Orie because I think one 
  of the key things with any work item is how can we get people 
  speaking the same language or identify as opposed to running into 
  I think as Joe put it right race conditions right now Joe.
Joe Andrieu:  Yeah I was just going to echo on that you know what 
  my question is is this work item to advocate for checks approach 
  because that's what it reads like right they've they've 
  documented how they're doing it and they're saying hey let's put 
  this forward it's a totally appropriate way to do it I'd like to 
  see the work item be about synthesizing a common way that 
  integrates how did Cosmos is doing it how distributed web nodes 
  are doing it how checked is doing it I think that's our function 
  in the universe is to find that coordination rather.
Joe Andrieu:   Than to promote a specific approach.
Joe Andrieu:  For a specific method.
Mike Prorock:  I think that's an excellent call out and I would 
  definitely agree with that I think the goal here would be to 
  avoid a specific you know that be you know one or two specific 
  ways of doing this might be great input but that's not not the 
  end goal Manu.
Manu Sporny:  Yeah it I think it's fine to have that discussion 
  like in the work item and figure it out like I don't think we 
  need an answer to that like today understanding intent is is you 
  know at the beginning is good but you know over time intent can 
  change as well so I don't see that as a reason not to you know 
  pull the work item in it's good you know this is like super you 
  know when these work items start they're supposed to be super 
  experimental and not everything we don't have answers to all the 
  questions so just.
Manu Sporny:   A plus one in support of the work item and pulling 
  it in.
Manu Sporny:  And in trying to figure out if there's a way to 
  merge all these things together I think all of us understand that 
  you know it would be ideal if we came up with a generalized 
  pattern and we if we don't it's not a super big deal because 
  they're probably important reasons for there being a distinction 
  that's it.
Mike Prorock: Pre-Proposal: Adopt "DID-Linked Resources 
  Specification" as a work item
Mike Prorock:  Yeah thank you Manu I'm going to put a 
  pre-proposal in the chat here which is to say that we would adopt 
  the did linked resources specification as a work item is there 
  any suggested modification to that text before I run that as a 
  proposal and I'll explain how proposals work for folks that are 
  not familiar with that before I actually run it but any anyone 
  want to hop on queue before we run this.
<joe_andrieu> not without citing at least DWN and cosmos 
  approaches as input
Mike Prorock:  Seeing no one and with that caveat that.
Mike Prorock:  Obviously this is a work item and there's a lot of 
  stuff we can hash out in this Joe I think you know to your note I 
  think you would be totally within bounds to just add a comment 
  and say hey let's make sure we're also incorporating this and 
  then to engage in the work item I think that's kind of in line 
  with the spirit of work items.
Joe Andrieu:  So can I can I speak to that because I don't agree 
  with you so what I want to see is the work item itself defined as 
  having these input documents including Cosmos including whatever 
  dwn is doing the distributive webnode work there is other work in 
  the space if this work item doesn't support it we shouldn't 
  support it.
Joe Andrieu:   That's my advocacy for what is.
Joe Andrieu:  About to be proposed I think it's a bad idea 
  without those extensions and an acknowledgement of the other work 
  in the community.
Mike Prorock:  Sounds good I appreciate that feedback in Manu.
Orie Steele: +1 Manu
Manu Sporny:  Yeah I don't I don't think we should be in the I 
  don't think we as a community should block items from being 
  adopted even if they're conflicting especially in as a work item 
  I think that I thought and I'm seeing this kind of as a thing 
  that's rising and in in the VCWG and the ccg where there's kind 
  of this like there can be only one you know approach and its 
  worrying to me because if we do not allow.
Manu Sporny:  These conversations to happen then we don't get to 
  the point where we understand that we can merge the work or not 
  it we start off in kind of a hostile position to new work and I 
  just don't think that's healthy for the community and that's one 
  of the things I'm hoping we can change in you know 2023 I think 
  the points you're making Joe are valid which is we have 
  acknowledged there is other work out there it exists.
Manu Sporny:  And it is not clear whether or not you know the 
  check folks want to align with that other work or  they've 
  they're very specifically trying to not do that but I don't see 
  that as athat that as a reason to like not adopt as a work item 
  if people want to do work in the ccg especially experimental work 
  I think we should enable that work to happen right and see where 
  it goes that's it.
Mike Prorock:  Yeah explicit chair hat on big plus one Manu and I 
  think Joe is popping on to clarify something that I think is 
  important so with that Joe.
Joe Andrieu:  Yeah there there there is no vote needed here so to 
  get a work item approved at least the last time I looked at the 
  charter I don't think we've changed it since then we've this work 
  has met the requirements so.
<manu_sporny> Ok, good, I was worried that we were going to count 
  a -1 as a "can't start the work" -- so +1 to what Joe is saying.
Joe Andrieu:  This really isn't about adopting this work item 
  that work items going to happen regardless of my vote or your 
  vote but I do want to register that this is a hostile position 
  taken against my work I've presented this work at iaw to Ankor 
  and others from checked and they've done a land grab and they're 
  using the term to go put this forward and and I think that's 
  really problematic.
Joe Andrieu:   So I want it to.
Joe Andrieu:  Be understood I would like to see our proposal 
  whatever we might shape here.
Joe Andrieu:  To make it clear that this is not about the checked 
  implementation this is about finding a consensus for Divergent 
  implementations so that we can have a common standard.
<manu_sporny> Ah, well, that's new information that I didn't know 
  about ... the "hostile position" portion of it.
Mike Prorock:  Ted I see you on the queue.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Yeah uh Joe I 
  think you're taking this too personally.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): I understand 
  the emotional component of doing some work and feeling like it's 
  being overlooked or discounted or acted against but that's not 
  part of this particular activity the creation of a work item is 
  inherently open to whatever else is out there.
<orie> Wait till we learn that JSON Web Tokens are Verifiable 
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): There will be 
  a charter for the work item the way that the ccg is chartered 
  that's the way work items are done also they’re a sub function of 
  the ccg they get chartered that's the place to raise any 
  objections that you may have which would be if anywhere the place 
  that something might be blessed before the work is done but 
  that's not the way that anybody that I'm hearing or have 
  interacted with within the CCG approaches such things.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): We try and 
  take into account existing work.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): By anybody 
  inside or outside the group and we try to make ourselves aware of 
  other work that we may not yet have been aware of.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): So yes it may 
  be that somebody wrote this clumsily and slanted the initial 
  proposal of the charter for this work item towards their own work 
  but that ain't the end of it so bluntly please take a breath and 
  I think you'll be fine in the end that's it.
Mike Prorock:  All right I'm going to just do a quick queue check 
  here I am going to run an actual proposal the charter does state 
  that the group should agree to accept it yada yada the best way 
  that I've seen to see a should accept is just if there's just run 
  a quick proposal -1 if you're objecting to the work item you just 
  type the minus symbol and then one.
Mike Prorock:   Zero if you're neutral Plus one.
Mike Prorock:  If you are supportive.
Mike Prorock:  Of of the work being accepted and this just gives 
  a mechanism for the chairs to make sure we can monitor things and 
  look for reasonable formal objections and things like that as 
  they arise and big fan of seeing work move forward in general 
  chair hat off on that last statement so proposal is coming in 
  once again plus one indicate support minus 1 is non support.
Mike Prorock:   Or opposition and zero is neutral.

PROPOSAL:  Adopt "DID-Linked Resources Specification" as a work 

<rgrant> 0
<andres> 0
Joe Andrieu: -1
Dmitri Zagidulin: -0 (Not objecting - I agree with Manu that it 
  would set a bad precedent. But I'm also in support of Joe's 
<orie> +1.023
<manu_sporny> +0.85 (with a caveat that Joe's concerns are 
  addressed in due time)
Ted Thibodeau: -1 To current work item charter, because it hasn't 
  had time to be reviewed, commented on, etc.; but +1 to this 
  eventually being a work item
<stuart_freeman> 0
Kimberly Linson: +1
<gregory_natran> 0
Greg Bernstein: +1
<sandy_aggarwal> 0
Marty Reed: +1
<phil_l_(p1)> 0
<gregory_natran> 0
<andrew_whitehead> 0
<phil_l_(p1)> 0
<orie> Remind me to vote 0 more often.
Mike Prorock:  Giving it a second for any last things to come in 
  but I think that's pretty thorough there's a few minus ones that 
  I that I think are actually valid which is saying look we need to 
  make sure that.
Orie Steele:  You should vote 0 more often! [scribe assist by 
  Dmitri Zagidulin]
Mike Prorock:  You know we are considering the broader item I'm 
  going to go ahead and make a note of that on the issue and 
  provided the owners go ahead and acknowledge that that we should 
  you know have consideration of existing work etcetera then I 
  think that's totally fine.
<harrison_tang> I think Orie should continue to make a stance on 
  everything :)
Mike Prorock:  Ted as far as the reviewed comment at all I 
  generally agree with you all but I think this one was open about 
  30 days ago it was posted to the list Etc so I think it's been 
  out I we did not call it out to the group explicitly and probably 
  as verbally as we could have so apologies for that so but I'm 
  going to take a note on this real cool on the good of issue was 
<manu_sporny> I like how voting is now being interpreted as 
  (fanatical support +1, complete ambivalence 0, or burn in hell 
  disagreement -1) :P
<orie> I wonder if DID Core v2 will even have "documents"...
<manu_sporny> DID Core v2 will have "metaverses"
Mike Prorock:  All right that comment is now posted yes Manu it’s 
<manu_sporny> /me :P
<andrew_whitehead> Maybe just document identifiers, with 
  resolution left to the reader
<orie> ^
Mike Prorock:  Yeah the politics are definitely not necessarily 
  moving in a positive direction but that might be Universal 
  unfortunately moving on to the next work item that was opened 
  three weeks ago posted to the list by mr. Manu Sporney.
Harrison_Tang: But by the way Mike there's a question in the 
Mike Prorock:  Sorry say it again oh Ryan I see you only queue 
  thank you for that Harrison sorry that was not intentional I was 
<rgrant> mic permisison problem, sorry
Mike Prorock:  Ryan might be on mute.
Ryan Grant:  Okay can you hear me now.
Mike Prorock:  I'll be watching the Queue now that I'm not typing 
  into github so I'll watch for you to hop all this time since oh 
  there we go perfect.
Ryan Grant:  Check check okay thanks I guess I had a question to 
  Joe I think you have a distinctive minus 1 there can you just 
  recap I was a little confused whether you were voting against the 
  work or the maybe your -1 was against the boat since your prior 
  prior comments said we can't block this work from the ccg or 
  maybe you were unsatisfied with the.
Ryan Grant:  The the current title of the work please clarify 
  thank you.
Mike Prorock:  Yes you may.
Joe Andrieu:  Sure may I chairs.
Joe Andrieu:  My understanding of the charter process was that if 
  there were multiple implementers and it is within the context of 
  the charter then we cannot deny this work item therefore the 
  question is what is this proposal about and I think to Tall Ted's 
  point this is a chartering conversation and I'm opposing the 
  chartering as currently defined I would like to see this Charter 
  changed but I don't think that's going to happen.
Joe Andrieu:   So that's my minus one.
Mike Prorock:  Yeah thanks Joe for that clarification and the way 
  that I'm reading for the charter right now in general all 
  documents related to credentialing are welcome if there are 
  individuals who will commit to being editors for a document the 
  group should agree to accept it as a work item even if it 
  conflicts with previous work adopted by the community newly 
  accepted work items that extend beyond the scope of this 
  community group Charter.
Mike Prorock:   Will lead to a.
Mike Prorock:  Reconsideration of the charter and then goes on to 
  discussion of voting to reconsider the charter which would be 
  very drastic measure under odd circumstances I think the main 
  reason we wanted to get this out is that there is obviously an 
  acknowledged shared problem chair hat off I agree with Joe that I 
  think we should make sure that work items in general acknowledge 
  work that's out there even if they go a different direction.
Mike Prorock:   So the because this has.
Mike Prorock:  Multiple authors Etc it will move forward as a 
  work item but if we can take a little extra time to get some 
  clarity on this and some good discussion on the issue before the 
  repos is created etcetera it would be great because there are 
  some clarifying things that could come into this that could be 
  helpful so that's my statement on the matter.
<manu_sporny> Joe, I added this to the issue: 
Mike Prorock: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/238
<phil_l_(p1)> I like the notion that chargers by default 
  acknowledge prior related work for provenance and contect.
<phil_l_(p1)> context
Mike Prorock:  Next up for discussion here and I think I did not 
  miss anyone on the Queue this time is 238 this was open a couple 
  of weeks ago by mr. Manu Sporny just three weeks ago and deals 
  with verifiable issuers and verifiers Manu any commentary on 
<phil_l_(p1)> charters not charters
Manu Sporny:  Yes happy too so at the last rebooting the web 
  trust get together a number of people from various communities 
  that were working on things called like trust Registries or trust 
  lists or known authorities that kind of conceptual work item got 
  together and documented like.
Manu Sporny:   All the different work happening in.
Manu Sporny:  Different places like in Europe in trust over IP 
  and IIW and in places like that around this notion of asking a 
  simple question like how can I trust that the issuer of this 
  credential is legit that's basically what this work item is about 
  and so there was a rebooting paper written on it it's now 
  published that paper was turned into a.
<manu_sporny> Verifiable Issuers and Verifiers: 
Manu Sporny:  Respec specification so you can go and look at the 
  specification here and this is very much like an early days thing 
  right this is the our best attempt over a couple of months at 
  creating something that would address all the use cases that we 
  knew of across the various groups that were working on this stuff 
Manu Sporny:   It is a very focused work item.
Manu Sporny:  It is just it's really just focusing on the 
  verifiable credential format it's not focusing on like the 
  governance model around who creates these you know lists it's 
  meant to be this fully open and decentralized mechanism where 
  anybody can create these lists and anyone can choose to consume 
  them or not and so we don't so that's basically the work item in 
  a nutshell.
Manu Sporny:  How do I trust the The Entity that issued this 
  credential there's something else that's also really interesting 
  I thought in the in the VC sorry in the in the specification 
  which is can I trust this verifier like if you have someone 
  that's standing in front of you claiming to be law enforcement 
  saying you need to give all your credentials over to them can 
  they prove who they are and that they have the right to ask for 
  those credentials that's a.
Manu Sporny:   A little more controversial.
Manu Sporny:  It’s marked as such in the in the specification but 
  that's also kind of in scope for the work so.
Manu Sporny:  There are multiple people that are typically not in 
  this community that are working on it as well we've got 
  Constantine from Spiritu oscar in reeks from tno shegaya from Ko 
  lina Cofed who's in the one of the founders of block Zone and 
  Isaac Henderson that works for.
Manu Sporny:  Instant guard working on it so a good collection of 
  people you know spread from all over the world working on the 
  document we don't expect this to progress rapidly so I think 
  we're all going to try to take our sweet old time on this to make 
  sure that we get it right and and so we don't expect it to 
  transition into any kind of working group in the next year or 
  maybe even two that's it that's the high level.
Manu Sporny:   Overview of the work item.
<sandy_aggarwal> Manu - I'd love to add some comments on this
Mike Prorock:  Thanks manu and and obviously I think just looking 
  at the chat and previous conversation around this and the issue 
  comments there's pretty broad support from a variety of folks as 
  you mentioned that are including folks far outside the norm ccg 
  realm Ted just did bring up on the issue I think it was last week 
  regarding maybe raising this also to the visibility of 
  credibility community group.
Mike Prorock:   Right the other ccg and I think that's a 
Mike Prorock:  Posting cross-posting if you have not done so with 
  that unless I see any queue up in the next 30 seconds or so I am 
  going to run a quick proposal to adopt this.
<sandy_aggarwal> I'm looking into identity and VCs from a gaming 
  perspective and I'll like to add some questions in that regard.

PROPOSAL:  adopt work item "Verifiable Issuers and Verifiers"

Mike Prorock:  All right plus one minus one zero.
Manu Sporny: +1
Greg Bernstein: +1
Marty Reed: +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1
<orie> 0
Dmitri Zagidulin: +1
Kayode Ezike: +1
Joe Andrieu: +1
Ryan Grant: +1
<manu_sporny> Also, please don't ship this into production any 
  time soon. :P
Greg Bernstein: +1
<dmitri_zagidulin> @Manu - you ask a /lot/ of us :)
Sandy_Aggarwal: Hey Manu and I apologize for speaking out of here 
  I'll probably just get in touch with you maybe offline but I just 
  need to understand the format a little bit more but I'm also 
  looking at this from a toip and the hyperLedger perspective one 
  of the sub groups someone get hyper Ledger is moving to and 
  sections of blockchain gaming of course metaverse is such a bad 
  term to use but I'm looking at this.
Sandy_Aggarwal:  like specially When you mention that can you 
Sandy_Aggarwal: The the verify of the issuer I'm also looking the 
  concept of temporary verifiers or temporary issues so I'll 
  probably speak to you offline and then try to understand the 
  scope of your work a little more.
Manu Sporny:  Happy to chat thanks Sandy that's an interesting 
  use case.
Sandy_Aggarwal: Thank you Manu.
Mike Prorock:  Ted I see you on the queue.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Yeah sort of 
  point of order thing the agenda for today was a very hand wavy 
  work items and activities that does not point me to any issues or 
  PRs or anything else it's obviously not fixable for today but for 
  future given that we have such things and that they have been 
  open for a bit and I haven't been commented on them but don't 
  remember that now.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com):  listing 
  those out is.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Probably 
  worthwhile Joe I would also encourage you to raise your clear 
  objections on that issue.
Mike Prorock: +1 Ted - thanks
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): So that 
  others actually know what's going on there because the comments 
  that you've made there do not appear to me to carry the weight of 
  the objections you made in this call thanks.
Mike Prorock:  Thanks Ted I think both of those points are 
  excellent and thanks so much I am taking a note on this Manu just 
  let us know whether you want to transfer that repo or if you want 
  us to create a new one but we'll get this up and rolling.
Manu Sporny:  Great thank you thanks all.
Mike Prorock: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/239
Mike Prorock:  Awesome the just watching time here we may come 
  back to this one I am going to post it in the chat because this 
  one I don't think has had as much commentary and is still waiting 
  for some feedback so I don't think it's ready for broader 
  Community feedback yet just based on what looks like visibility I 
  would just ask folks to take a note of this this has to deal with 
Mike Prorock:   Evidence properties.
Mike Prorock:  Specifically related to OIDC so it's a pretty 
  specific item dealing with something that also though is very 
  very broad which is evidence right it's a problematic area so 
  definitely looking for feedback and for the community or 
  commentary on the issues with that any commentary on that before 
  and trying to see if David Chadwick is on the call any.
Mike Prorock:   Commentary on that before we move on to the 
  status list 2021 item.
Mike Prorock: 
Mike Prorock:  All right cool well with that I am going to post 
  again the message that Manu did send out to the list which I 
  think is important which is that there is a final community group 
  report around status list 2021 so that we can go ahead and 
  publish this we do need to add a kind of a call for consensus 
  here and make sure that we're fine to move.
Mike Prorock:   Forward with this.
Mike Prorock:  Ted is your queue to item related to this work 
  item or is this kind of more Broad.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Not 
  specifically to this one it's a little more broad it's a 
  suggestion to enable the wiki functionality on relevant Repos 
  such that things like the charters that are being developed for 
  these work items actually be addressed in a place that we can all 
  contribute to and which is obviously visible and tracked more 
  than something like a Google doc which I think is where they are 
  right now.
Mike Prorock:  Oh I like that notion a lot Ted could I trouble 
  you to create an issue making that request up on the community 
  side I'd love to get some feedback in I think that could be much 
  better than externalizing stuff obviously we've taken a step that 
  Direction with the template but this would be kind of The Next 
  Step there so if you don't mind please create that issue and I'd 
  love to get that out from a proposal.
Mike Prorock:   Standpoint in the next couple of meetings here.
Mike Prorock: https://github.com/w3c/cg-reports/pull/18
Mike Prorock:  Awesome so circling back to the good old call for 
  consensus here the the VC working group as Manu noted at the 
  start of the call has voted to transition this in which means we 
  do need to get a community group final report there is a pull 
  request out on that and that is I’ll post a link to that 
  basically sets.
Mike Prorock:   It final.
Mike Prorock:  With that I guess the question really is first 
  before I run a proposal to say yep we're fine with marking this 
  final and moving it along in its life towards the standardization 
  process is there any commentary additional feedback Etc from the 
  community on this and if you're new to the group one of the main 
  reasons to mark this final and to make sure there's consensus.
Mike Prorock:   Is basically to say yes we as a community.
Mike Prorock:  Group agree with what that and we know it's going 
  to move on and change right it will evolve as it moves into a 
  working group proper but it also lets us do things like check to 
  make sure there are no intellectual property claims or anything 
  like that right so it really helps the standardization process 
  and if you have questions on that feel free to email the list or 
  email myself or any of the chairs directly and we can point you 
  to some of the fun stuff in w3c process Manu I see you on the 
  Queue and.
Mike Prorock:   That I think would be some helpful feedback.
Manu Sporny:  Sure yeah just real briefly on kind of where this 
  spec came from a while ago we had this Speck called revocation 
  list 2020 or something like that and it just dealt with like 
  credentials that you know if you revoke them how do you find out 
  that they were revoked we had a couple of people request that we 
  also take credential suspension into account and we tried to 
  generalize the data model a tiny bit so status list 2021 kind of 
  came out of that discussion.
Manu Sporny:  And it really hasn't changed all that much like the 
  bones of the specification or more or less what they've always 
  been there haven't been very many updates to the specification 
  there have been multiple you know implementations of it clearly 
  not enough for us to go all the way through to official standard 
  but you know there has been implementation experience on it there 
  have been some debates you know on.
Manu Sporny:   You know the Privacy aspect.
Manu Sporny:  And can we do better from a privacy perspective so 
  we're going to still continue to try to improve the Privacy 
  characteristics of the the specification so you know at this 
  point the spec feels fairly stable as Mike said we are expecting 
  improvements to be made around privacy aspects Beyond the herd 
  privacy that the that it already you know provides and we're 
Manu Sporny:   More implementations.
Manu Sporny:  But we are not expecting the specification to 
  change you know that wildly from here on out so we're going to 
  you know if it succeeds in transitioning to the VCWG today we're 
  going to continue to work on that there the other thing that I 
  should note is that the VCWG is taking on a lot more 
  specifications so like the number of specifications we’re 
  simultaneously working on is rising so if you are interested in 
  becoming a specification editor.
Manu Sporny:   You know and you’re part of the vcwg or want to 
  become part of it.
Manu Sporny:  This is a great spec to try that out because it's 
  mostly well-formed but it does need care and feeding over the 
  next couple of months and I am concerned that it's not going to 
  get enough care and feeding over the next couple of months so 
  just throwing that out there as a some background history and 
  where this spec could go once it goes into the vcwg.
Mike Prorock:  Thanks so much Manu any other comments from the 
  audience before I run a proposal here.

PROPOSAL:  The CCG approves final report status for 
  "StatusList2021" and supports adoption of the work as an input 
  document for the VC WG

Manu Sporny: +1
Mike Prorock:  All right with that running the proposal ccg 
  proves the final report status for the status list 2021 work item 
  and supports adoption of the work as an input document for the VC 
  working group.
Mike Prorock:   Plus 1 indicates support etc.
Greg Bernstein: +1
Joe Andrieu: +1
Kayode Ezike: +1
Orie Steele: +1
Kimberly Linson: +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1
Marty Reed: +1
Markus Sabadello: +1
<rgrant> 0
Mike Prorock:  Giving a second for any last votes to roll in 
Dmitri Zagidulin: +1
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): I'm going to 
  jump in because I don't think anything I’ll probably say is going 
  to change anybody's vote related to what you were just saying 
  Manu and related to the work items that we have talked about 
  today and all the other stuff that's in the in The Ether right 
  now it may be worth developing and I'm sorry I don't think I have 
  the chops for this something of a dependency diagram and a 
  process flow so that the things which are all going to be.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com):  competing 
  for our time are not so much competing.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): With each 
  other for functionality in the end and so we don't come into a 
  meeting in a few weeks or months and say oh yeah we have these 
  two work items that have come up with specs that are completely 
  in opposition to each other.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Yeah I don't 
  know how.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Possible it 
  is but I think it's worth thinking about.
Mike Prorock:  Yeah I think that's a great call out I know Manu’s 
  done a lot from tracking the history and items like that various 
  items and some of the relation but the dependency diagram is 
  definitely complicated Manu before I call you I'm just going to 
  note that I did not see any anything that indicates a lack of 
  consensus so I'm going to post that to the list and let it let it 
  be recorded in stone that we have moved forward.
Mike Prorock:   On here so when you.
Mike Prorock:  Have merged that PR just let me know and we can go 
  ahead and post that post that up Manu.
Manu Sporny:  Great thanks I will do that later this week to 
  Ted's point I think.
Manu Sporny:  That's that's kind of a human wetware application 
  meaning like figuring out where they're going to be conflicts 
  like Joe did exactly that like that's that's how we find out 
  whether or not we're going to end up with something potentially 
  conflicting we know that might be the case for the linked 
  resources stuff right we heard that on the call today there is a 
  way to do automatic dependency tree generation it's been the 
  great thing that we've been wanting to do for like 10.
Manu Sporny:   15 Years.
<orie> See also respec + xref
Manu Sporny:  In Respec but nobody's done the work to do that so 
  if anyone's interested in building a software tool to kind of 
  show the dependency tree for w3c specifications it is possible to 
  write a program to do that we just nobody's done that yet and and 
  we do have the ccg I mean try to maintain a list of like all the 
  work items we've ever done and may ever do and the and what's 
  dependent on what and what may go into the standards tracker.
Manu Sporny:   But that again is a very manual process that 
  requires the.
Manu Sporny:  Person putting that together to understand which 
  specs you know are scheduled you know independent on what other 
  specs so that unfortunately Ted I think there's it most of it is 
  a manual human process and that requires people to volunteer and 
  do that work.
Mike Prorock:  Yep it's always a wonderful fun wagon time with 
  that we’re coming up to two minutes before the hour I just wanted 
  to thank everyone for the meeting today I think there was some 
  great discussion as well as some good call-outs looking forward 
  to a wonderful new year with the ccg and everyone on this call 
  and who engages on the list and further so with that I'm going to 
  close this out thanks so much Happy New Year again.
Mike Prorock:   Yeah and just looking forward to.
<harrison_tang> Happy New Year, everyone!!
Mike Prorock:  A lot of fun work in the year to come so with that 
  we can go ahead and kill recording Harrison and off we go.
<manu_sporny> Thanks all! :)
Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2023 12:52:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 4 January 2023 12:52:42 UTC