[MINUTES] CCG VCALM 2026-03-17

This meeting marked a significant transition point for the Verifiable
Credentials Community Group (CCG) as it prepares to move its work to the
W3C Verifiable Credential Working Group (VCWG). The primary focus was on
the official charter approval for the VCWG and the process of transferring
the CCG's specifications. Discussions also covered the mechanics of the
transition, including meeting infrastructure, membership requirements for
the VCWG, and the necessary steps to publish the CCG's final report. A
substantial portion of the meeting was dedicated to reviewing and approving
pull requests related to the final community group report and technical
updates to the specification, with a particular emphasis on ensuring all
contributors are properly recognized.

*Topics Covered:*

   - *Transition to W3C Verifiable Credential Working Group:* The CCG's
   work is officially transitioning to the newly approved VCWG charter
   (2026-2028), which will maintain existing specifications and move forward
   with new ones. This transition involves publishing a Community Group Final
   Report and committing to intellectual property rights.
   - *VCWG Meeting and Membership:* The CCG's meeting infrastructure and
   cadence will be maintained under the VCWG, but attendance will require W3C
   membership or Invited Expert status, necessitating follow-up for some
   participants.
   - *Community Group Final Report (CGFR):* A draft PR for the CGFR was
   presented, and the group discussed and refined the editor and author lists
   to ensure accurate representation of contributors, with a target to
   finalize this by Friday.
   - *Pull Request Review (PR 610 - Tracking IDs):* A PR to add tracking
   IDs for better debugging and message association was reviewed and will be
   merged after incorporating feedback on handling server-initiated empty
   responses and client-initiated redirect URLs.
   - *Pull Request Review (PR 608 - CG Report Editors/Authors):* This PR,
   focused on defining editors and authors for the CGFR, underwent significant
   discussion and revision to ensure all key contributors were accurately
   listed, with Benjamin Young to update the PR based on the discussion.
   - *Pull Request Review (PR 609 - CG Report Stability):* This PR involves
   moving the entire spec to a stable directory as a static snapshot, which
   will serve as the basis for the IP commitments and the official CGFR before
   the repository transfer.
   - *Pull Request Review (PR 611 - Typo Fix):* A minor PR fixing a typo in
   the specification was reviewed and approved for merging.
   - *W3C Process Next Steps:* Post-transition, the VCWG will need to
   publish a First Public Working Draft (FPWD), initiate horizontal reviews,
   and conduct a threat model analysis, all of which are substantial next
   steps.

*Action Items:*

   - *Benjamin Young:* Update PR 608 to reflect the agreed-upon list of
   editors and authors for the Community Group Final Report.
   - *Nate Otto:* Implement changes to PR 610 to include handling of
   server-initiated empty responses and client-initiated redirect URLs, and
   aim to submit these updates for merging within the next 10 minutes.
   - *Patrick St-Louis and Manu Sporny:* Confirm and process the Invited
   Expert forms for Kayode Ezike and Nate Otto, and ensure James Easter's W3C
   member status is correctly applied for participation.
   - *Benjamin Young:* Hold off rebasing PR 609 (CG Report Stability) until
   the updates to PR 608 are merged.
   - *Manu Sporny:* Handle the confirmation and merging process for the
   CGFR related PRs out-of-band this week.
   - *Patrick St-Louis:* Schedule a topic for next week's meeting to
   discuss the transition timeline and any required paperwork for moving to
   the VCWG.
   - *Patrick St-Louis:* Schedule a future meeting or dedicate time in
   upcoming calls for a deep dive into the backlog of open issues to
   prioritize and scope them for the VCWG.
   - *Joe Andrieu:* Debug the CCG email listed for Nate Otto, as it appears
   to be non-functional.

Text: https://meet.w3c-ccg.org/archives/w3c-ccg-ccg-vcalm-2026-03-17.md

Video: https://meet.w3c-ccg.org/archives/w3c-ccg-ccg-vcalm-2026-03-17.mp4
*CCG VCALM - 2026/03/17 14:58 EDT - Transcript* *Attendees*

Benjamin Young, Dave Longley, 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: Greetings. We'll start in a couple minutes.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay, let's get started with Welcome everybody to the VC
call meeting. Today is the March 17, 2026. this is a meeting. 12 W3C
policies are into effect. we will be discussing today the verifiable
credential API and making progress. fairly straightforward agenda today. I
was unable to attend last week. Thank you I believe Ben for u hosting the
call last week.

Patrick St-Louis: if there's any particular thing that happened to note
please make me aware of it otherwise let's get started. So is there anyone
new to the call or anyone would like to reintroduce themselves? is the time
please I will leave a minute for you to raise your hand and introduce
yourselves. Looks like we are all familiar faces there today. any relevant
community updates anyone would like to share? I know there was quite a few
discussions on the public mailing list. Maybe something comes out of it.
Manu

Manu Sporny: This is largely about the verifiable credential working group
charter and us transitioning the work that we're doing over to the VCWG. So
I was going to cover at a high level. apologies for folks that already
attended the CCG meeting. This is largely going to be a repeat of that. so
the new verifiable credential working group charter that spans the year 206
through 2028 has been approved, ratified, no objections. It is active now
as of I think last week. So that's great news. There are 20 specifications
that the group is charged with moving forward or maintaining.
00:05:00

Manu Sporny: one of the specifications is what this group has been working
on for the last five years. and now is the time to kind of transition that
work to the verifiable credential working group. So the process that we
follow is we as a group decide that we want to do that. we then prepare a
community group final report. and then we publish it at a The credentials
community group chairs then officially published that as a final community
group specification for the group.

Manu Sporny: meaning the CCG and then every one of us that has contributed
any content whatsoever to the specification goes in and makes an
intellectual property rights commitment to say that we are not going to
assert any intellectual property rights over the specification. So we don't
give up our dual copyright on it but we are basically saying we don't have
any patents on this stuff. We're not going to claim any patents on it.
We're not going to, keep any of the text. We're not going to say trade
secrets have been violated. Any of that stuff. and that's as simple as
clicking a checkbox when the thing's published. Once we do that, then the
GitHub repository moves from the CCG over to the W3C GitHub, repository,
list.

Manu Sporny: and then it is officially owned by the verifiable credential
working group in and then once that happens then W3C process applies they
have to publish a first public working group they have to get horizontal
review and by us right and all those things need to happen so that's kind
of what happens with the document and we have to start that process. and I
think Benjamin has put together a draft PR for us to look at today to go
through that. the other thing is what happens to these meetings that we
have right now and the people that are in the meeting.

Manu Sporny: we got high level agreement from the verifiable credential
working group last week that we can keep meeting using the exact same
infrastructure that we currently have. This will just officially change
from a CCG meeting to an official verifiable credential working group
meeting. what that means is that in order to attend those meetings, you
need to either be a W3C member or you need to be an invited expert. so if
you're not an invited expert right now, we need to submit an invited expert
form for you and provide some justification for why that needs to happen. I
believe so Coyote, I don't know about you and I don't know about Nate.

Manu Sporny: but if you don't have IE status or you're not with a W3C
member, we need to get those kind of that paperwork going so that you guys
can continue to participate in this group. Let me stop there. I know that
was a lot. Any questions, concerns, that sort of thing?

Patrick St-Louis: Two question I think one of them you sort of answered it
so there's a PR to track this I was going to mention since this seems quite
a significant change for the repo and everything should be tracked by an
issue definitely with kind of the action points that we'll need to take but
it sounds like we'll have a PR open and we can discuss this while reviewing
this PR. my second question is when is this going to happen when is the
meeting going to be changed to W3C? Are we talking next next month or so
on? I can check with you offline what change will I need to do? I come in
here and edit these things. So I can make sure I have access because I'm
assuming this is going to be in a new page somewhere.

Patrick St-Louis: so the just kind of time frame question. Yeah.

Manu Sporny: All good questions. let's see. so we can raise a tracking
issue. that's certainly fine. We definitely have a PR already raised that
Benjamin's got a draft PR when is the switch over going to happen? It's
whenever we say we're ready. so for example, we wouldn't want it to be next
week because then we'd have to drop anybody that's not an invited expert or…
00:10:00

Manu Sporny: W3C member and that would be disruptive to our meeting. So we
can push it off for three weeks, however long it takes. so that I don' I
don't think I got all your questions though, Patrick. Sorry.

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

Patrick St-Louis: So, what about this? We got the news today. Let's make it
a topic on next week meeting to kind of discuss set ourselves a goal maybe
in a month from next week try to aim to be ready so basically let's make it
a topic next week to now that everyone knows to discuss a bit more in
detail.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay.

Manu Sporny: We would like at least the CG final report to be in process by
this Friday.

Manu Sporny: The reason being that it takes a while. It can take weeks for
it to move through the process. And if we delay a month, it will be yet
another month. So it'll be two months before we can actually do the work.
there are some concerns about this somebody else can come in and basically
be like I think you should use this for the API, not the V. So if we delay
it opens the ability for someone to come in and…

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah.

Manu Sporny: be like, "No, no, no. Don't Use this other thing that Google
just invented, last weekend, for example." so there's a bit of a time
pressure. we do want to get this thing in there before, somebody else does
something disruptive. very small chance that happens.

Manu Sporny: I just want to be clear, but it's like, let's move with some
speed here and not let just move at some

Patrick St-Louis: Okay. Yeah.

Patrick St-Louis: Sounds good. So, do we need to discuss this now or can
this be while reviewing the that Benjamin put in the chat? Okay.

Manu Sporny: I think we can review the PR as the next step because that's a
concrete next step. and it

Patrick St-Louis: Okay. Perfect. Sounds good. this is great news. this
process is not a quick one. So, it's great that there were not too much
conflict and everything is looking great. anyone else has any thoughts on
Any other community updates before we get started? Yes, Manu.

Manu Sporny: I do want to make sure we've got our invited experts lined up.
Patrick, are you you're already an AI to the group, aren't you?

Patrick St-Louis: Yes, I'm there. I know Nate in the comment and Coyote
confirmed that they are not. so I'm assuming this can be taken offline.

Manu Sporny: Okay. Yeah,…

Patrick St-Louis: They can follow this up with you or

Manu Sporny: I'll and then actually Benjamin, I don't know if you mind
putting them through the IE process with the vaugh and the chairs just so I
don't become a bottleneck. That's my concern.

Patrick St-Louis: Yes. I'm 95% there that my process was approved.

Benjamin Young: Yeah, I'm happy to help.

Benjamin Young: Do we have a full list of votings to go through?

Manu Sporny: Nate and coyote right now. I think the only two.

Benjamin Young: Yeah. Is that okay?

Manu Sporny: Is there anyone else that's not already in the group?

Benjamin Young: Start there.

Manu Sporny: Okay. Yeah.

Patrick St-Louis: It's just some last minute doubt in my mind now, but I'm
pretty sure I went through the process. projects.

James Easter: I don't think I've done anything official as far as
paperwork, so I might need to sync with someone after this. Okay.

Manu Sporny: You don't worry. You're under digital bazaar. Benjamin can add
you or I can add you. We just need to click a button because you're a W3
you're with the W3C member. So, you should be good.

Patrick St-Louis: So we'll follow up on the invited expert status next week
as a any other commit updates before we get started? in that case we'll get
started with review. while we were waiting to start the call, Nate
mentioned he would like us to start with a specific poll request because
you will have to leave a little bit early. and this is 610.

Patrick St-Louis: So usually we start with the oldest one first but today
is there any objection that we start with the 610. Perfect. Let's open
request. Let's open the issue. looks like a fairly small pull request. the
issue is also fairly small. can you please Nate go ahead and…
00:15:00

Nate Otto: So last week we had some discussion about this one.

Patrick St-Louis: explain to us a little bit what's going on here?

Nate Otto: There was a request to add some tracking ids to enable better
debugging and association of client responses with prior so that in cases
where maybe there was odd timings multiple client responses after one
server message there could be easier association of the messages within the
scope of a session or with one another rather than just relying only on the
exchange ID.

Nate Otto: so the idea here is that whenever it sends a message it may set
a reference ID on that message and then if they do on the next client
response to that exchange the client should include the most recently
referenced reference ID. I'll pause because I see a hand up.

Patrick St-Louis: just a very naive question. So I often hear this term a
trace ID which is an ID that follows something across different exchange
and…

Patrick St-Louis: is meant for this purpose. is this the same idea here?
It's purely an ID that's there trace in a synchronous way that goes across
many step or is this something different?

Nate Otto: Yes, essentially it's the same thing. I think there's a brand
name trace ID that squatted on that concept. But yeah, the concept is
essentially to enable correlation of messages. the specifics here as it
applies to exchanges is that the would create each message once and…

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah. Heat.

Nate Otto: then the client would respond usually once. there might be some
edge cases where they would respond to zero or more than one time for that
specific message. but the overall exchange also has an exchange ID and so
there would be maybe multiple message or reference IDs over time that apply
to the same exchange. We can associate with a specific server message that
was sent. what can I say?

Patrick St-Louis: So there can be many reference ID in a single exchange
and they're really associated with a message.

Patrick St-Louis: okay. Let me just read a ser include the ref lady.

Nate Otto: We can get into the approach now of how to respond to this. So
the the issue requested that we create one generic schema for a exchange
participation message that could go either direction. I was looking at it a
little further and I decided to go a slightly different direction in
defining a exchange participation server message and exchange participation
client message because the data that they're sending is slightly different.
for instance, redirect URLs are not sent to servers and empty bodies are
not sent to clients. and there was benefit in having some slightly more
specific description language in there as well. So I have two separate …

Patrick St-Louis: referred.

Nate Otto: schemas there that are referenced separately for the versus
server to client. Dave

Dave Longley: Yeah, I think we might not have some clear use cases for
those, but the design is such that both the client and the server can do
both of those things. A server can terminate an exchange by sending an
empty message and a client could send a redirect URL which would
effectively be inst You could send an inter instructing the server that
you'd like to change roles. And so you're giving the server an interaction
URL that it could turn around and do something with. it's true that we
don't have clear use cases for those,…

Dave Longley: but I wouldn't want to accidentally rule those out at this
stage just cuz our schema is a little bit too strict.
00:20:00

Patrick St-Louis: I'm a little bit confused now.

Patrick St-Louis: So we were talking about reference ID and now we're
talking about redirect URL. can someone just help me a little bit
understand how those two things are related in this issue? Okay.

Nate Otto: They They're both properties of the message in this case. So,
Dave, maybe my question to you is, should we revert back to the request to
the method that was specified in the issue, maybe abandoning the
opportunity for specificity in the documentation about what the meaning of
these properties would be? or should we keep the separate schemas for
server initiated and client initiated things but then add the possibility
for an empty body and for a redirect URL with appropriate notes to the
respective schemas.

Dave Longley: off the cuff I would say just do the ladder because it'll be
quicker and we might find we can merge the two again. But there's certain
having the symmetry where client and server just happen to sort of be roles
that are being played. not that they can't say the same things to each
other a little diff is a kind of a deviation from the spec design but I see
other people with their hands

Manu Sporny: Yeah, I was going to say do the second thing, but then Dave,
you said something that was confused by is that the second thing is define
both things about client and ser client response and server client message
and server message. but allow both of them to but they both basically
express the same thing and then we might merge them later on. Is that what
Okay, Dave. Yeah.

Dave Longley: That's what I attempted to say.

Manu Sporny: Plus one. I think we should do that, as well.

Patrick St-Louis: One question I have. So, this reference ID appears in a
couple place. and then it says the client should include this in its next
message. Are we saying that the same reference ID needs to be reused in
every one of these instances? Yes.

Manu Sporny: Let me take a shot at this and see if I get it right. the
whole purpose here is to make sure that you've got one reference ID that
kind of flows through the entire workflow. So, if I'm a client and you're a
server and you as a server send me reference ID one,…

Patrick St-Louis: Try again.

Manu Sporny: when I respond, I'm going to put reference ID one in there so
that we're both on the same page about what I'm actually responding to. So,
I'm responding to, reference ID 1. And then maybe as a server, you send me
back reference ID 1 and I send you back reference ID one through the entire
workflow. I think that's…

Manu Sporny: how it's I got that wrong.

Dave Longley: So the middle part of…

Dave Longley: what you said was right. the idea here is whenever a message
is sent by the server, it gets a new reference ID so that when the client
responds to it, the server knows which message is being responded to
because the client could respond to any number of different messages. You
just imagine writing a loop that's asked the server 10 times which one are
you responding to? imagine a delayed network message from the client. Which
one are you responding to? you already responded to this. I'm going to
ignore this late response.

Manu Sporny: got it. I am wondering about what I'm thinking about someone
running something in operations and in looking for kind of a bunch of back
and forths in the logs and this being difficult if the same reference ID
isn't used throughout all the bounces back and forth having not thought
about this very deeply…

Manu Sporny: but I see.

Dave Longley: Yeah. …

Dave Longley: what Nate just said, you would search for the exchange ID.

Manu Sporny: Okay, got it.

Dave Longley: You've already got that piece of information. What's missing
in the logs is what was this when it said it's sent something back to the
server, which message was it responding to? This new piece of information
lets them gather

Manu Sporny:

Manu Sporny: Got it. Okay. All right. Makes sense to me.

Patrick St-Louis: Would it make sense for it to just be called message ID
in that case or is that a bit too specific?
00:25:00

Dave Longley: We reused reference ID from a number of other places where it
served the same purpose.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay, that's fine. yes, man.

Manu Sporny: Yeah, message makes it feel these things I feel like we're at
the edge of defining yet another concept in the spec and I kind of don't
want to do that because it creates cognitive overhead and Nate is saying
message ID is incorrect. Please Nate.

Nate Otto: So message ID would provide the slightly incorrect
interpretation for a reader of the spec that it is a message ID for the
message that is being sent rather than a message ID for the message that is
being responded to.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah. Yeah. I can live with that. So, whoever sends the
first message includes this reference ID and then it needs to be included
in the response and then when a new message is sent after the response, it
gets a new ID. so is that fair to assume that a reference ID will only
appear twice? Once on the outgoing message and once in the response and
that should be it. Yes, mate.

Nate Otto: I think that is true in the prototypical cases and in pretty
much all expected cases, but there certainly are some edge cases where that
may not be true. if…

Dave Longley: Yeah, we should sorry.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay. Yeah.

Nate Otto: if the client for instance makes an invalid response at first
and…

Nate Otto: then I don't know tries again maybe not invalid but network
interruption fails to actually complete a I don't know it's possible that
it could be reused for a couple odd cases.

Dave Longley: Yeah, Whitney Nate said,…

Nate Otto: The tough ones.

Dave Longley: I think you would expect in the happy path you would see it
just once on each side, but in any other failure mode you might see it more
than that.

Patrick St-Louis: And what do we want to say about…

Patrick St-Louis: if the client responds with a different ID they create a
new ID. Should we have normative message in there that if reference ID is
used and it needs to match could that introduce some problems potentially?

Patrick St-Louis: Yes, Dave.

Dave Longley: I would say let's not say anything yet and let's not put it
in this yet. that is open and a server could decide to reject a message
because it's out of order or whatever. Yep.

Patrick St-Louis: Or it can't find anything to relate it to. that's good.
So, Did we decide we want to merge this or did we want to include something
else? It was a bit of a discussion earlier yesterday night.

Nate Otto: I think the action item I heard here is that it is not quite
ready. And the specific thing that is not correct is that there are some
edge cases where we want the server to be able to respond with an empty
body or the client to be able to respond with a redirect URL and those two
cases are not handled by this PR. So I can make a very quick adjustment to
add each of those cases to the respective messages.

Nate Otto: preserving this separation of schema so that we can have very
specific guidance descriptions of each property. but we will describe why a
server might wish to send an empty body which is to terminate the exchange
and why a client may in the future potentially be able to send a redirect
URI to sort of invert the roles or…

Nate Otto: redirect URL

Dave Longley: Yeah, plus bundle that. And I would love us to provisionally
say this can be merged as soon as Nate makes those changes since we're
trying to get to that final community report. Yeah.

Patrick St-Louis: And you mean merge before the next meeting?

Patrick St-Louis: That's what you mean ad hoc. Okay, just going to commend
this. Okay, so we'll wait I guess as soon as there's some change we can
kind of review this out of bound and get this merged in. we will wait in
the meantime. Yes, Nate.

Nate Otto: Okay, I got to jump to another call, but I'll try and just do
that in the next 10 minutes. So, if you're still on the line, you might see
that request come in. Thanks.

Patrick St-Louis: All Thank you very much. So, that's done. So, let's go
through our poll request. Maybe next we want to do the two pull request
from Benjamin about the CG report. this is quite important.
00:30:00

Patrick St-Louis: Any objection slash any order we should go these in. Ben,
you mentioned the editors one first. Should we start with this?

Benjamin Young: Yeah, for because the other one is draft because it's going
to need to be rebased on not only the editors and authors one but anything
else we might want to get in before going to the community report which I
don't think there's much more…

Benjamin Young: but this one at least I think we should address in part
because we have folks here who I think everybody's going to transition to
the working group but in case somebody taps out at the CG level we want to
make sure they can represent for themselves here.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay. …

Benjamin Young: And the way this was generated to be clear, I used a script
that orders by essentially commit amount through various it's a bash script
I think it's linked in the PR. and then I took anybody who had over 900
lines of contribution. which is naive because there's certainly people who
could probably be listed as editors or authors who, provided things and
issues and whatever and somebody else coales them into content.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah, I'll let Manu answer a question after. Yes, Manu.

Manu Sporny: And thank you for putting this together, I am not comfortable
being listed as the only editor or lead editor or any of that stuff. I know
historically I've done a lot of work, but lead editor. I would like
somebody else to step forward and my name not to be the first one on the
list. I don't think the chairs are going to like that. they've specifically
asked me to stop editing editing as many things as I'm editing. so minus
one to me being the sole editor on this I'd like to see two other names on
there.

Manu Sporny: if I remember correctly, a coyote you volunteered, maybe
Patrick, I think maybe you did as well as examples. Totally fine with
anybody else. Eric's been doing, a bit of work as well here. so that's on
the editor stuff. As far as authors, Aie Steel has asked for his name to be
removed from all W3C specs. he just is not supportive of the work that
we're doing here. and a lot of his edits were I think, just moving stuff
around. there was just so he shows up heavily, but I don't think he was
actually contributing a ton of content. but he did, talk quite a bit there.
Dave's name is missing. I think that's a huge oversight.

Manu Sporny: I think Dave should be as one of the primary authors because a
lot of this stuff is based off of thinking and code and everything that
he's written to implement VCOM at least for our organization. So he should
probably be listed as one of the first authors. I don't have an opinion on
many of the others I think Na Marcus should be on there. Wes and Parth have
contributed content. but I don't know if it meets the level to be listed
as, a significant author of the document. I think it's fair to put Eric on
there. I feel like Joe, you did quite a bit of work on the coordinator
stuff if I remember correctly.

Manu Sporny: So, I think Joe should be listed if my memory there is
correct. and over time, I expect Ted to show up as an editor because he is
always consistently helping to edit these things. Just getting that on the
record as a that's what I think. The group doesn't need to do all of those
things, but I think we need to rebalance this before we put it in. That's
it.

Patrick St-Louis: Did you say you did not want to be an editor or…

Patrick St-Louis: you wanted to be an editor with other people?

Manu Sporny: editor with other people.

Manu Sporny: List me last for now.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay. Okay. Benjamin

Benjamin Young: Yeah, that all sounds good.

Benjamin Young: I can it's mostly about the group deciding who they want in
addition. And I remembered the ORI thing from another group, but I didn't
know if it was restricted to certain specs or just a blanket,
disassociation with W3C stuff generally. so I went with the data informed
not decision but starting point. and if we just want to list off what
changes need making here I can do the clerical changing
00:35:00

Patrick St-Louis: We said a few names earlier. can we just write down the
list of suggestions for editors and authors or…

Manu Sporny: Yes. Let me Yeah.

Patrick St-Louis: anyone? Do we want to go on a voluntary basis? I don't
want to name people that are not interested here.

Manu Sporny: So, let's cover the editors. Is there anybody else that wants
to edit this thing?

Manu Sporny: Yeah. It doesn't mean you have to stick with it. It's just,
someone's got to take up the mantle. Otherwise, putting me in the critical
path's a bad idea. Coyote, yes. Benjamin, was that you're volunteering or a

Benjamin Young: No, I'm in full support of whoever you pick.

Benjamin Young: I should not be listed in this list yet. I've just been a
lurker on these calls. so I'm happy to, add the bench with whoever because
I know that on these calls you've acted at as the typest in the issues, but
the decision and the shape of the text that goes in has been largely a
group effort. So, I knew the data set was not reflecting reality.

Benjamin Young: But yeah, just let me know what the list is and…

Benjamin Young: again I'll do the looking up of URLs and typing of JSON and
things like that.

Dave Longley: Yeah, I wanted to say that we've traditionally differentiated
authors from editors.

Dave Longley: Author authors people contributing to the core concepts
design of the spec other ways editors of people doing the hard work of
doing the typing doing the PRs making sure everything's consistent. for the
spec itself there's a lot of work there. and in that light I know that I'm
unlikely to be the person doing that editing. So I definitely should have
my name there as primary editor. I'm comfortable with it being there under
author.

Dave Longley: And I also wanted to say Monu's contributed to concepts in
the spec. So he should also be listed in the author list. you can be in
both places.

Patrick St-Louis: instead of an editor.

Dave Longley: If he would like to be a last in a list of three editors and…

Patrick St-Louis: Okay.

Dave Longley: if he's happy with that, that makes sense.

Manu Sporny: Yes, I'm happy with that because I'll still want to process
PRs if we need to move things forward.

Patrick St-Louis: So we got two or three editors including Manu. anyone
else would like to volunteer to be listed as an editor? I think three is
fine. Four is more.

Dave Longley: Please add Joe to the author's list.

Patrick St-Louis: Joe, do you want to be on the authors, Ted? I know you
have contributed significantly.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: I have no argument against being an author.

Patrick St-Louis: I don't think you've opened PR directly,…

Patrick St-Louis: but you've certainly had suggested plenty of text by
editing PRs and whatnot. So, thank editor.

Manu Sporny: And Ted,…

Ted Thibodeau Jr: Yeah. All right.

Manu Sporny: Ted, feel free to object to this, but I think you're more of
an editor role than well, I mean, fine with you as an author,…

Patrick St-Louis: Okay. Sorry.

Manu Sporny: but it's just like you end up doing it anyway and…

Patrick St-Louis: What am I doing?

Manu Sporny: we always have to have the discussion at the end where it's
like, hey, by the way, Ted did an enormous amount of editorial work on
this. Just trying to Okay.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: I'm happy to have that discussion now instead.

Manu Sporny: Yeah, I would prefer to put Ted on there. just…

Manu Sporny: because he ends up, helping with all the PRs.

Ted Thibodeau Jr:

Ted Thibodeau Jr: It's just…

Patrick St-Louis: Are you okay,…

Ted Thibodeau Jr:

Ted Thibodeau Jr: what I do. yeah,…

Patrick St-Louis: Ted, with being listed as an editor?

Ted Thibodeau Jr: my whole thing with editor is that I can't commit to
doing Xwork, but 99% of the time it just happens. So, it's up to you as the
group.

Patrick St-Louis: You're more than welcome. I think the effort is well
appreciated. at least from my point of view. how's this look? anyone else
would like their name here? We can probably circle back.

Patrick St-Louis: I don't know how quick we need to merge this but okay I
will comment this and I think I just want to list is that how we spell his
perfect. I am already in the authors, so we'll remove it.
00:40:00

Dave Longley: One thing we missed, the author should include Marcus. he
contributed, early concepts to the spec.

Manu Sporny: Peacekeeper.

Dave Longley: Yeah. Pete. Yeah.

Patrick St-Louis: Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. There we go. Perfect. So, I will let
you Ben kind of take this update the list. I guess…

Patrick St-Louis: if you need some information, you already have my
information, but if you need information for other users, where to find us.
Yes, Ben.

Benjamin Young: Yeah, I think Eric Shu is listed and…

Benjamin Young: I didn't have any information. I just have your …

Manu Sporny: Eric's been doing editorial work. I don't know, Eric, if you
have a preference.

Eric Schuh: Okay.

Dave Longley: I think he means that he doesn't have any W3. He just says
name is missing the other data.

Benjamin Young: I just have your name,…

Manu Sporny: My bed.

Benjamin Young: which may be not great.

Joe Andrieu: Yeah, I'm updating mine by commenting on that.

Joe Andrieu: So, Eric, I just want to invite you to Yeah.

Eric Schuh: I do the same. Sure.

Benjamin Young: Yeah, that's perfect.

Patrick St-Louis: Any further comments to this or…

Patrick St-Louis: we're going to go over to the other PR as an editor,…

Dave Longley: One quick comment. and it's timely because just rejoined
Nate, did you want to have your name listed on this specification as either
an author, an editor, or both?

Nate Otto: Yeah, I could continue contributing to this and I would be happy
to be listed under Skybridge skills. Let me know how to engage with that.

Patrick St-Louis: author, or both. There you go.

Nate Otto: Author probably whatever's lower.

Patrick St-Louis: Is that how you write it? Skybridge skills.

Nate Otto: Yes.

Patrick St-Louis: So, Ben will look at this and I'm assuming this same as
the other PR will kind of have to merge this ad hoc out of band sometime
this week.

Patrick St-Louis: Yes, Ben. I'm happy to confirm and…

Benjamin Young: Yeah, I will make those changes this week and…

Benjamin Young: then I don't know how y'all want to confirm that or who I
should watch to confirm and merge, but once that's right.

Patrick St-Louis: merge. I mean, we have the names here, right? We
discussed on that someone changed their mind,…

Benjamin Young: Exactly. Yeah.

Patrick St-Louis: just let us And worst comes to worse, we can just I guess
remove someone. Do we need to have a minimum of editors?

Benjamin Young: Right. By a lot.

Patrick St-Louis: Is this a requirement for this spec?

Patrick St-Louis: Okay.

Manu Sporny: We're No, but whatever minimums we have exceeded them by far.

Patrick St-Louis: I'm assuming we want at least one.

Benjamin Young: Yep. Yeah.

Manu Sporny: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay.

Manu Sporny:

Manu Sporny: We needed at least one. We're get there.

Patrick St-Louis: …

Benjamin Young: I wasn't quite sure…

Patrick St-Louis: I think we're good.

Benjamin Young: who TBD was, so that's why I made up all these other people.

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah, that sounds good.

Patrick St-Louis: And a lot of people we've been on this call for a long
time, so it's pretty good for Any other final closing comments for Take
three. then right.

Benjamin Young: Yeah. Is there anything else y'all want in before the
report turn moves from draft to mergeable?

Benjamin Young: Because that'll be the next step. I'll get editors and
authors in rebase the report and then ideally it's ready to merge after
that but if there's more to squeak in now's your chance

Manu Sporny: James found a spelling error in PR 607 that we should get in
and it's been out there for a week. that's good. Patrick, your old 572 add
selective disclosure example. we don't need to merge that. So just to be
clear, this repository will be transferred in full to the VCWG. We will not
lose any issues. We will not lose any PRs. So we can always merge things in
later, but I think 572 unless Patrick you can get to that. we can Okay.

Manu Sporny:

Patrick St-Louis: I'll try.

Patrick St-Louis: I just moved it to draft just earlier today. so I just
need to take some time and…
00:45:00

Patrick St-Louis: look into it, but it's not high on my thing that I think
about.

Manu Sporny: Yeah, no problem.

Manu Sporny: So that's totally fine. Let's just not merge that one. it'll
stay there and then we can merge it later. but I think everything else 608,
609, and 610, Benjamin, we should try and merge before the final CG report.

Patrick St-Louis: Let's go.

Patrick St-Louis: Yes, ma'am.

Benjamin Young: Yeah, that's kind of on y'all and…

Benjamin Young: whatever the confirmation merging process needs to be,…

Benjamin Young: but I'll hold off rebasing until those are in.

Manu Sporny: I can handle the confirmation merging process.

Patrick St-Louis: So this PR here,…

Manu Sporny: As long as we get those updates and

Patrick St-Louis: it's just moving the whole spec in a sort of stable
directory.

Patrick St-Louis: Is that the idea?

Manu Sporny: It's a static snapshot. And so what this does is you use a
button on the spec that exports it to HTML. It's a static copy. you put it
in a directory that CG final that's just kind of like a date that it
happened and this static copy is the thing that everyone's making their
intellectual property release on right so anything that's in that spec
you're saying I am not going to assert patents or anything over it and it's
just out there it's a snapshot and then once that snapshot is done and

Manu Sporny: We have IPR commitments on We move the snapshot, into the
verifiable credential working group. This document will never change. It's
just there for all of time to say this is where it was when we moved it.

Patrick St-Louis: And then we'll keep iterating until we reach the
recommendation status.

Manu Sporny: Yes. Exactly. Yep.

Patrick St-Louis: So then not too much to discuss on this PR. Exactly. We
want to more focus on the other ones and make sure that this reflects
whatever is there. Perfect. So, did you have something you wanted to say
for this, Ben? Or I think we'll mostly just need to address the other PRs
as the Pri priority.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay.

Benjamin Young: Yeah, it train cars.

Benjamin Young: Mine's the caboose.

Patrick St-Louis: Did you have a chance, to push your changes here? Okay.

Nate Otto: Yes, I did.

Patrick St-Louis: Maybe let's have a quick look. so what was added exactly
server message

Nate Otto: the empty response in the server message which let's see if I
have a big enough view to see where that is. so in the exchange
participation server message at the bottom lines 1081 to 1083 represents an
empty object with a description saying that that means the server wants to
terminate the exchange. And then the second one is around line 1047 I think.

Nate Otto: I think yeah redirect URL 1039 through 1048 which with the
description on 1045 a client may send an interaction URL to the server as a
redirect URL inviting the server to become the client for a different
related exchange starting with that interaction a server may engage with
this redirect URL trying to make it clear that there shouldn't be a strong
expectation that the server is going to do something about that…

Nate Otto: but this is something that may be used

Patrick St-Louis: Mhm. Okay.

Patrick St-Louis: Two question does that meet what we wanted to discuss
earlier the sort of hold we put on this and is there any objection for us
to merge this at the moment it's just been approved so let's I think just a
rebase and merge here is

Patrick St-Louis: So, we have one more PR to go today. this one was open by
James. I have a feeling this going to be very easy to go through.
00:50:00

James Easter: So, this is just I read through the spec again recently and…

James Easter: just found the typo and so I just threw that in there and
then I kind of wanted to get set up so I could have the whole thing forked
and…

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah, there's also a little space here.

James Easter: be ready to go to contribute. so this was kind of a means to
an end there but that's all it was just a typo. yeah.

Patrick St-Louis: And Is that normal? Yes, I think that's normal because
that's two different paths.

Patrick St-Louis: Is this normal?

Manu Sporny: That's normal. That's the respect.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay.

Manu Sporny: Yeah,…

Eric Schuh: That's the table generation.

Manu Sporny: respec OAS stuff.

Patrick St-Louis: It just looked a bit odd, but if it's all perfect.

Eric Schuh: Yeah, that's so both end points get listed in the table.

Patrick St-Louis: Any objection? We merge this. I think given the size of
this, it's pretty straightforward. So, there's not much time left, so let's
just do a little recap. so, we want to not have any other PR until we merge
the report. The only one we want to merge is this add editors and authors.
Want to make sure we have the correct list and then merge the report once
it's updated and have everyone kind of agreed to it.

Patrick St-Louis: And then once that's done, we will probably want to wait
until the repo is transferred before we resume the work. Is that correct?
Or can we still start opening up PR?

Manu Sporny: No, we can keep going. it shouldn't slow us down. that's the
reason we're doing a snapshot is so we can keep working on things and…

Patrick St-Louis: Okay.

Manu Sporny: we're

Patrick St-Louis: Perfect. So once this is merged, which we want to try to
do this week out of band, we will need to sign some kind of form. and then
we can just resume the work. probably I'll put that as a topic. so we've
been mostly focused on PRs.

Patrick St-Louis: once we move to W3C maybe we can have a call and actually
just start with issues and do a full-on kind of issue overview maybe small
rep priority around these u I feel like it's been a while we haven't really
took a deep dive on issues we always at the end of the call just have the
time to look at one or two because there's 29 It's not too much. and maybe
decide if some things we decide that it's out of scope or what is the
status? Does that sound like a good plan?

Patrick St-Louis: Yes ma raise your hand.

Manu Sporny: was muted.

Manu Sporny: That sounds like a good plan. once we move this over to the VC
working group, there are going to be V the W3C process will kick in
completely, which basically means we should publish a first public working
draft which is our first official announcement like hey this is on the
global standards track it is headed that way. It also establishes a patent
and…

Patrick St-Louis: I'm going

Manu Sporny: prior art again in the working group. and that means that
people in the working group must tell us if they have any patents that
cover any of that stuff. And if they don't, they basically give up their
right to assert the patent later. so it's important to do an FPWD as early
as we can and we can just take the exact same document we have and just do
a publication. there's some levers that need to be pulled and other things
that need to happen at W3C to do that, but we'll take care of that as part
of those meetings. the other thing that we have to also kick off is a
horizontal review of the specification as soon as we can, but that requires
us to put a couple more things into the specification like what other
technologies did you consider?

Manu Sporny: I think we already have that section in the spec, but we have
a checklist that we have to go down. And requesting a horizontal review
really early is important because sometimes it takes them six months to do
it and we don't want to wait until the last minute to ask for one. other
things that we need to do is we will need to do a threat model for this
specification as a part of the security kind of work. that I would expect
is going to be a fairly involved piece of work given the scope of the
specification. so those are other things like yes we will need to do issue
processing…
00:55:00

Manu Sporny: but those are some fairly big rocks that we're going to have
to move once we get into the W3C process. I can repeat all that later. I'm
just letting know as a heads up to you Patrick like that we will need to do
that

Patrick St-Louis: Okay. Yeah.

Patrick St-Louis: So, it sounds like we have quite a few topics that we're
going to need to cover as a followup on this and we can see depending on
the size and scope of the topic, maybe we want to allocate some meetings to
discuss some of them. with that being said, it's five to the hour. I think
we will end the call here.

Patrick St-Louis: So very pivotal point for this specification. I know I've
been attending these calls for a very long time. So it's really exciting to
see not only the distance the spec has covered but also the sort of this
evolution towards the working group. yes Joe maybe take this due to the
editors.

Joe Andrieu: Yes, since we're about to sign off and Nate may not see the
text that I just put in chat. I was looking for your W3C ID. and the CCG
email that's listed over there says it's not working. So just heads up. You
might want to debug that. I'm not sure why it says that over on that
listing, but just a heads up for you.

Nate Otto: Thanks.

Patrick St-Louis: Okay, let me stop thank you everyone for joining us on
the call today. we will have another normal call next week.

Patrick St-Louis: We'll try to merge some of these PRs out of Dan with the
rest of the week. Otherwise, I wish you all a good rest of your week and a
good weekend even though we're only Tuesday. And that's it. Thank you.
Meeting ended after 00:57:21 👋

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