- From: CCG Minutes Bot <minutes@w3c-ccg.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2023 12:52:40 +0000
Thanks to Our Robot Overlords for scribing this week! The transcript for the call is now available here: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2023-01-03/ 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/2023-01-03/audio.ogg ---------------------------------------------------------------- W3C CCG Weekly Teleconference Transcript for 2023-01-03 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/advanced_search?hdr-1-name=subject&hdr-1-query=%5BAGENDA&period_month=Jan&period_year=2023&index-grp=Public__FULL&index-type=t&type-index=public-credentials&resultsperpage=20&sortby=date Organizer: Mike Prorock, Kimberly Linson, Harrison Tang Scribe: Our Robot Overlords Present: 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: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2022Dec/0137.html 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 optional 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 here. 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: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2023Jan/0001.html 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: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22proposed+work+items%22+sort%3Acreated-asc 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 really. 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 clearer. 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 Credentials. 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 item <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 concerns.) <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 comments. <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 uh. <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 queue. 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 typing. <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: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/236#issuecomment-1370048119 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 this. <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: https://msporny.github.io/verifiable-issuers-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 it. 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 worthwhile. 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 trust. 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 credential. 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: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2023Jan/0001.html 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 expecting. 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 here. 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