[MINUTES] CCG VCALM 2026-03-31

This W3C CCG VC call focused on transitioning to the official W3C
Verifiable Credentials Working Group (VCWG). Key discussions included the
necessary patent commitments for the transition, with a call for
contributions from individuals like Nate Otto and Ted Thibodeau Jr. to
ensure a smooth handover of specifications. The group also discussed the
future meeting schedule and structure of the VCWG, emphasizing the need for
coordination across different specification groups to avoid vendor lock-in
and ensure broad participation. The call also covered several Pull Request
(PR) reviews, including significant updates to the "accepted issuers"
functionality and the addition of a verifiable presentation option to
workflow steps.

*Topics Covered:*

   - *Transition to W3C VCWG:* The group discussed the upcoming official
   transition to the W3C Verifiable Credentials Working Group, including the
   need for patent commitments from key contributors to finalize the process.
   - *VCWG Meeting Schedule and Structure:* Discussions revolved around how
   the new VCWG meetings will be structured, potential concerns about meeting
   fatigue, and strategies to ensure broad participation and coordination
   across different specification groups.
   - *PR Review: Accepted Issuers and Recognized Entities:* A significant
   PR was reviewed that adds a new term "recognized in" to accepted issuers,
   allowing verifiers to specify criteria for trusted issuers based on
   verifiable recognition credentials, which complements existing issuer
   identification methods.
   - *PR Review: Verifiable Presentation in Workflow Steps:* This PR
   addresses the ability to explicitly express a verifiable presentation
   within a workflow step, allowing for the inclusion of pre-existing or newly
   composed presentations.
   - *PR Review: Optional Result Property in Issue Request:* This PR
   introduces an optional "result" property to the issue request element,
   providing more flexibility in directing the outcome of an issue request
   beyond just including it in the verifiable presentation.

*Action Items:*

   - Individuals who have committed to specifications but have not yet made
   their patent commitments (e.g., Coyote, Nate Otto, Ted Thibodeau Jr.) are
   encouraged to do so.
   - The chairs of the VCWG will confirm Patrick St-Louis's access to the
   new calendar events and ensure the use of the same Google Meet URL for
   future calls.
   - The PR regarding the optional result property in the issue request
   needs to have the os.ml file updated and pending feedback from Dave
   Longley addressed.

Text: https://meet.w3c-ccg.org/archives/w3c-ccg-ccg-vcalm-2026-03-31.md

Video: https://meet.w3c-ccg.org/archives/w3c-ccg-ccg-vcalm-2026-03-31.mp4
*CCG VCALM - 2026/03/31 15:00 EDT - Transcript* *Attendees*

Dave Longley, Dmitri Zagidulin, Elaine Wooton, Eric Schuh, James Easter,
Joe Andrieu, John's Notetaker, Kayode Ezike, Manu Sporny, Nate Otto, Parth
Bhatt, Patrick St-Louis, Ted Thibodeau Jr
*Transcript*

Patrick St-Louis: Welcome to the call. We'll get started in a couple
minutes. That's the time for people to join.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay, let's get started with today's call and as we do
the introduction section, more people will have time to join and they'll be
able to catch up. So, welcome everyone to the W3C credential community
group VC call meeting soon to be just W3C VCOM meeting. I believe today is
March 31st 2026 and we have a straightforward agenda for the day.

Patrick St-Louis: this is a W3C meeting so all W3C policies are into
effect. So for the agenda today we will get started with introductions and
community updates as per usual. if there are new topics that anyone would
like to suggest this will be the time to do so and then we will get into PR
reviews and issue assignment. I think we have a couple of open PRs. We can
have a look and then we can go through the issues and see if there's
anything we can discuss further.

Patrick St-Louis: yes, man.

Manu Sporny: Yeah, just on the announcements bit. so the verifiable
credential working group is going to start meeting regularly starting
tomorrow. that's the main group. I don't know exactly what the meetings are
going to entail week to week. but that also means that we are probably
going to transition this call into an official working group call next
week. So we will flip the switch and…

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah.

Manu Sporny: be an active working group. There's still some back and forth
that the chairs and us are trying to do at the VCWG they need to set up a
calendar event and they need to do all of that moving over but I think what
we are going to do tomorrow and this is a proposal if everyone on the call
is okay with this tomorrow we're going to say we are going to start
officially meeting starting next week at this exact same time and just
start the working
00:05:00

Manu Sporny: group work there. in order to hand the spec over, we have to
make sure everyone has made the appropriate, what's the word? patent
commitments. I have not checked on that yet. And, I guess that happened in
March. VCO there we go. the commitments right now are just Dial Bazaar,
Legendary, Dimmitri, MIT, Mavenet, and Opsac ID.

Manu Sporny: we would need it from anyone that's done a commit. so Coyote,
I'm not seeing you on the list yet. Nate, I think we need you. Ted, same
here. go ahead, Nate.

Nate Otto: Sounds good. I would love to know the process. and FYI, I am
involved so I'm signing the agreement for a membership starting tomorrow.

Nate Otto: So if the IP commitment is included in W3C membership, then that
is covered. Otherwise I can do something

Manu Sporny: Yeah, it's not …

Manu Sporny: because you can always claim I didn't release my individual
patent commitment and rights things. This was for my company and so you
have to do both of them. but I just put that commitments link. what? Maybe
let me find you should be able to make the commitment from that link. no,
It's the make commitments button. It's this one. So, Cody, if you and Nate
would be able to jump on that, then it'll make the transition much easier.

Manu Sporny: …

Kayode Ezike: Yeah, my question around that was I think yesterday sorry
last call I think it was Ted or…

Kayode Ezike: someone said something about an AC rep needing to be able to
do that but I don't know if that's applicable for me because I'm not
involved through a member it's an IE Okay,…

Manu Sporny: it's an individual commitment and you would just go to that
link I just put there and you should be able to fill it out just click the
button. you make it on an individual capacity is…

Manu Sporny: what ends up doing and it's basically based on your CCG
membership. So you're probably in the CCG through your individual account
and it's just an individual commitment.

Kayode Ezike: good. I'll do that now.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: If you go to the…

Manu Sporny: Yep.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: if you go to the second link there, the make commitment
one, it'll either let you make the commitment or it'll say get your AC rep
to do this.

Manu Sporny: Exactly right. Let me see just to make sure we've got our top
contributors are myself, Ted, Dave Longley, Coyote, Wes, who's covered
under us, Eric, which I think Legendaries signed.

Joe Andrieu: That's right.

Manu Sporny: Let's see. John Henderson, so we might need to get him. we've
got Andrew, who's under Kim Hamilton, we'll need to Patrick, Mike Pro,
Marcus Sabadello, Benjamin.

Manu Sporny: A lot of these are getting down into the lower commits, so we
don't really need commitments from them. so as long as we get UTED in
Coyote, I think we're pretty good. So, we'll basically move the pec suggest
that we move the spec over tomorrow. I think we've got good FSA commitments
on VC barcodes and VCOM. the recognition spec still needs David Chadwick
and Isaac to sign off on it. So, I think the Sorry, pop back up the stack.
the suggestion is that we'll tell the VC working group that we're going to
start officially meeting next week. We will start officially meeting next
week.
00:10:00

Manu Sporny: Hopefully everyone's IE invite and membership application is
in process or it'll be fine to meet during the transition period we'll move
the spec over to W3C space for official hosting update all the links and…

Manu Sporny: then by this time next week we will meet officially that is
the proposal I don't know if anyone has any modifications concerns
objections that sort of Yes.

Patrick St-Louis: You mentioned the location was going to be the same.

Patrick St-Louis: By location, do you mean we'll use at the same Google
Meet URL or will that need to be Okay,…

Manu Sporny:

Manu Sporny: No, we'll use the same one. Yep.

Patrick St-Louis: the only thing I would need to make sure is I can still
access the meeting page to if you want me to continue kind of hosting the
call and updating the agenda.

Manu Sporny: Yes, we will discuss that with the chairs tomorrow.

Patrick St-Louis: Is that a new call?

Manu Sporny: Are you going to be on the call tomorrow?

Patrick St-Louis: What time is it?

Patrick St-Louis: depends what the time the working group spec refinement.

Manu Sporny: This is at 11 a.m. Eastern. it's the regular verifiable
credential working group call. Let me give you a link. no. h.

Patrick St-Louis: So, I have that tomorrow at 11.

Dave Longley: That call presently alternates with the regular group and…

Manu Sporny: It doesn't.

Dave Longley: that's changing. So that call I don't know if it goes to the
wrong place.

Manu Sporny:

Manu Sporny: It's a different meaning. Yeah, it goes the wrong place.

Dave Longley: Yep. That call is not happening.

Manu Sporny: I just dumped a link the new link,…

Dave Longley: The spec refinement call does not happen when the regular
working group happens which will happen at that same time at a different
link.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay. Yeah,…

Manu Sporny: Patrick, that you should click on and see if you have access
to that.

Patrick St-Louis: I can see but I can't edit anything. So that's the only
perfect.

Manu Sporny:

Manu Sporny: That's fine. That one you won't be able to edit. the new
calendar things have not been set up yet.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay.

Manu Sporny: So we need Yep.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah, that's the VC worker. Okay, I thought I got
confused for a second.

Manu Sporny: Yeah, no problem. so basically you need to show up to that
call.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah, I'll be able to join that call tomorrow.

Manu Sporny: We need to say Patrick needs access to the new calendar
events. They are going to create the new calendar events. We need to make
sure they use the same Google Meet URL and then everything should in theory
work. Excellent. Does anyone have any, I guess, objections or concerns or
modifications to what we proposed to the VCG

Joe Andrieu: Not a concern or objection, just a heads up that Denin and I
are also and I think Demetri's got to go through the same dance is …

Patrick St-Louis: Sir,

Joe Andrieu: figuring out the new times for the two spec refinement
workflows. and for Denin, we're going to try and get something more
amanable to his geol location. So, I think it's going to be an open
conversation tomorrow about the scheduling.

Manu Sporny: Yeah, plus one to that. Elaine also pinged me and Wes today
and was like, "What are we doing for meetings?" one of the things I'm
wondering is one of my concern, I mean, I think all of us are concerned
about too many meetings. and also rate of progress in making sure that
there are enough people showing up for these meetings to focus on moving
the specs forward. I am concerned that for example VC barcodes is deployed
in production to millions of people in California and I don't know how many
people are going to show up to that call right because it's more or less
kind of done but we kind of do need a We need more people to join.

Manu Sporny: I'm wondering if confidence method and render method are kind
of in that boat as well. if we put those together. I mean, we were
alternating. I'm wondering if we could,…

Manu Sporny: do one issue from each specs coverage. It kind of forces
people to, collect there. I don't think will have that challenge. We've got
plenty of people showing up for this call, but I am worried about the other
specs and how to deal with that.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah, I mean I don't think there's a need to alternate
necessarily,…

Patrick St-Louis: but you can just rotate the order that you go through in
the call one week you start with one item and then there's times you go
through the other ones because maybe it may be just that one of these work
item is just going to require more work…
00:15:00

Patrick St-Louis: because of the nature of the item so I think more time
should be allocated to that probably Joe

Joe Andrieu: But yeah,…

Joe Andrieu: I just wanted to share the thinking Denin is basically we have
a editor's meeting every other week and then in the intervening weeks we've
had a meeting that's the spec refinement call. and I think we'll probably
keep that rhythm and then just bubble up those issues that the spec
refinement call wasn't able to get a sense of consensus for the whole
group. right now we're dealing with assurance method versus evidence.
That's an issue we want to bubble up. but I'm hoping that there's not a
whole lot of that and that most of the work we can just do in those other
two meetings.

Manu Sporny: Yeah, I mean plus one. I think that that would be fine. I mean
just personal opinion. I mean sounds like we need to have a discussion
about this at the VCWG call tomorrow. how do we make sure that we're
getting enough people, looking at these specs as they progress versus
people kind of go off into a corner and work for 6 months and then come
back with something that surprises the group. I was also wondering if it
would be useful for the main call to rotate through the specifications.
maybe every two months we talk about confidence method or…

Manu Sporny: render method and what's been happening and these are the
issues that people need to pay attention to on the main call. So I don't
really know what the main call is going to be about other than maybe the
maintenance specs. yeah.

Patrick St-Louis: Do a bit of coordination on that call.

Manu Sporny: Or just make sure everyone knows what's going on with the
specs, right? …

Patrick St-Louis: I think that's good right there.

Manu Sporny: because I think it would be dangerous for us to like,…

Manu Sporny: work on things for 6 months and then not tell the VCWG and
then show up at, a W3C technical plenary meeting and see a whole bunch of
formal objections or just a whole bunch of objections to the work, we've
been doing. We don't want to

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah, that's other reason it's just some work they just
kind of related to other items like they're not all happening on their own.

Patrick St-Louis: There's cross in the VCOM we talk about other specs as
well.

Patrick St-Louis: and I think it's unrealistic to expect everyone to attend
everything. So having that kind of update sharing coordination could be
very valuable. If someone wants to kind of keep a pulse on everything, that
would be the call they would need to end. All So a lot of movement. any
other comments regarding the migration towards W3C? whether it's for this
call specifically or any of the things that was just Awesome. So, we'll see
what comes out after tomorrow.

Patrick St-Louis: And if everything is we should all be here again next
week under a new banner. so I guess that was sort of one kind of community
updates in a way, although it was more of a W3C updates. is there anyone
new on the call or would like to reintroduce themselves or if anyone would
like to share another community update? please let us know You can raise
your hand or even if you want to suggest a topic you would like to discuss
today. I'll leave a minute for you to signal this.

Patrick St-Louis: in that case, let's get started. So, we're going to go
over the PR reviews. I think there's three PRs to review. I was just having
a bit of a look earlier. so this one is still in draft. I still have not
had the time to look at it. I've been a bit busier than usual for the last
couple of months. so don't have much time to spend on other things. so
let's just go in the numbered order of the PRs. So we will start with this
PR here about adding the ability for accepted issuers to include VRC is a
new term for me.
00:20:00

Patrick St-Louis: I've seen some emails go about this recognition. So I'm
assuming that comes from that specification or work item. so I would
personally like to know a little bit more about what this is before getting
into the detail of this. So I'll let Manu take us through this. Although it
is a a month old issue.

Manu Sporny: Sure thing.

Patrick St-Louis: So yes please man take us through this.

Manu Sporny: So, this is about so verifiable recognition credentials. We're
still changing the names. We still are having active discussion about it,
but this used to be the verifiable issuers and verifiers spec. And then we
renamed the spec to VCs for re and today we renamed the spec again and I'm
probably going to get this wrong, but VCs for entity recognition. this is
basically like who do you trust to issue a issue a VC, right? That's what
this is about.

Manu Sporny: So basically if you are a set of schools in a particular state
and you have someone that accredititation body would put you on one of
these lists or if you're a tiny little group of people less than 100 people
that are kind of acting in a community you could construct one of these
lists about who you trust in the community to do certain things.

Manu Sporny: So, those are kind of the use cases there. Or just publishing
a list of I know that these companies exist out there and this is their
logo and this is their website and that sort of thing. it's meant to is
pto-peer.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay.

Manu Sporny: Go ahead, Patrick. Yeah.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah, just a few things come to mind. So, you mentioned a
list. So, this is a bit like a trust registry list of some sort and there's
a credential associated with your membership on that list that gets issued
to you.

Patrick St-Louis: Is that kind of perfect?

Manu Sporny: Yes, loosely.

Manu Sporny: There are certain things where the group would take exception
to the word trust being used or a membership things of that nature. So just
because you're on the list doesn't mean that the person publishing the list
has more authority over anything than you do and so on so forth. But yes,…

Manu Sporny:

Patrick St-Louis: And …

Manu Sporny: that's the general.

Patrick St-Louis: how does that relate to confidence method? Would this be
a confidence method? Yeah.

Manu Sporny: No, no. So, confidence method is what? let me start off by
saying just no, those two things are separate. Confidence method is proof
of key use. you've got a cryptographic Patrick and I met in person. we did
this cryptographic ceremony. You proved that you could use a particular
private key. You showed me the public key. I put that in a credential and
said if you want to see if this is Patrick one way to challenge him on that
is to ask him for proof of key and so that's one thing. Biometric
verification could be another type of confidence method.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay.

Manu Sporny: This is a picture of Patrick. If you see a person that looks
like this, it's probably Patrick, whereas the entity recognition
credentials are really about ecosystems and trust networks and things of
that nature.

Patrick St-Louis: I'll let Dimmitri talk. Then I have another second part
to this. Dmitri.

Dmitri Zagidulin: The other way to think about it is the difference between
confidence method and the entity recognition one is who Confidence method
is intended for the verifier. the recognized entity credentials are the
holder intended for the user. It's UIwise when you're being issued a
credential, you need to know and the key and the credential is signed by a
key, you need to know…

Dmitri Zagidulin: who that belongs to. dog incident. I'll be back. Thanks.
Yes.

Patrick St-Louis: I think the dog disagrees.
00:25:00

Patrick St-Louis: Would it also be useful for verifiers to trust an issuer?

Dmitri Zagidulin: And that's the other thing, When you get a request to
your wallet that somebody is asking for your credentials, who is that
somebody? How do you populate that UI?

Patrick St-Louis: No, but I met I meant for a verifier to know…

Dmitri Zagidulin: One of the ways of doing it is this

Patrick St-Louis: if they can recognize an issuer, of a credential present
that they're verifying.

Dmitri Zagidulin: Yes. Also that. Yes. you.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay, Dave.

Dave Longley: Yeah, I wasn't sure how long the dog incident would last, so
I was going to help answer some of that. it does apply to both verifiers
and holders potentially even some issuer use case. So there are the
recognized entities or whatever we're calling it these days has a set of
different use cases from simple ones that are I want to have a directory of
information that someone else has digitally signed of who they recognize
and…

Dave Longley: I can use that in my digital wallet to do the use case
Demetri is talking about and then there's the use case Monu's talking about
as the verifier. You might be asking for something from any accredited
university.

Patrick St-Louis: What the f***?

Dave Longley: You don't necessarily know the specific university that a
holder is going to present something from, but they can present that
credential and a credential that says that university is accredited by you
get it. Keep

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah. So they're very complimentary the recognition is
this entity part of this group let's just say as a use case and then
confidence method is can this entity control this key it's more sort of a
layer down where would that be a good framing?

Dave Longley: You can use both together is one way to say it.

Patrick St-Louis: Yes. Yes.

Dave Longley: Yes. Yeah.

Patrick St-Louis: It's like they are complimentary. They're not like a
subset one of the other. They're just different.

Dave Longley: They do different things but work

Patrick St-Louis: So there is this thing in UNTP called the digital
identity anchor credential which so the framing is this let's say you are a
business and you will be issuing documents right you as a business would
receive a credential from a business registry right which is the authority
that you registered your business with and they would issue this credential
to you saying your legal registered business. this seems like a very
similar use case than this recognition Probably the identity a bit more
specific to a use case and a framework.

Patrick St-Louis: But it seems like these are kind of on the same level
maybe a digital identity anchor could be a verifiable recognition
credential and vice versa. Yes. Manuel.

Manu Sporny: Plus one to that. Steve Capel has joined the group and…

Patrick St-Louis: Yes. my goodness.

Manu Sporny: as you know he's very deeply involved in UNP and did mention
that when we put it as a part of the work item. yes you can view them as
kind of equivalent the entity recognition credentials we're trying to make
very very generic so there isn't a presumption that there's some kind of
authority or registry or issuing association or something like that. we
want to make it so that …

Manu Sporny: if you wanted to publish one of these for your family just
these are my family members and you wanted to keep it very private and just
do peer sharing among your family members. I mean hopefully everyone knows
who's in the family but that would be like you could do that with this kind
of data structure, right? That's right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah. I'll send my grandmother a birthday card for
recognition of credential.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah. Because the digital identity anchor is really from
my understanding because I think it's still being decided but it's really
when an authority gives you a identifier as part of some kind of
registration and this is just expressed as a credential.

Patrick St-Louis: So it's really a case where you do receive a identifier
part of whether it's like the Canadian government or just the association
of companies of I don't know this and you get on boarded or registered and
they want to give you this identifier and a credential with a bit of
information about who managed these identifiers as verifiable recognition
credential seems like I haven't looked at the spec or the model. but it
seems like a bit more broad abstracted than this. you don't necessarily
need to be given an identifier.
00:30:00

Patrick St-Louis: Yes, Dave.

Dave Longley: Yeah, that's exactly right that the work is designed to allow
for use cases that involve authorities,…

Dave Longley: central authorities, things that might assign identifiers and
so on, but also allow the other use cases. because the work can cover all
of those things and previous work had sort of made these assumptions
because there are use cases where people have central authorities they hand
these things down. People around that have built systems where that's baked
into the architecture and the design and it does not need to be baked into
it.

Dave Longley: So in this other group we have not baked that assumption in
but allow for those other use cases to still work there. So it covers
things more broadly but also covers that use case and…

Patrick St-Louis: Interesting. And now the big question,…

Patrick St-Louis: how does this tie in to accepted issuers?

Manu Sporny: …

Dave Longley: the short go ahead.

Manu Sporny: that's what this sorry. Go ahead.

Patrick St-Louis: But you can go I was kind of segueing into but anyone who
wants to answer

Dave Longley:

Dave Longley: Sure I'll answer so when a verifier is sending a request to
holder for some VCs they can say I will accept They can either identify
those issuers directly by some identifier that is expected to be wellknown
and present in the VC or they can provide other fields about the issuer to
allow the holder to filter on things. One of those fields can be the
recognized in field. And if you provide that, you can put a verifiable
recognition credential there and…

Patrick St-Louis: All right.

Dave Longley: say you need to be recognized in this verifiable recognition
credential or the issuer needs to be and then holder their software can
take a look at that and see if there's a VC that would be recognized in
that credential. and if they have that then they can present that.

Patrick St-Louis: So they can either give a did or a recognize in or both.
Right?

Dave Longley: Yes. Yep.

Patrick St-Louis: So, it's a new key in this issuer Interesting. does Yes,
Yeah.

Manu Sporny: I was going to go through the PR. okay.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah. let's go into it. I'll refresh this.

Manu Sporny: And I just merged Ted's change in. So, we did discuss this the
previous week. and Dave Longley pointed out that it needed to do a couple
of more things like allow other values. I went back in and added those
other values. So, all four of those are what we want to be able to be
stated in the accepted issuers array. full stop.

Manu Sporny: And then I had to come up with language that described it in
and then I added the query by example JSON schema to also cover all the
various use cases. I tried if we look at the very bottom of the PR there's
a massive chunk of text there. I tried breaking that into a table which
didn't work really well.

Manu Sporny: I tried making it bulleted. That didn't work that So, I just
left it there as a giant chunk of text with some examples at the bottom in
the JSON schema. So, hopefully it'll be very clear. there are deterministic
ways to figure out if what you have is valid input. and then there's just
the unfortunate large wall of text about what you can actually put in the
field. I didn't allow that…

Patrick St-Louis: Would it work that they put both recognized in and the ID
did in the same block don't see why not or…

Manu Sporny: because I don't know what you're supposed to do in that case

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah. and Yeah. Dave. Mhm.

Dave Longley: You could do that.

Dave Longley: I don't know how useful it would be if I were processing that
in issuer software if the ID were present that's the ID that it has to be I
would just use the ID. So I don't know how helpful it would be also
Recognized in allows you to say to filter on that where you don't know what
the ID is. So the verifier wouldn't know to put it in there. That does not
to be clear if a verifier says I will accept something from an issuer with
this ID or…
00:35:00

Dave Longley: an issuer with recognized in they would just put it in a
different element in the accepted issuers list.

Patrick St-Louis: interesting. …

Patrick St-Louis: yes, man.

Manu Sporny: Yeah, I mean plus one to that way of interpreting it. I didn't
want to open that up just…

Manu Sporny: because it's confusing,…

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah, that's yeah.

Manu Sporny: I wanted to try and narrow it down before it is you can
interpret it that way and that is the right legitimate way to do it. But
then you're kind of like, why did they do this? Did they actually make a
mistake and they didn't mean the ID and I really shouldn't be paying
attention to the recognized in list? Raises a lot of questions if you see
that kind of markup.

Patrick St-Louis: So recognized at the end of the day it's just a list of
dids that you could accept.

Patrick St-Louis: So you could express all the dids in this as different
instance of this okay yeah yeah yeah and…

Manu Sporny: Yeah. But usually the list you're like deferring to something
else, right?

Patrick St-Louis: there's trust and there's whatever ecosystem maintains
that list instead of being just verifier provided So, as I mentioned, I'm
not too familiar with what this credential looks like, but I'm assuming
that it's useful if it's been in here. yeah, I think that's enough. I won't
go into asking what exactly is the content of that list. I'll just have to
look at that spec on my own time or attend the call.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay. Joel. I think that's…

Joe Andrieu: Yeah, I had a question based on…

Joe Andrieu: how you just interpreted I forget the term, that's listed in
or whatever the property is you said we just put in a list of ds there. can
that not be a URL to a publish list from a provider?

Patrick St-Louis: what the list VC is,…

Joe Andrieu: Okay.

Patrick St-Louis: right? No, no.

Joe Andrieu: I heard you say it's just a list of ds and I'm like that seems
a little backwards, but okay. Yes.

Patrick St-Louis: But what I meant to say is that the purpose of including
this recognized in it's still to see if the issuer of a credential is in
that list so it's just another way of of expecting who can be issuing this
because I could see the value if you're verifying a credential

Patrick St-Louis: let's take the school example right you have I don't know
10 school in a city and you want to verify credential from these and they h
so happen to be maintained in one of these credential list it makes a lot
more sense to put this recognized in than just to list the 10 dids
individually in your VPR for me that's kind of what why I was saying it's
the equivalent

Patrick St-Louis: of having the ds in the list it just means it needs to be
one of these dids at the end of the day or…

Patrick St-Louis: URL C ID whatever yeah perfect okay I'm sold is there any
objection to merging this PR and…

Joe Andrieu: That makes sense.

Joe Andrieu: I just misheard it. So, thanks for the clarification.

Patrick St-Louis: its current state

Patrick St-Louis: I see one requested change. I think that has been merged
in.

Manu Sporny: Yeah, I believe I applied all of Ted's changes.

Patrick St-Louis: Can you give us a thumbs up,…

Manu Sporny: I'm not seeing any new ones.

Patrick St-Louis: Since you're on the call.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: Give me a link.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah, I will put this in. And where's the chat box? It's
here. I just want to make sure we're not bypassing any I think it's because
you added a comment right before the call and it was merged in.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: Yeah, it looks okay.

Patrick St-Louis: Perfect. What does it stand for?
00:40:00

Manu Sporny: Query by example.

Patrick St-Louis: Yes, of course. This makes sense. Okay, let's merge This
is was there any outstanding work for this that needed to be done or will
that pretty much close that issue?

Manu Sporny: Yeah, it'll close the issue. I can go and do that now.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay, let's try to get these two in if we can. So, here's
another one from part. would you like to take us through this PR?

Patrick St-Louis: Is he on the call? Okay. Yeah.

Parth Bhatt: Yes, sure.

Parth Bhatt: Give me one second.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay. Thank you.

Parth Bhatt: So, the issue is issue raised by Dave Longi and it was about
adding a verifiable presentation option to explicitly express a VP to be
used in step. And in the current specification there was a no way for a
workflow step to explicitly provide a verifiable presentation. So that is
what I have addressed in the issue.

Patrick St-Louis: Sorry guys, I'm muted. so yes, Nate, please go ahead.

Nate Otto: Just asking if we ever included the possibility to use multiple
verifiable presentations in this…

Nate Otto: if it allows an array or if it's just a singular.

Patrick St-Louis: You want to stay?

Dave Longley: we didn't and that is something that has come up from time to
time in the VCOM delivery protocol or set of messages whether we should
allow arrays of verifiable presentations or not. There haven't been too
many use cases. I don't think we have had seen one where you need to do
that. It's always something we could add. And if we needed to add it here,
but I think the workflow could somehow figure out how to use more than one.
I don't know if you Go ahead, Nate.

Nate Otto: Yeah, just to be clear, I'm not proposing blocking merging this
at all. at some point in the future, maybe it would be possible to consider
that complexity. I also have general skepticism about how far we want to go
in terms of this part of the spec of really defining how v specific
variables and…

Nate Otto: things are used within a workflow and what the processing
algorithms are. And I'm interested in moving a lot of that stuff out to
appendices that are non-normative if possible. And we'll have to consider
that in the coming months, but this is not a blocker to merging this for

Patrick St-Louis: I think that's a good point that you raised …

Patrick St-Louis: how hypersp specific we want to be with every single
field defined versus defining the key fields and then providing sort of
guidelines for other fields. I think that ties into the discussion we're
having about how complex is it to implement VCOM and from any of the
parties manual.

Manu Sporny: plus one to all that I can definitely see the arguments for
not specifying everything in excruciating detail. I think the counter
counter to that is and I'm looking at this from a vendor lock perspective
let's say you've got a state that is set up their large sets of the state
infrastructure like multiple state agencies are using a platform for
issuing and verifiable credentials.

Manu Sporny: My concern is that if we don't define this stuff cleanly
enough such that maybe workflows can't be cut and…

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah.

Manu Sporny: pasted between different implementations that it is going to
rapidly lead to vendor lock for whoever's deploying this stuff, bec because
then even without meaning to you're just kind of like no you're using our
language for how we set up these workflows and things like that. and it's a
great business model like Salesforce is built on top of that. so I'm a bit
hesitant I think we should think about it pretty deeply. It may be that
what we're trying to do is so horribly complicated and there's so many ways
to do it that it's just too bad we're not going to be able to do it.

Manu Sporny: But what I see almost happening instantaneously at that point
if we back off of it it's just the entire ecosystem's vendor locked because
you can't even do the only thing that we can really do is issuing a
credential and…
00:45:00

Manu Sporny: then everything else is vendor locked on top of it. But that's
where you have a lot of people needing to implement. just some thoughts

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah, that's interesting.

Patrick St-Louis: and that's what I'm not sure if there's a way that we can
limit what is specified but keeping I don't know how far the vendor lock in
could go if all you're dealing with is credentials and presentation these
things are well defined and just the way that you exchange them to build
system and interaction between components through these workflows

Patrick St-Louis: I'm not sure…

Dmitri Zagidulin: Like a girl.

Patrick St-Louis: I'm just not sure if you can really prevent that even by
being hyper specific because in between some steps there are some custom
bits of code that is not included in the workflow. yes.

Nate Otto: dog situation. Demetri. Yeah.

Patrick St-Louis: Thank you. Nate

Nate Otto: Plus one to the desiraability of avoiding vendor lock in like
that. I think that it is far I was going to say easier said than done, but
it's even hard to say what the full scope of that problem is. So, it is
much harder done than said and pretty hard to even say what it is we would
want to specify and what the boundaries of it was. Plus one to Dave's
comment in the chat that it could be possible to have a different level of
conformance testing to add sort of a workflows profile on top of a base
spec. And I want to emphasize that I think there is a lot of value for
product compatibility. When you do vendor switching at the level of these
two products implement the participation endpoint the So from the
perspective of a wallet they are essentially compatible. but their
internals may not be known to act the same way in terms of how they process
workflows.

Patrick St-Louis: Are you

Manu Sporny: Yeah, I'm plus one to that. maybe what we're talking about
here is having a different level of conformance like a workflow conformance
thing and we can break out the conformance clauses, So a conforming
workflow processor is the one that follows the crazy workflow section and
maybe we have it in a different spec. That would be fine. what I
specifically want to avoid is the massive vendor lock that oid4 just I
think because it so much was punted in oid4 VCI and OID4 VP that there is
massive vendor lock going on there.

Manu Sporny: and I think we should try our best to try see if we can avoid
that as much as possible. a plus one to what Nate said though, it is really
hard to even define where the edges of this problem are. and so we probably
should not put that in the path for version 10. if we have to punt on
something, maybe it is being very specific about workflows or things like
that. but I think we could get to consensus on there is a additional layer
of conformance that you can meet which is to implement the workflow
interfaces. you don't have to do that as an implementer. It's just
something extra you can do.

Dave Longley: Yeah, I think this spec has a lot of different features and
the only thing that's required to get it to wreck is for two independent
implementations to exist for every feature. They don't have to be the same
implementation for all of the features and people can make different
choices and we can create some conformance levels or have a conformance
section that say if you do all the workflow stuff then you are workflow
interop conformant. if you do the delivery piece for exchanges you're
conformant with that piece.

Dave Longley: if you do this and we can have these different levels of
conformance so people can understand what those are and we can surface that
in the sort of can C type tooling that W3C's working on. and I think that
would be a good way to do it. I don't think we should get ahead of
ourselves and start cutting bits of the spec out too early or…

Dave Longley: saying it needs to go in another spec. we can let that
develop over time and see where it lands.
00:50:00

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah, I think that makes sense.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay, last question before I think we can talk about
merging this. So when you say you want to include a verifiable
presentation, does that mean that the person creating the workflow already
has a presentation and they just want to put that in part of the workflow?
it's already been presented by someone and they just want to reveal it at
the step of the workflow. Is that the goal here, Dave?

Dave Longley: that is one of the options. You can also and this text says
you can provide sort of the base for the presentation and any issued
credentials can be added to it. So that gives you the option to do things
like I want this to be in this workflow or through the variables in your
exchange because you can remember you can always generate this information
through variables in the exchange. you can say I want this to be a version
one presentation or…

Dave Longley: a version two presentation or a presentation that has an
additional type because I need that for whatever reason. you can do all of
those things.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay, but it's really so…

Dave Longley: You could also say here's a presentation that already has
some VCs that I've previously issued and the workflow is going to issue
more into the presentation and then send the whole thing. So it gives you a
lot of power through composition.

Patrick St-Louis: if we think verile presentation request is that I want to
have

Patrick St-Louis: a presentation created with the other party interacting
as a verifiable presentation. It's a presentation that I will be providing
as the creator of the workflow.

Dave Longley: Yes. Yes.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah. Yeah.

Dave Longley: As the server I only hesitate there is creator of the
workflow might be some you get…

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah. Yeah. The.

Dave Longley: what I'm saying. The server side of this one is the party
sending that presentation to the other side. Good.

Patrick St-Louis: The interesting. Is there any objection to merging this?
I think it looks I'm going to prove it. So, let's go ahead. Requested.
Yeah, I think it looks clean.

Patrick St-Louis: And then we have just enough time maybe to go over the
last PR if we can make it quick.

Patrick St-Louis: Can see this another 20 line PR. We should be able to go
through this. part. Do you want to take us through what this does also?

Parth Bhatt: Sounds good.

Parth Bhatt: Yeah. So, the issue was raised by Dave Long only and it was
about adding an optional result property to the issue request element in
the issue request. currently the result of each issue request is always
included in the verifiable presentation sent to an exchange client in the
same step. So there is no way to direct that what do you call the response
anywhere else which is one of the need why the specific update is made or
why the issue request needs to have a result So I have added the result
property to the issue request element.

Parth Bhatt: And I just realized as I'm talking I have missed to add that
to the os.ml file but I have added the pros in the index.html HTML and
apart from that there was one more request for description update on the
create authorization request which is also I have updated that basically
add more description instead of just a variable name I made some one

Parth Bhatt: second. Yes,…

Patrick St-Louis: So if I understood you you missed the field and you will
need to add it.

Parth Bhatt: I have to add it to the os.ml file. That was the last question
that I raised to Dave Longley as well. But I think it should be there.

Patrick St-Louis: So is this complete or is it not?

Parth Bhatt: one feedback is left and yes it's a pending I need to address
the last feedback from Dave Longley and then probably we can discuss the
comment from Heat.
00:55:00

Patrick St-Louis: Okay, perfect. So, I think we'll leave that for next week.

Patrick St-Louis: That could be our very first PR of the W3C calls. but so
far I think it looks good from what I can read. So I'll leave it at this.
we'll address these comments and start with this 28 issues. and we said
week we will start. So probably next week we'll have a bit of a chat before
about how the transition went and if there's any new item that this makes
apparent that we need to work on. otherwise assuming we should just keep
fairly an agenda fairly similar to what we have now.

Patrick St-Louis: any other comments before we end the call today? in that
case, thank you all for attending. We'll be coming back to this PR on the
next call. and if you have time to open other PRs by then, it'll be more
than welcome. thank you and have a good rest of your week.
Meeting ended after 00:59:46 👋

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