[MINUTES] CCG VCALM 2025-10-28

Here's a summary of the CCG VCALM meeting:

*Meeting Summary*

The meeting covered a variety of topics, including updates from IIW, a
VCOM-related rechartering proposal, PR reviews, and issue processing. The
main focus was on community updates, with a presentation from Patrick
St-Louis on a BC API platform. The group also discussed the upcoming W3C
VCWG rechartering proposal and addressed PRs. There was also discussion
about the upcoming meetings, in which Manu will be unavailable.

*Topics Covered*

   - *IIW Report Out:* Discussions centered around the SETI initiative,
   digital fiduciary, delegation, and the German UD wallet demonstration.
   - *BC API Platform Demo:* Patrick St-Louis presented a BC API platform
   demo that uses workflows with action menus through didcom.
   - *VCWG Rechartering Proposal:* Discussion on a draft charter
   incorporating VCOM, addressing potential class 4 changes, and prioritizing
   deliverables.
   - *PR Review:* Review and merging of various PRs, including updates to
   the local callback ID and the architecture clarification statement.
   - *Upcoming Meetings:* Announcement of Manu Sporny's absence in November
   and plans for Patrick St-Louis to lead the meetings.

*Key Points*

   - Joe Andrieu shared insights from IIW, highlighting discussions on
   delegation, digital fiduciaries, and the Utah initiative.
   - Patrick St-Louis's presentation showcased a BC API platform that
   integrates identity and context within workflows.
   - The rechartering proposal will incorporate VCOM and address privacy
   and security concerns.
   - The group reviewed and approved several PRs, focusing on
   clarifications and improvements to the VCOM specifications.
   - Patrick St-Louis will lead the meetings in November while Manu Sporny
   is away.

Text: https://meet.w3c-ccg.org/archives/w3c-ccg-ccg-vcalm-2025-10-28.md

Video: https://meet.w3c-ccg.org/archives/w3c-ccg-ccg-vcalm-2025-10-28.mp4
*CCG VCALM - 2025/10/28 14:58 EDT - Transcript* *Attendees*

Dave Longley, Joe Andrieu, John's Notetaker, Kayode Ezike, Manu Sporny,
Nate Otto, Patrick St-Louis, Ted Thibodeau Jr
*Transcript*

Manu Sporny: All right, let's go ahead and get started. We've got a light
group today. I know Eric is out on travel. Hearth is PTO. and we've got a
couple other folks out, but let's go ahead and process as much as we can
today. maybe take a look at the issues and we can end early if we need to.
our agenda today is kind of focusing on community updates and any kind of
report out from IIW for anything V VCOM related. I don't think that there
is much. I sat in on the BC education call yesterday and got a bit of an
update from Phil and Mitri and so I can kind of share some of that stuff.

Manu Sporny: Patrick, were you at IW or No. Okay.

Patrick St-Louis: I am not there this year. No, not this time.

Manu Sporny: Okay, that's fine. all And then, we've got a VCWG rechartering
proposal, that has the VCOM work, and then we can do a regular PR review
and issue processing cycle. are there any other updates or changes to the
agenda? Anything else we want to cover today? If there's nothing else on
the go ahead, Patrick. Cool.

Patrick St-Louis: If there's time, I can show a little sort of BC API, I
guess, platform that I'm working on. sort of a demo thing, but only if
there's time for this.

Manu Sporny: Yeah. I mean, I would expect that there's going to be time for
that today. So, let's put it towards the front of the agenda just so we get
to that. anything else to add to the agenda? All right, let's go ahead and
jump into the agenda then. let's do a quick report out from IIW for
anything VC API related. I got an update kind of from Dimmitri and Phil and
Joe. Coyote, were you at IW this year?
00:05:00

Kayode Ezike: No, not this season, unfortunately.

Manu Sporny: All Was there anyone on the call that was there? there's a bit
of a discussion. I mean, the entire BCEDU call covered IIW.

Manu Sporny: I went and kind of looked at some of the sessions there. a
fair bit of it was covering the SETI stuff from Joe, we're doing a brief
rundown of IW and I'm just summarizing the VCEDU stuff,…

Joe Andrieu: Sir.

Manu Sporny: but I think you were there and would probably be better
suited. So I can run through the things I've heard and then Joe if you want
to offer anything that'd be great. so on the VCEDU call they said that
there was quite a bit of discussion around the SETI stuff the thing Utah is
doing to try and make it so that the state is not issuing identity but
they're kind of like recognizing identity.

Manu Sporny: I know Joe you also did some number of presentations on the
digital fiduciary stuff which I will definitely let you give a rundown of
that. there was some question around delegation and how delegation was
supposed to be done or could be done. Dmitri said there was some discussion
around Zcaps in delegation. as well there was the demonstration of the
German UD wallet Christina and the Sprint team did. and I think those were
kind of the highlights that I heard about.

Manu Sporny: Nothing really VC API related that I heard about, but Joe,…

Joe Andrieu: Yes,…

Manu Sporny: over to you if you wanted to add more items.

Joe Andrieu: all the things you talked about there were conversations. I
think the most interesting delegation conversation at least that I was a
part of course right for those of you who've been there as an unconference
just lots of meetings you can't get to. but I think there was a growing
awareness that we do need some form of fine grain authorization that can
travel down the protocol stack as opposed to being implemented in the
protocol stack. but people are still looking at that lens from how do I do
the delegation in the protocol for these protocols that don't support
delegation.

Joe Andrieu: and one of the examples this was actually at the Agentic
internet workshop which is the Friday extension IW where someone was
specifically saying hey for OOTH scopes how do I do fine grain
authorization and so there's some growing awareness but there's still a
tendency to think about it in terms of I want the protocol to solve the
problem. and what was weird to me was people were saying, "Yeah, fine grain
authorization with OOTH doesn't work. We don't have a way to do it." And
I'm like, " Google Docs does it fine. They use OOTH at one layer and then
they use a different layer for their fine grain permissions." And I don't
know how that's broken. It may not be what that particular speaker liked.
but it was an interesting tension about what's broken and what's not.

Joe Andrieu: And it was clear to me that the pattern is you use OOTH scopes
for connecting pipes the hot water goes to the hot faucet. but you need a
second layer where you are turning the faucets on or and a lot of people
didn't quite yet have that sensibility but they are bumping into the
problem that I think leads to either Ukanss or Zcaps as a serialized way to
represent authorization. So that was interesting that people were realizing
we need that even though they don't yet understand how to think about it.

Manu Sporny: Yeah, post.

Joe Andrieu: So that was the delegation stuff. the quick note on digital
fiduciary I ran a session that was intended to talk about what do digital
fiduciaries need to know? I thought it was to be about curriculum ended up
going in other directions because people weren't as familiar with what a
digital fiduciary in general. but the most exciting thing for me that came
out of that was the privacy architect of Utah happened to say outside the
meeting, that's why I love the digital fiduciary idea. so I think we have
some good relationships there and Utah is at least thinking about the ideas
and the primitives behind the digital fiduciary idea. and they are still in
the best position to sort of spearhead this effort.
00:10:00

Joe Andrieu: One of the things they reported out was just a couple of weeks
ago, Utah had a summit. It was actually two summits. One was for private
sector and the other was public sector where they invited technology
administrators from all 50 states, probably all 57 driver's license
jurisdictions to come and learn about SETI. and several of them left with
example legislation that they could use back in their home state. So, they
have gotten some traction with people around the country trying to say, "
hey Utah, you're figuring out things in an interesting way. We would also
like to figure that process out." so, that was heartening to me that they
are continuing down this path.

Joe Andrieu: there was a legislator at IW first time I think we had a
legislator from any state coming. so I think Utah is a very interesting
development and maybe we'll be able to get some digital fiduciary stuff
embedded into that. I think that's about it. I did not attend any of the
EUI stuff with Sprint and Christina's team, but they were there, talking
about that stuff. So,

Manu Sporny: Was there any That's awesome, Joe. Thank you for the rundown.
I guess were there any other kind of new developments on DC API being
discussed there on oid for being discussed there protocoly questions or
outside of the UD context?

Joe Andrieu: there were presentations I didn't attend that may have touched
on that they did have sessions on open ID for VC deep dive so I don't know
what the debates may have been or the new developments in those areas the
most interesting thing I'll let you ceue up or…

Manu Sporny: All thank you very much for the rundown.

Joe Andrieu:

Joe Andrieu: not Manny which was a conversation that I reached out to you
in the middle of IW with the phone call we're gonna have next week.

Manu Sporny: Yeah, I'm going to keep that private for now just because we
don't know what's happening there.

Joe Andrieu: It's totally appropriate. That's why I did not just Yeah.

Manu Sporny: Thank Appreciate that. but it does have to do with VCs and…

Joe Andrieu: Yeah. Fun conversations is the short summary.

Manu Sporny: big adoption if okay. I think that is it kind of for the
update and community report out.

Manu Sporny: basically I didn't hear anything that requires us to kind of
change direction with what we're doing here. no new I mean which is normal
people had tons and tons of protocol discussions for a couple of IWS in a
couple of years and now I think everyone's kind of understands what their
protocol is doing and benefits and drawbacks and that sort of anything else
on community updates before we move on to the rechartering proposal? go
ahead, Patrick.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah I just remembered so we had a great presentation
this morning at the Akapai meeting from the company very did it was a
presentation by Dave McKay if some people know him so he's working on a
basically workflows using an action menu through didcom and it was very
interesting presentation. I would like to try and get him to come present
here since workflows is a pretty significant part of the VC API and there
were a lot of similarities. his use case was a lot about education, payment
u applying for jobs this kind of environments.

Patrick St-Louis: And yeah they sort of linked the sort of identity aspect
with the context aspects which is managed by the workflow and then tied
this up into a payment.

Joe Andrieu: Excuse me.

Patrick St-Louis: I think he was also interested in doing some crypto in
there. but it was just very interesting a lot of similarity when it came to
the workflows and these different states. obviously it's not based on the
VCOM but I think it would be great for him to come and compare and maybe
get feedback from other people that have implemented some form of workflows
and see how it works in the real world with higher volume. So yeah just
wanted to share this. I think you should also go probably get in touch with
the VC edu call yeah so this was very good.
00:15:00

Patrick St-Louis: let me just throw a link in the chat.

Manu Sporny: Yeah, absolutely.

Manu Sporny: Yeah, it'd be great if you could invite them to come present,
Patrick. always happy to see work that other folks are doing in the space
and see if they're good ideas that we can put into the stuff we're doing or
if they, are interested in adopting any of our ideas. let's see. I'm gonna
also put the next link in there so I don't lose it. So where did futures
this is Dave McKay he said

Patrick St-Louis: So he's the one who presented and he said he has some
engagement with some states in the US. He mentioned a few other states that
he's in contact with for universities and these sort of educationbased
workflows. yeah, it just seems really interesting. And this demo was using
the Biffold wallet. there's also a video, if I can find it, I'll put it in
the chat, but it was using, the BC wallet and was an example of workflows
for the city of Vancouver, the use case of land titles, which was very
interesting as well. it's didcom based.

Patrick St-Louis: So the workflows are initially transmitted with DIDCOM
but then they can transfer over to any other credential formats whether
it's W3 verifiable credential data model obviously add-on cred is in there

Manu Sporny: Okay, Very cool. Yeah, let's have them come in and present and
we can kind of see what the similarities and differences are. All right.
Thanks, Patrick for that all next item on the agenda is looking at a
charter proposal. This is something that we're going to discuss I think at
on the last day. So the VCWG doesn't meet until Friday. but I put the link
in the chat channel.

Manu Sporny: this is a draft charter that updates the verifiable credential
stuff to pull in VCOM. So and again this is just a proposal. This the group
hasn't even talked about this yet. So that is what the first discussion at
TAC is going to be about is this a good basis? Do we need to remove
anything? that sort of thing. but the VCOM spec is definitely in the list
there along with everything else that we incubated at the CCG. So VC
barcodes confidence render wireless refresh quantum safe crypto suites
verifiable and verifiers. So it's all in there.

Manu Sporny: and then there's, a section for maintenance specifications
where we're not making class 4 changes, but we're got to make them easier
to understand, fix security issues, that sort of thing. let me stop there
and see if there are any questions on any of that. the vast majority of
this is just the existing with charter template updates.

Manu Sporny: just standard kind of W3C wants certain things said what is it
down in the success criteria section is supposed to get a little more
what's the word boilerplate each normative spec has to have two independent
interoperable implementations where a feature is defined here and then
there should be test plans and a changes to specs need to have, changes to
test suites when you're in Canada direct and, so on and so forth.
coordination, you'll get horizontal reviews, you try to do it as Again,
fairly boilerplate stuff, full first pass has been made.
00:20:00

Manu Sporny: Folks should feel free to take a look,…

Manu Sporny: modify or raise issues for things that they think out out or
anything that they want to change and then we can kind of go from there. go
ahead, Joe. No,…

Joe Andrieu: So, I'm a little bummed that you went with not dealing with
class 4 changes…

Joe Andrieu: because I'd like to Sure.

Manu Sporny: hold on. this is just a proposal I'm Go ahead. Finish it. I'll
explain.

Joe Andrieu: No, no. I want you to explain because in particular around the
phone home issue, there are things that I think need normative changes and
I'd like to get that into consideration.

Manu Sporny: Yeah, plus one to that. This charter I did, help put together
the text of the charter. It does not reflect the charter that I personally
or digital bazaar would have wanted to write. It is reflective of kind of
the kind of guidance from Avon staff and no real input from the chairs. and…

Joe Andrieu: It's not reflective of my response to this survey. Sure.

Manu Sporny: supposed to be reflective of the questionnaires that we ran.
So, It is a very conservative charter. yes, I completely agree. I think we
have that discussion at?

Manu Sporny: Because my concern is okay, I put Joe's thing in there and
then all of a sudden, more people might be, upset. I do completely agree we
need to consider it. And I would personally be supportive of us making
class 4 changes on anything that also creates privacy, arms, dangers,
whatever. but I felt that might have been going beyond what I was kind of
suggested to put together.

Joe Andrieu: We definitely just need to have the conversation. So, okay,…

Manu Sporny: Plus one to that. you might raise an issue on Avon's thing
here issue list. Okay.

Joe Andrieu: I do have it open. So, I'll make an effort to continue that
part of the conversation.

Manu Sporny: Okay, sounds good.

Dave Longley: Yeah, I was going to suggest, Joe, if you're able to frame it
in terms of class 4 changes that are restricted to privacy and…

Dave Longley: security, you might be more likely to get it through.

Joe Andrieu: Okay. Yeah,…

Manu Sporny: Yeah, I agree with that because otherwise, we're potentially I
Yeah.

Dave Longley: I think people are worried about open season on everything.
And so if you frame it that way, Joe, I think it has a good

Joe Andrieu: I will embrace that and support it. My frustration is that the
restriction I think just becomes a political mechanism to bludgeon people
to get what you do or don't want. claiming that it is or is not a class 4
and it becomes a whole I don what we think we're getting when staff wants
that.

Manu Sporny: Mhm. Yeah,…

Joe Andrieu: But I'll take your guidance. I think if that's an easier way
to get it through. that would at least address my concerns about the no
phone loops. Go pulse.

Manu Sporny: I mean I think for example adding except for serious security
or…

Dave Longley: Yes. Do that.

Manu Sporny: privacy issues that arise and then creating an issue right now
and saying this is a class 4 change we will deal with it in the next
charter and…

Manu Sporny: it is a serious privacy issue guarantees that we can't just
kick the cane down the road. If that makes sense.

Joe Andrieu: Okay, so that's twofold and…

Joe Andrieu: I can go and do that. So one is an issue in the current spec
that raises it as hey this is a future looking thing we should deal with.
It is a class 4 change and then separately on's charter I can make a
comment there referring to that.

Manu Sporny: Yep. I Yeah,…

Joe Andrieu: Okay, cool.

Manu Sporny: I think that would probably be the way to get that thing in
scope. also also the potential change you might want, Joe, is terrifying
me, but I'm going to not think about that.

Manu Sporny: I don't know what you're going to propose and I'm just like, "
god, what if it's anyway?" …

Dave Longley: Yeah, you might not need to assert it's definitely a class 4
change,…

Manu Sporny: but yeah, plus one.

Dave Longley: Joe, but you could assert And so that we should have the
freedom to explore that because privacy and security issues should be able
to be addressed by the group. I don't know, something like that.
00:25:00

Manu Sporny: Yeah. I mean, we would certainly support that in the charter.
it makes good sense to say this isn't just about security. It's also about
privacy. It's one of the things that sets our specs apart from some of the
other ones.

Joe Andrieu: Cool.

Manu Sporny: And so we need to make sure we're doing the best thing from
not only security but privacy perspective as all thank you for that, That
was great feedback. any other concerns at a high level? some of you aren't
going to be there at TAC and so I want to make sure that we kind of can
carry some of your concerns into the group in two weeks at TAC. There was a
structure in here that I'm interested on feedback for I think Ivon and Ivon
said this publicly.

Manu Sporny: He was like, I think everyone's very concerned about us taking
on seven to nine specs again. it was a lot of work. We did it, but it was a
lot of work. And so I think what Avon and maybe some of the chairs are
trying to do here is basically say we would really prefer not to do that
again. We would like there to be priorities on these things. We would like
to be on the hook for getting a certain number of normative specs out which
we have fairly decent confidence that we're going to get them out and then
everything else is going to be a tentative deliverable and we might not
even get to it right like we might not even touch refresh or quantum safe
crypto suites or whatever.

Manu Sporny: the downside there this is my personal opinion is that I have
heard we may not get to it and again kind of to what Joe said I don't want
that used as it's not important to get done or I think it sends the wrong
signal to the market if we're like this is unimportant to us right I think
basically saying it is important to us but we may not have cycles to get it
done on the timeline we want to get it done on is what I'd rather kind of
the signal to the market would be rather than we don't really care about
these things right and that's how I'm interpreting some of what W3C staff
are saying right now I don't think they mean to say it in that way but go
ahead Patrick

Patrick St-Louis: Are you saying that we should remove this tentative
deliverable and just remove these entirely or that we should Okay.

Manu Sporny: No.

Manu Sporny: No, definitely not. we definitely don't want to remove them,
but because they're tenative deliverables, the working group can say, "We
were successful and we're done without doing any one of these.

Patrick St-Louis: For me, if these are tentative, I don't know how it's
interpreted, but I would say they won't get addressed until the other ones
are completed.

Manu Sporny: So that I'm kind of concerned about, Because I'm kind of like,
okay, and to pick on something that Joe and I are working on, confidence
method, right? I think,…

Manu Sporny: it's an important spec. Is it more important than one of
these? I don't think so. wireless is more important. I think quantum safe
is And so I verifiers is more important than confidence method. yeah and…

Patrick St-Louis: That what's…

Patrick St-Louis: because I know there was some kind of pool there was a
form that was sent a while ago to kind of go through this because otherwise
I would say what makes something more important than something else. I
think currently the approach was whatever people have interest in and
people feel it's important

Manu Sporny: I mean yes absolutely and we took those numbers in the poll
and I don't know if some people in the working group are taking the
prioritization and pull seriously. right. Not anyone on this call, but go
ahead Dave.

Dave Longley: I think we might be just ringing our hands too much. I think
we might be fine. We've listed a number of items that are important. We're
going to get to them at different times. We've maybe semiarbitrarily split
up how they work. It puts some in this other list. We can do any of them in
the group, but we're probably going to prioritize what's at the top. And we
might have to recharter or extend the charter to get to more work. and it's
just going to be how much work gets done and we're trying to address the
concern that we're not saying we will necessarily get to all of it in this
initial chartering. I think it's fine. I think everything's been addressed.
I don't have too many concerns.
00:30:00

Manu Sporny: Yeah, that's good feedback. And yeah, it could be or I'm hand
ringing too much over it. Patrick

Patrick St-Louis: Would it be a reasonable goal to say that these tentative
deliverables were aiming for at least candidate recommendation but they
might not make it all the way to recommendation and this might come in a
subsequent work item is that…

Manu Sporny: Yeah. Yeah.

Patrick St-Louis: because I'm looking at the data the BBS right or the JSON
schema I think there was a goal to try to make them to recommendation but
they stayed in the candidate stage if I understand what happened for
whichever reason. but candidate recommendation is already a step above a
CCG draft work item. that's

Manu Sporny: So I mean you can put just about any kind of language in the
charter as long as it doesn't violate W3C process. You can do some pretty
weird stuff in charter language. all that to say but the thing you proposed
is not weird you can say we are going to attempt to get to CR but we might
not get all the way there. The web apps group gets a lot of leeway on this.
they have 35 specifications in their charter. it's insane, but it's also
the web platform and where all the API goes to get standardized. So that's
kind of why there are things in here the JSON schema specification has been
at CR for a while. Again, I'm personally saying I don't think that there's
much interest in moving that forward.

Manu Sporny: We have not seen impleers deploying it, yada, but we have it
up here at the top where we're like, this is a goal. we need to get this
thing across the line. And I'm kind of like, I don't know if we do, great.
But if it's taking up a slot that something else down here could be moved
up for, I'd much rather move something down up here. it drawing an
arbitrary line this feels a bit weird to me. but at the same time I do get
the concern that removing the arbitrary line all of a sudden puts so many
normative specs into the critical path that the chairs are basically like
do we even have the ability to get all these done in the next cycle. and I
think the worst case here is we don't get them done and we'll have to
recharter again to get them done.

Manu Sporny: there's certainly no shortage of work to be done here. some
chairs con are concerned about that we didn't finish the thing that was in
our charter that we said we would do and…

Patrick St-Louis: What's the concern if they're not done? Is it like a
reputation issue or

Manu Sporny: then that goes as a signal to the advisory committee where the
advisory committee is like this working group isn't getting their work done
and we should shut them down. I mean that's what happened to XHTML 2,
right? they kept doing their work for about 10 years and then after 10
years people were just like, "Nope, you're being shut down. TML 5.1." I
don't think that's the case that happens here,…

Patrick St-Louis: Has this happened before or…

Manu Sporny: But it can be viewed as a signal of "Yeah, this group's dying
because they can't get their work done." …

Patrick St-Louis: is that why? it's okay.

Manu Sporny: yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean,…

Patrick St-Louis: Okay.

Manu Sporny: the AC does not look favorably on, working groups that don't
finish their work. We're not in that like we're not No,…

Patrick St-Louis: No, I mean I mean as it happened before with this working
group that there have been let's say over ambitious. I'm just saying this
has a Yeah.

Manu Sporny: we've had our wings clipped multiple times. there have been
every time we try to put, more than what some other people think. for
example, VCAPI was not put in the charter on purpose, And that was, I will
argue, a political thing that, there were other competing protocols at the
time and there was a concerted effort to keep this out of the charter, but
no I mean I think the W3C management and staff understand that there is a
healthy ecosystem around verifiable credentials and they want to make sure
that the good things happen there.
00:35:00

Manu Sporny: but for example, for verifiable credential barcodes, I know,
Avon and I got into a disagreement. Where is it? let's see. Yeah. So, this
is in the verifiable credential barcodes thing is listed in the normative
specification section, like we're going to work on it, but staff's response
is if the barcode work gets off the ground, barcode spec is tentative. No,
it's at least not in the, draft.

Manu Sporny: and then you know that we may not get to this is problematic
because the state of California just deployed it to 34 million people and
we've got production deployments out that are built on the technology, And
so that's the kind of misread that I'm a bit concerned about is that even
if this stuff actually gets into the market, we're still unwilling to
standardize it or even begun begin the standardization process. that to me
feels problematic. Mhm.

Joe Andrieu: Yeah, Manu, I just want to say I think the real tension is
around the arbitrary deadlines and the list of deliverables. So, I mean, if
you want us to have a shorter list, if we want to have these tentative
things be commitments, give us more time. But they also don't want to do
that. it's a way of managing scope so that you get things done in some time
frame and it always creates this tension.

Manu Sporny: Yeah, I think that's a very fair statement. Yeah, time the
time is typically two years, right? And that's what I, put in here. go
ahead, Dave.

Dave Longley: I think the VCWG is an especially prolific group. We get a
lot of work done. We just did that a lot. and so there's a little bit of a
tension around taking on too much because there's so much that has been
getting done and that stands in diametric opposition to we don't get work
done. So I don't think there's a concern that we're not going to get work
done. that's going to happen. So I don't think we were worried about that.
But we do want to address the concern of burnout because there's so much
that this group is doing and so much more to do. And so I think it's okay
that the line is there. Two years from now we might recharter and have
moved things around by then. I don't think it's a reputational problem. I
don't think anyone's going to look at that and…

Dave Longley: say they're not getting their work done because they started
pulling in some of the other tenative deliverables instead of for maybe one
of the ones that was above the line.

Manu Sporny: Plus one. Good input.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: Yeah, this is the ongoing tension of W3C…

Ted Thibodeau Jr: where it's between making a standard so that everybody
who's making a product in that field is going to comply from go versus
making a unifying standard that takes all the products in the field and
says okay this is how we make you all interoperate. That's been an issue
for about as long as I've been involved. it's more so now than it was then
but it's still there.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: The other thing about our productivity, I think a big
chunk of that honestly is that some of these things are not just being
worked on within the group. They're also being implemented and deployed by
one or two or maybe 10 big fish, California is a big fish. the European
driver license is a big fish. they're doing things with the technology in
parallel to the group work. I think we could be better aligned and some of
them and the mobile driver's license is not really where I would want it to
be had I been involved and there are some people who need dope slaps
because they really went sideways even though they're involved in both
groups. California that's a sign of…

Joe Andrieu: Great.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: how it should work.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: What's the other one? the age ID thing that's developing
in parallel using the stuff that we've been talking about for months or
years. And so some of the things that could have been real problems had
they stuck into the spec in the end got ironed out quickly because they had
these test beds. But having that balance all the time is really hard.
00:40:00

Ted Thibodeau Jr: That's it.

Manu Sporny: Plus one to all that,…

Manu Sporny: I mean, I feel good that we've had sufficient discussion in
this group for at least those of you, that are not going to be there. You
kind of see what's being discussed and where the issue tracker is. So,
please raise issues if you can think of any other things you're concerned
about. we can move on if folks feel like we're in a good place with just
understanding that this thing's out there and people can make comments on
it. All right. let's go back to Next on the agenda is just our regular PR
review and issue processing cycle. so let me pull up our PRs.

Manu Sporny: I did Eric's on travel I think for the next two weeks, but he
did get a number of PRs in before he left. these are not just two days old.
I think some of them are weeks old, but there was a conflict thing that he
had to work around. I also merged his API component table update. because
we were ready to merge that. he just needed to fix the merge conflicts
there. So, we'll go through these PRs and then we can jump over to issues
if we have any time left. I did not even look at unfortunately this weekend.

Manu Sporny: Are okay.

Dave Longley: I made some suggestions on this one that I think would
resolve my comments.

Manu Sporny: Let me looks like I've got merge conflicts. all right. So
local callback ID looks good.

Dave Longley: Yeah, my comments were around ensuring that we talk about the
callbacks being a capability URL and not just some endpoint that doesn't
have any kind of authorization around it. because that is a key point of
the design. So that a workflow service can be given a callback and does
that workflow service does not need to have special authorization tokens or
client registration or need to be able to refresh access tokens to
communicate with callbacks.

Dave Longley: You can give it a call back when you create an exchange. It
can use that for the lifetime of the exchange and that.

Manu Sporny: Okay, that all looks good to me.

Manu Sporny: What do we need this must statement here? Is that intentional
or…

Dave Longley: If it is testable, it's probably correct.

Manu Sporny: is it testable?

Dave Longley: And we can leave it for now and…

Dave Longley: it can be adjusted to a should if it becomes not testable. if
we determine we can't easily test whether or not something's a capability
URL.

Manu Sporny: All right.

Manu Sporny: I'll so make it clear that that is a normative statement that
we want in the spec.

Joe Andrieu: I have a question…

Joe Andrieu: however on that restriction. Does that mean we wouldn't be
able to use a ZCAPS that has a counter sighting? I just want to leave that
door open…

Dave Longley: I'm trying to figure out if that still meets the definition
of capability row.

Dave Longley: Maybe it doesn't. let's put should and then we'll figure it
out.

Joe Andrieu: because I think it's a great pattern even if we haven't used
it a lot outside in the public work.

Manu Sporny: All right.

Manu Sporny: All right. Those look good to me. Unless there are any
objections from anyone else on the call. That all right. I need to merge
conflicts. I'm pretty sure they're merge conflicts now.
00:45:00

Manu Sporny: are there any other thoughts on this or after the merge
conflicts are resolved? then it sounds like this is ready to resolve or
ready to be merged after

Manu Sporny: 11 and agree that it's ready to merge after the conflict. that
is that next one is add note to clarify the intent of the interactions
endpoint. This is meant to address issue 563. I don't know if it looks good
to me and I think we're ready to merge this, but can let it hang out a bit
more if folks want a chance to review it more.

Manu Sporny: Go ahead and…

Nate Otto: I think this was in response to some feedback from me and this
text looks good to

Manu Sporny: Okay, Yeah, plus one. It basically says that you can put an
interaction URL wherever you want to, but please put it on the same domain
as the one that the person outside of you is interacting with so that they
can trust the web origin. Getting multiple thumbs ups. Not getting any push
back on this. So that's good.

Manu Sporny: then 563. Yeah. And this one can be merged. let's see if this
was for 557. There we go. So I think this one's ready to be emged. How do
we have here? I'll rebase merge that and then see here 566

Manu Sporny: Okay, It's merged. And then the next one is add an
architecture clarification statement. I don't think I've looked at this
one. Dave approved it. originally. no. what did this current 562?

Manu Sporny: What was 562 for?

Dave Longley: I think this is about the issue around making sure that u
people…

Dave Longley: who read the spec don't take the fact that we have to
describe it the architecture in some way that makes sense in the spec
that's easy for people to understand and…

Dave Longley: to get clarity. They don't think they have to build their
software to exactly mirror that architecture.

Manu Sporny: Yep. Okay.

Manu Sporny: Lost one of that. I'm going to keep this on the screen so we
can decide to merge or not.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: I want to do something with the first sentence of it, but
it's not come to me yet.

Manu Sporny: Okay, we'll leave it out there then,…
00:50:00

Manu Sporny: Ted, and then once I see your stuff, we can merge. Does that
work for you?

Ted Thibodeau Jr: Yep, that's fine.

Manu Sporny: All right. Those are our PRs today. We have about four minutes
left. let's see. We're probably not going to be able to get into any of
this stuff. maybe we can talk about the next couple of meetings. I am going
to be on travel for the entire month of November. and so I'll need folks to
keep running this call. Noting that might be able to make next week, but
really doubt it. I'll be in San Francisco. and then the week after that's
TAC, so we'll cancel the meeting for that week.

Manu Sporny: And then I think that is the week before Thanksgiving where we
can have a meeting and then the week of at least US Thanksgiving will
cancel as which means that there's really only there two meetings that we
could have in November. I think Patrick you stepped forward and said you're
happy to start the meetings and maybe help provide some structure.

Manu Sporny: Me just confirm with you.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah. Yeah.

Manu Sporny: Okay. …

Patrick St-Louis: So, we're doing basically weekly meeting for the month of
November.

Manu Sporny: yep, that's right.

Patrick St-Louis: Next week, the one after is off and then Yeah.

Manu Sporny: Yep. Yep. Yeah. And I'll try to set up the agendas and
everything. meaning I'll just Yes.

Patrick St-Louis: So, the 11th and the 25th would be the cancelled ones.

Manu Sporny: Yeah. And in fact, why don't I do that right now? so it's the
11th so folks can see how this happens behind the scenes. so this is 28th
of October 4th 11th. So you go and you click on that and you click on edit
this event and then you say this meeting is cancelled due to W3CT pack and
then you click update but don't send notifications and…

Ted Thibodeau Jr: Yikes.

Manu Sporny: then you go down wait and then you say edit this event in and
then you go down and you click cancel and then you go and you update and
send notification as easy as that. If you don't do that, you hit really
nasty bugs and you can't edit your calendar entry anymore. and then what
was the other one? 25th. Yeah. And then it'll show up as canceled. And then
the 25th of November is the next one. edit this event. to us Thanksgiving
holiday. Okay. Update but don't send notifications.

Manu Sporny: Ed this event cancelled and then update and send notifications
and there we go. All right. So, that should be it. So, yep, that's canceled
and that's canceled. So, Patrick, on these days, the 18th of November, and
the 4th of November, all you have to do is show up to the meeting. and that
It'll auto start autotranscribing. Remember that whatever said before the
meeting starts, it ends up in the logs and then when you're done, you
probably see those buttons at the top, Patrick, where you can click stop
transcription and stop recording.

Patrick St-Louis: I it just says this call is being recorded. I'm assuming
if I click on it, it's going to stop it and transcribe. …

Manu Sporny: …

Manu Sporny: it'll give you the option of stopping and…

Patrick St-Louis: okay. Yeah. Okay.

Manu Sporny: then you just stop both of them. Stop recording, stop
transcription, and then when you leave the call, you say, "End the call for
everyone." And that's it. And if you forget to do those things, I think
we'll be fine. But I've never tested that. And that should be that. And
then, I won't be here the second of December either. we'll I think that's
it. thank you very much, Patrick, for running those calls while, I'm away.
00:55:00

Manu Sporny: And then I will see you definitely Joe in Coobe Japan and…

Joe Andrieu: Cheers.

Manu Sporny: I'll see the rest of you in a month or so. are you going to go
to CO, do you think?

Ted Thibodeau Jr: Not if I see you first.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: I wish

Manu Sporny: Okay. All thanks. Have a wonderful week weekend and I'll see
you all in a month. Take care. Bye.
Meeting ended after 00:55:42 👋

*This editable transcript was computer generated and might contain errors.
People can also change the text after it was created.*