[MINUTES] CCG VCALM 2026-03-24

This meeting of the CCG VCALM working group focused on the transition of
the VC API specification and the review of several pull requests and
issues. A key discussion point was the call for final specification
commitments, urging contributors to sign the intellectual property release.
Several pull requests were discussed, including those related to OAuth
scopes, verifiable recognition credentials, and workflow processing
algorithms. The group also addressed issues concerning the improvement of
the OAS output, the addition of optional result properties to issue
requests, and the ability to express verifiable presentations within steps.
The meeting concluded with assignments for several action items, and a
reminder about the upcoming transition of the call to the VCWG.

*Topics Covered:*

   - *VC API Spec Transition and Commitments:* A call for final
   specification commitments was sent out, urging all contributors to sign the
   intellectual property release for the VC API, recognition, and verifiable
   credential barcodes specifications to facilitate the transition.
   - *OAuth Scopes PR:* The discussion centered on a pull request
   concerning OAuth scopes, clarifying how issuer instance URLs and audience
   fields can be used to pin access tokens to specific instances and
   addressing multi-tenant use cases.
   - *Verifiable Recognition Credentials PR:* A pull request allowing
   accepted issuers to include verifiable recognition credentials was
   reviewed, with discussions on the structure and properties like "recognized
   in" for defining accepted issuers.
   - *Non-Normative Workflow Processing Algorithms Issue:* The group
   discussed defining non-normative workflow processing algorithms, aiming to
   provide advice for implementing workflows across multiple protocols and
   credential formats.
   - *OAS Output UX Improvement Issue:* The discussion focused on improving
   the user experience of the OAS output in the main specification,
   particularly regarding collapsible schema sections, with work already
   initiated on refactoring respspec OAS.
   - *Optional Result Property to Issue Requests Issue:* The addition of an
   optional "result" property to issue requests was discussed, allowing for
   credentials to be stored in workflow variables rather than immediately
   delivered, enhancing flexibility and composability.
   - *Verifiable Presentation Option for Steps Issue:* The addition of a
   verifiable presentation option to explicitly express a VP to be used in a
   step was discussed, providing more compositional capabilities within
   workflows.
   - *Signing Request Issue:* A previously discussed issue regarding
   signing requests was confirmed to be tracked and categorized.

*Action Items:*

   - All contributors to the VC API, recognition, and verifiable credential
   barcodes specifications are urged to sign the intellectual property release
   to facilitate the transition.
   - Manu Sporny will update the OAuth scopes PR with changes suggested by
   Dave Longley, specifically regarding the use of audience fields.
   - Manu Sporny will rework the PR for verifiable recognition credentials
   based on feedback regarding the recognized in property and the structure
   of accepted issuers.
   - Patrick St-Louis will take on the issue of defining non-normative
   workflow processing algorithms and create a PR for an appendix.
   - Dave Longley will create an example for issue 600: "Add a multi-step
   workflow example with branching steps generated from step templates."
   - Kayode Ezike is assigned to work on improving the UX around the OAS
   output in the main specification, focusing on collapsible schema sections.
   - Parth Bhatt will take on issue 583: "Add optional result property to
   element in issue requests."
   - Parth Bhatt will take on issue 53: "Add a verifiable presentation
   option to explicitly express a VP to be used in a step."
   - The VC API call will transition to a VCWG call starting April 1st,
   maintaining the same channel and location.

Text: https://meet.w3c-ccg.org/archives/w3c-ccg-ccg-vcalm-2026-03-24.md

Video: https://meet.w3c-ccg.org/archives/w3c-ccg-ccg-vcalm-2026-03-24.mp4
*CCG VCALM - 2026/03/24 14:58 EDT - Transcript* *Attendees*

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

Manu Sporny: Hey folks. I pinged Patrick and Benjamin is not going to be
able to make the call today. and I think Patrick's online, but I'm not
getting a response from him. So, why don't we go ahead and get started with
the highlevel stuff? and then hopefully Patrick will be able to make all
right. So, one second. Let me get set up here.

Manu Sporny: All right. welcome everyone to the the verifiable credential
API for life cycle management call and this is March 24th 2026. we have a
couple of items to review today. one of those is the transition has been
kind of underway for the VC API spec. So we'll go over kind of what that
looks like. and then there are a couple of PRs that we could go over on the
call today.

Manu Sporny: so those are the highlevel things that we could discuss and
then there's some issues that we can potentially get into after that we
have not categorized yet. other things is we might check in on people based
on how their pull requests are going and things of that nature. and we
might take a look at some of the effort high items and see if it's worth us
doing those. reminder that the call is, recorded and transcribed. and, if
you're not okay with that, let us know. all right. Any other updates or
changes to the agenda before we get started today?
00:05:00

Manu Sporny: All right. if not, let's jump into it. earlier today, the call
for final specification commitments went out to the mailing list. So, I'm
going to share my screen to show what those kind of look like. there are
these emails here call for final specification commitments for and there
are three sM GCS for recognition and verifiable credential barcodes.

Manu Sporny: if you contributed to these documents at all in any way,
please sign up for the intellectual property release for the specs. So
specifically re talk we're on this specification here and I'll put the link
into the chat channel. the specific document where you make the
specification commitment is here.

Manu Sporny: So 297 and really if you raised an issue, commented on an
issue, raised a PR, provided changes to any of those things, if you show up
on this call regularly, please jump to that link and make your commitment
right now. if you did contribute and you don't don't do this it is going to
slow the work we need to kind of move it over. So please do that and to be
explicit. DB has already done this. Dimmitry I know you did this for
another spec but you're probably going to want to do it for this one. Make
sure I've got the right one. Yeah. Be calm.

Manu Sporny: Let's see. Ted, you're gonna want to do this or get your AC
rep to do it. Kyota, you're definitely going to have to do this one. Joe,
you as well.

Manu Sporny: Yes.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: Yeah, this is make your AC rep do it.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: It's not an option if you're not AC rep.

Manu Sporny: So, you're going to have to ping Kingsley to do that.

Joe Andrieu: Yeah, I just took care of mine,…

Joe Andrieu: Thank you for the link.

Manu Sporny: Okay. Thank you.

Joe Andrieu: I did it just now.

Manu Sporny: Thank you. awesome. And thank you,…

Ted Thibodeau Jr: Yeah, could the share type people,…

Manu Sporny: There's the direct link though,…

Ted Thibodeau Jr: editor type people push back onto CISRE or whomever that
it is much easier to get an AC rep to do something if you can give them a
direct link to just click than it is to say get your AC rep to do this.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: It's just is it I don't know…

Joe Andrieu: the fourth one Yes.

Manu Sporny: right? Yes.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: because I'm not an AC rep so I don't know what they see
on that page.

Manu Sporny: It's this link right here, the one I just shared in chat
channel. and…

Ted Thibodeau Jr: And that covers one of the documents,…

Manu Sporny: I'll share it again, but that's the link that you give your AC
rep and they click it and it's a check box and that should work for them.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: Or I wouldn't be surprised…

Manu Sporny: One of the documents. yeah, Ted, you're on each one of these.
You're not on barcodes, I don't think. But Yeah.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: if I won all of them. that's the way I go.

Manu Sporny: So, here's the other link. It's one number apart, but those
two you definitely should do. and barcodes, where is it? It's here. so
barcodes is this one. So it's just those three ones. okay. thank you
everyone. I think let's see. We need to get Patrick to do that. And I think
we should be good.

Manu Sporny: Benjamin is going to be chasing people down to make sure that
we get all the commitments we need before we move these documents over.
Thank you very much everyone for doing any questions on that before we move
on to the next agenda item? All moving on. We do have some PRs largely that
I raised in the last hour. I think Patrick still needs to do a selective
disclosure example.
00:10:00

Manu Sporny: There's a new PR on OOTH scopes and us trying to say stuff
about it. I see Dave, you and Ted have made some comments here. Maybe
vocalize the ones you feel need discussion.

Manu Sporny: Go ahead, Dave.

Dave Longley: Yeah so I don't know…

Dave Longley: how much discussion is needed. I just wanted to draw the
attention to so the example here brought in issuer instance urls and the
way that these scopes work is the paths are off of any particular instance.
So if you want to pin an access token to a particular instance, you have an
option of for example using a jot and expressing that in the audience field
so that the access token is for a specific audience a particular instance
that you're sending it to.

Dave Longley: So I just replaced the two examples that put the instance in
the path instead to use the APIs from I just picked two example APIs from
our spec and use those instead. And then I left a comment about how we
probably should talk about how you can and this is also related to that
issue at the bottom that's about 10 multi-tenant environments and so on.
you can use the audience token to solve for some of those use cases. And so
we should probably talk about how you can do that.

Manu Sporny: Got it. Thank you. That is very helpful. yes, I was shooting
in the dark here based off of what I saw on the VC test suite
implementation URLs. good and I will update it with those changes. so we'll
add these two to the batch and…

Dave Longley: I don't know if there's a reference to absolute path. I don't
know if that is sort of erroneous if you have a path that occurs before
where these paths apply if you're using instances.

Manu Sporny: I think for the BNF it's fine. because it just has to do with
the BNF.

Manu Sporny: hold on one sec. let me get this in there and then we'll jump
to that. clarify that scopes are per instance. So those are applied and
then we do need to rework the PR. So the thing that you are do we not have
preview on this repo? I guess That is not good. So you are talking about
this bit right here. And path absolute in RFC 3986 is about

Manu Sporny: Let me path absolute begins with a slash…

Joe Andrieu: I'm sure

Manu Sporny: but not a double slash. It is not path abt and it's not any of
these other ones. I thought we want everything to start off for slash
thoughts.

Dave Longley: We do we do and…

Manu Sporny: Okay. that.

Dave Longley: if it's just about that then I think it's fine.

Manu Sporny: Yeah, that is all it's And we don't want a completely empty
value.

Dave Longley: That's right.

Manu Sporny: All Good. So, this is probably correct.

Manu Sporny: And then the only two operations are read and write. Is that
correct? you can have others potentially if you want to define them, but
this one we're kind of like

Dave Longley: That's right.

Dave Longley: Yeah, you can model everything just using read and write.
That doesn't preclude someone from doing whatever they want. but this is
what's recommended.

Manu Sporny: And then I was guessing on all this stuff, but it's basically
anything that has the path prefix or any subpath thereof or…

Dave Longley: That's right.

Manu Sporny: further path. I couldn't figure out the right way to say so
any path containing the provided path as a prefix. It's the best I could do
for now.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: I'll take a look.

Manu Sporny: If you can do your magic and figure out a way of making that
more concise, please help. thank you. I think that's it. The only other bit
was this bit down here, but I'll try and rework with this. I have to go and
read about John's audience thing and see if there's any weirdness there. I
think that's this PR. And if we merge this, that should address issue 521.
which Coyote, you raised that. Do you feel I know you probably haven't had
a chance to read this PR yet, but is this the kind of guidance you're
looking for? it's got to be kind of in this format. This is what read and
write do do. Here are some examples.
00:15:00

Kayode Ezike: Yeah. Yeah.

Manu Sporny: And then beware of overly broad scopes.

Kayode Ezike: This is perfect. Next

Manu Sporny: Great. yes.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: Can you guess the link to that chunk that you want me to
look into the chat?

Ted Thibodeau Jr: Let's put in an open tab and get to it later today.

Manu Sporny: One second. That is there.

Manu Sporny: That hopefully highlights the right bit for you. All right.

Ted Thibodeau Jr: Yep. Thank you.

Manu Sporny: Anything else on issue 614 before we move on? All right. next
PR is the ability for accepted issuers to include verifiable recognition
credentials. noting Ted that you had a suggestion to rename the type of
credential elsewhere and we just renamed the spec. There's still a bit of
jello that we're working with here, but basically this says the accepted
issuers can now contain an optional array of items specifying accepted
issuers or lists that contain accepted issuers for the requested credential.

Manu Sporny: So basically that means you can list a verifiable recognition
credential that in itself contains a list of acceptable issu issuers or the
verifier. I also threw this in. I don't know if we want that, but that's I
think valid as well if you hate DIDs and don't want to use VRC's. go ahead,
Dave.

Dave Longley: We had previously said that there's a recognized in property
and this looks like it's just dropping an object at the top level not
listing.

Manu Sporny: Yes, my notes had and…

Dave Longley: So there's some changes

Manu Sporny: my notes might have been wrong on this. My notes had that we
would do this or we would do this as an alternate

Dave Longley: Yeah, we need to fix that. I think accepted issuers would
either be a string which is syntactic sugar for a object that has an ID of
an issuer and maybe other issuer fields. And then one of an object can have
the property recognized in…

Dave Longley: which is where you would put the VRC. C.

Manu Sporny: …

Manu Sporny: let me hold on one second. You zigged when I thought you were
going to one sec. So, these are accepted issuers field.

Dave Longley: those two the first example.

Dave Longley: Yeah, go ahead and can make whatever

Manu Sporny: I'm sure example and…

Manu Sporny: then yes example and then yeah, green.

Dave Longley: an object with an ID that has that one of those properties in
it or one of those values. You can want to pick another color, you could,
but it's probably better to do it like that. Yep. And…
00:20:00

Manu Sporny: Yeah.

Dave Longley: then instead of using the ID property of the issuer, you can
use the recognized in property of the issuer and put the other text you
have on the screen.

Manu Sporny: So that is this correct?

Dave Longley: Yeah, that's right. Yeah, that looks right. And that
consistently makes it an array that's always an object. it's always each
element of the accepted issuers field.

Dave Longley: It is something that describes an issuer. Either it's the
identifier for it or an object that has properties about the issuer either
the ID or recognized in the future maybe other fields.

Manu Sporny: got it.

Manu Sporny: Okay, makes sense. I can make those updates. there we go. And
call. Modifications need to be made for allowable values that match the

Manu Sporny: So, that'll be changed. got to find a better way to describe
things here. It's a lot of text that's hard to read.

Dave Longley: Yeah, there might be a key in describing it as either an
identifier of an issuer or…

Dave Longley: an object that provides fields about the issuer for matching.

Manu Sporny: Yeah, I think we've got other kind of sub object examples and…

Manu Sporny: other specs that I might be able to pull from. Okay, so that
is that. All right.

Manu Sporny: any other kind of comments, concerns about 6:15. all right.
that's that PR. at this point I think we can switch over to doing issues.
and let's pick some issues that are not categorized yet.

Manu Sporny: so that one, and I think all the other ones, have stuff. All
right. issue 596, consider defining non-normative workflow processing
algorithms. Dave, you started writing a bunch of stuff down here, which is
great. Ted's made some suggested changes, which I think you applied. What
do we need to move this forward?

Dave Longley: So we discussed this one on a previous call just briefly. I
think probably all we need to do is mark what level of effort it is. the
general idea here is to give people advice. We can decide if we want it to
be non-normative. But to give people an algorithm that they could follow
for implementing workflows that work across multiple protocols.

Manu Sporny: I'm going to suggest we do non-normative algorithm to start
error needs to be raised to give people a non-normative algorithm follow is
it agnostic to the credential format

Dave Longley: a format and protocol. all it does is it is only specific to
walking through the steps of a workflow. you can attach any different
protocol to it and that is certainly the aim that has been proven out with
using the VCOM exchange delivery the simple stuff we have it's also been
proven out with oid for VCI and…
00:25:00

Manu Sporny: Great.

Dave Longley: oid for VP those work against this algorithm …

Manu Sporny: But which version of Draft 1810 111.

Dave Longley:

Dave Longley: if you want to know it works with Draft 18.

Manu Sporny: No, sorry.

Dave Longley: I know.

Manu Sporny: Just speak.

Dave Longley: OD for VP 1.0. OAD for VCI draft 13. Some combinations of
those. and it looks like it will also be working with OID for VCI 1.0, Now
potentially 1.1

Manu Sporny: Thank you for bleeding on that altar for all of us. hey Patrick

Patrick St-Louis: Yeah, just had something to deal with. A little emergency
today, so I'm a bit late to the call. I totally slipped off my mind. if so,
we phrase it that we are agnostic to the protocol, but now we're getting
into this discussion of which version of the protocols. Is that really
agnostic or does it sound like it's not really agnostic and it's actually
going to need some custom integration for different protocol versions?

Dave Longley: It's still agnostic. I was just acknowledging that the way
that this is written has worked in practice with several different
protocols, which is just some evidence that it's probably pretty good.

Patrick St-Louis: Yes. Okay.

Dave Longley: In terms of being agnostic to those,…

Dave Longley: you can never fully know what any protocol is going to do.
and so, I'm just trying to be transparent with what I know that it happens
to already work

Manu Sporny: Yep. Last one to that.

Manu Sporny: And I'm happy to hand the call over to you, Patrick, at this
point if you'd like. we are going through issues and just the ones that
don't have categorizations on them yet. So, for this one, an app needs to
be raised. and I'm pretty sure it's probably going to be a cut and paste
job, at least in the first pass until we get the PR raised. the text above
my cut.

Manu Sporny: Go ahead, Nate. Yep,…

Nate Otto: Not sure my microphone's working right.

Manu Sporny: it is.

Nate Otto: It is.

Manu Sporny: Can hear you.

Nate Otto: I was just wondering what are our options when it comes time to
opening a PR on this one for where this text will go. this is long text and
we're saying it's non-normative. we largely do just have one big
specification document, but I wonder if it would be possible to split some
guidance sections like this especially stuff that's non-normative, out into
a second document just to be wary of having a very heavy scroll for folks
trying to read the main stack.

Manu Sporny: Yes, plus one to that. I think the group has already said we
think it might be possible to split some bits of, VCOM specific I was
actually looking at doing just that earlier today. specifically around
looks like I'm hitting 32 gigs of browser memory usage. everything's
slowing down. there are things like these complex examples here that I
think we can clearly pull out, right? Tons and tons of scrolling.

Manu Sporny: And then there is a suggestion that we would compress these
giant tables. Respec OAS gets a feature to compress them down. That should
have the size of the spec just by doing those two things based on some
preliminary estimates I looked at earlier today. go ahead Dave.

Dave Longley: Yeah. While we figure out how to appropriately make a
supplementary example slash helper document thing,…

Dave Longley: I guess in the meantime we could just put something like this
in another appendix. Does that

Manu Sporny: Ye. Yeah.

Manu Sporny: Yeah. I would imag Yeah.

Manu Sporny: that's what I was expecting is to not block PRs being raised
just to put all this stuff in a pen in an appendix and maybe that's what
one of the things we do is we just start moving everything that we feel is
not critical to the main spec into appendices and then in one big swoop
move all of those appendix appendices into a implementation guide or
they're usually called implementation guides All right, seeing thumbs up
from Nate and a couple other people. So, let's see. These be cut and pasted
into a PR that goes into an appendix which then probably be moved into an
implementation guide.
00:30:00

Manu Sporny: Okay, I am going to say that this is a loweffort thing because
Dave already wrote all the text that we probably need to move and I'd
suggest it's ready for PR. Does anyone want to take this one? Going once.
Going twice.

Patrick St-Louis: I'll take it.

Manu Sporny: Go ahead, Patrick. Awesome.

Patrick St-Louis: You give it to me.

Manu Sporny: All right, that is that one. Thank you for volunteering,
Patrick, do you want to take over at this point?

Manu Sporny: Do you want me to keep going? I can screen share, you can talk
through. What do you want to do?

Patrick St-Louis: I'm happy…

Patrick St-Louis: if you want to keep going just for the rain of this call
today. seems like we're already on a trajectory here.

Manu Sporny: Okay, we'll do. all next item that is not categorized is issue
600. Add a multi-step workflow example with branching steps generated from
step templates. this is an example of something that would go in this
implementation guide. I think what do we need here?

Manu Sporny: I think we would

Dave Longley: I think we need an example and…

Dave Longley: that's probably something I could do when I get around to it.
of course, if somebody else wants to come up with an example first, feel
free.

Manu Sporny: All Does anybody else want to take a shot at doing an example
for this one?

Kayode Ezike: I can take a stop. Okay.

Manu Sporny: Thank you very much, and then what is this? I mean it is high
effort I think. all so we will wait for you to produce one here and then
We'll talk about it and then maybe move it to when we feel it's ready to
go. All right. next item, improve the UX around the OAS output in the main
specification. This does have to do with the reduction the collapsible
things. looks like Nate, you wrote quite a bit here. Go ahead, Coyote.

Kayode Ezike: I didn't realize that there was a issue for this but I've
started working on this. so basically the schema collapsibility where
you're able to view or collapse it based off of a few new fields for
collapsability and collapsed and with backwards compatibility meaning that
it wouldn't impact existing specs that use the version of respspec but I
haven't had a chance to read any of this so maybe I should also look
through what Nick wrote here. Go ahead, mate.

Nate Otto: do please read it my beautiful text but I was just thinking
about this issue right after our last call and figured I'd write some stuff
down. It is just optional context absolutely no requirements in here.

Manu Sporny: This is great.

Nate Otto: thoughts about the potential difficulties of different options
of serving this request.

Manu Sporny: Thank you very much, for writing your thoughts down here.
that's all super helpful stuff. And thank you, Coyote, for taking the
initiative and trying to address this issue. Sounds like we're on a good
trajectory for this one. So, let's say Cody, I'm just going to just assign
you because you are already working on it. and this is a high effort task.
go ahead Coyote.
00:35:00

Kayode Ezike: Yeah, one thing I wondered is should these be added to the
respect spec instead…

Kayode Ezike: because of the fact that they're going to require changes in
that repo or are they supposed to be added here instead? Because I was
wondering the same thing as I was

Manu Sporny: respspec OAS.

Manu Sporny: So we want this feature. So a couple of things about respspec
OAS, it's a horrible spaghetti code mess because we've just been adding to
it and not haven't refactored it yet. So if you see something in there,
Coyote, where you're like, I hate this thing and I want to refactor it,
please feel free to do that. two, we shouldn't worry too much about
backwards compatibility because we will make a new release and when things
pull in respec, they pull it in by semantic version. So everything that's
using respecas is locked to a very specific release of respspec OAS. So you
shouldn't be able to break anything that's out in the field anymore. so
don't worry too much about backwards compat. and you anything that you do
it should go in the respect thing.

Manu Sporny: it is possible to mess with it in the VCOM spec itself but
let's try to do a general feature because I expect that this VCOM anam was
an experiment to see if W3C could do API specs it looks like the answer to
that is yes which means we may want to put other API specs through W3C and
respspec OAS might help other groups to do that. And so giving everyone a
generalized feature to do this kind of collapsing I think would be a good
thing.

Manu Sporny: Yeah,…

Kayode Ezike: Yeah, that makes sense.

Kayode Ezike: I guess I was referring more so to the actual issue should we
be actually creating those issues in that spec in that repo or I guess is
it okay to just leave it here?

Manu Sporny: it's open source we don't have to make things more difficult
than we need to.

Manu Sporny: So, I mean, if it would help you to create issues and whatever
in that other repo, feel free. But if you just crank the code out in a
couple of days or a week or two, that's fine, too, I think you've got buy
in from all of us to make a concerted attempt and then we'll take a look at
it.

Kayode Ezike: That's good. Thanks.

Manu Sporny: All And thank you again for taking that that's that item. and
that is in process. let me make sure that we write down Let's see. I has
started to refactor respect OS to mean some subset of these features is on
it and we'll review this issue once when it tells us that he has something
to look

Ted Thibodeau Jr: Hello.

Manu Sporny: All right. That's that item. Moving on. is there anything else
that folks want to talk about that issue? Ted, you said hello. I don't know
if you knew you're not muted. that's that All Issue 583 add optional result
property to element in issue requests. go ahead Dave

Dave Longley: There's two pieces to this. the first one is what I talk
about in the opening issue or opening post. it should be possible for you
to design a workflow where you can indicate this is in some implementations
but we should put it in the spec that you can indicate that you would
prefer a credential to be stored into a variable in the workflow rather
than just directly always delivered on a given step. that allows you to do
a number of different things. one of the things you can do is save the
result of the issuance into your exchange state and a coordinator can pull
that down and send it or do whatever they want with it with whatever
protocol or delivery mechanism they want to.
00:40:00

Dave Longley: and you can do something in a subsequent step with the
credential including deliver it or use it as an input to another
credential. there's interesting ways you can combine this and so what is
suggested here is to add a property to u the issue request object where you
can specify where you would like the result to go if you don't want it to
be just immediately delivered. And the way you specify that is the same way
that we do that with at least one other thing in the spec today where we
indicate the name of a variable where you would like to save the result and
we do that with the authorization request for oid for VP today. And so this
suggests we do it the same way.

Dave Longley: And the second piece of this is I noticed that I don't think
we have a sufficient text around where we talk about create a authorization
request parameter. it's insufficient because we only talk about we say you
can give this a that the text is not very clear about what that name means
that it can be a variable name and it's also not clear that you could use a
JSON pointer to put the variable somewhere else in the overall variable
structure. So you don't have to make a top level property.

Dave Longley: So when we put the text in about adding this result property
we should clean it would be nice if we had a single place to talk about how
this kind of feature works so that people could use it in other places if
they wanted to. The general idea is you can specify something in a workflow
that says use this find this other variable here. hopefully that made sense.

Manu Sporny: Right, Nate.

Nate Otto: What's just very briefly if I could ask about the way that this
might work. What would be the consequence if a server did not support this
request and ignored it?

Dave Longley: So if you have a workflow service and you've designed a
workflow and that workflow service does not support this feature, your
workflow would presumably deliver the credential in this step rather than
writing it into a variable.

Nate Otto: Okay, thanks.

Manu Sporny: All and I think that at least that made sense to me, ve.
meaning what needs to be done here. feels ready for PR as well. does anyone
want to take this one? Go ahead, Parth. Okay,…

Parth Bhatt: I can take that one.

Manu Sporny: thank you very much. it wants us to assign you. Great. Thank
you, for taking that one. this is feeling increasingly like GitHub actions.
I'm not saying it's the same thing clearly, Because GitHub actions lets you
just execute arbitrary code along a bunch of steps and things like that.
I'm wondering and it's not a standardized thing, It's just the GitHub
engineers just built whatever they needed to support their use cases.

Manu Sporny: But I'm wondering if there is something reusable there. they
do break it down into steps. I think you can have substeps in each step,
but then they break it down into direct commands you're running or
environment variables you're setting. And this very much feels like the
GitHub actions environment variable management stuff. step what are those
called? Artifacts, right? This is an artifact step. go ahead Dave.
00:45:00

Dave Longley: I agree with all that. if I think there's a lot of these
sorts of things out there in the environment and there is not a single
standard from which anyone can draw and I think we'd probably be borrowing
too much trouble from the future to try and pull that out and make that a
separate thing. and it might be something we would look into for VCOM 2.0
know where you could specify your workflow using some other cool standard
that has maybe come into existence by then.

Manu Sporny: Yeah, plus one of that. Go ahead, Dmitri.

Dmitri Zagidulin: I agree with Dave. and furthermore, the less we do that
gets us closer to GitHub actions and special purpose task syntaxes, the
better. at best and I don't even think we need that but at best we should
have something lightweight like web hooks or stored procedures that app
developers can deal with not in our data

Manu Sporny: Think I would love if you elaborated more on that, Dimmitri,
but go ahead, Nate, and then we'll come back to Dmitri.

Nate Otto: I think just briefly passion in putting a whole bunch of stuff
in this area into the spec expecting someone to offer a arbitrary code
execution environment just in order to offer an exchange server. I think it
would be nice to just enable a class of Exchange server to be pretty simple
so that it's pretty easy to implement and doesn't require adding a whole
lot of features like this. So I would probably defer to leaving it out and
allowing us to experiment with the 1.0 and considering what the 2.0 volumes
into that.

Manu Sporny: Plus one.

Dmitri Zagidulin: Yeah. And my elaboration is…

Manu Sporny: That's okay.

Dmitri Zagidulin: what Nate said.

Manu Sporny: All Sounds good. I'm glad we discussed that. and the general
path forward is we're going to put in the features that we are definitely
seeing we need and then we're going to see where some of these other
systems that are doing workflows and steps and things like that go and then
we'll figure out if we need to refactor when we do the 20 work which is
going to be in many many years from now hopefully. okay that's a sign.

Manu Sporny: Thank you, moving on to the next one. I think we can do one
more. add a verifiable presentation option to explicitly express a VP to be
used in a step. do we have enough for a PR here? Go. Nate, was that your
previous hand or new hand?

Nate Otto: Maybe It's like

Manu Sporny: Okay, thanks. go ahead, Dave.

Dave Longley: Yeah, I think this is probably low effort. It's just another
property and we just have to have some good text to go along with it that
you can put into a step. All this does is it gives you the ability to
specify a VP that will be sent in a step. this gives you some interesting
power. First you could just put a whole VP And that you put that into a
workflow. You could provide it as a variable from a coordinator and that's
what will be sent. It allows you to do maybe some more interesting
businessy things on your coordinator side.

Dave Longley: you can also put in a VP that has some set of VCs that were
issued through some other process and then issue additional VCs into that
VP during a step. So it lets you do some interesting things and makes it a
little bit more compositional. but this PR is just put the variable there
and say what you can use it for.

Manu Sporny: I'm saying effort low, ready for PR. does anyone want to take
this one? Arth, I don't know if that was a yes, I'll take it or…

Parth Bhatt: Yes, I'll take it.

Manu Sporny: that was a thanks for appreciate it. All right. I think that's
that item 53. We could do another one. and no, we can't because we're out
of issues. I think we have wait a sec. they've got people assigned to them.
interaction scheme registration.
00:50:00

Manu Sporny: That might take a little bit.

Dmitri Zagidulin: I've got a question.

Manu Sporny: Yeah. do you mean by signing?

Dmitri Zagidulin: Has the signing request issue been categorized or did
that make it in

Manu Sporny: No. I don't think it thought we raised an issue for that. This
is like I want you to sign this thing.

Dmitri Zagidulin: This is an older one.

Manu Sporny: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Manu Sporny: Yeah. Sliding request.

Dmitri Zagidulin: Yes. And we had a discussion with Dave is very wary of
it, but I just want to make sure that I didn't get lost in the I think.

Manu Sporny: This one 48.

Dmitri Zagidulin: Yeah, I think that might be it. Yes. Okay,…

Manu Sporny: It's got a high effort needs discussion enhancement label on
it and it is not closed.

Dmitri Zagidulin: Sweet.

Manu Sporny: So we are tracking it.

Dmitri Zagidulin: Okay. Yay.

Manu Sporny: All right. I think, that is the call today. Thank you everyone
very much for participating and volunteering and taking part in the
discussion. reminder to get anyone of that has contributed to the BCOM spec
to sign that IPR agreement. If you need to poke your AC reps, please do so.

Manu Sporny: and we will try to get this transferred over to the VCWG as
quickly as we can. Brent did mention that, this specific call, we're
probably going to keep exactly where it is, same bat channel, and then it's
just going to change the same location. We'll just change into a VCWG call
starting April 1st. which is a great day to switch into a working group
mode. Okay, that's it. Thanks everyone. Have a great rest of your week.
We'll chat again next week. Ciao.
Meeting ended after 00:52:48 👋

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