Re: [wbs] response to 'Call for Review: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Charter'

  
Martin,

thank you for your vote. Let me give you some answers to your comments:  

> On 19 Sep 2024, at 02:39, Martin Thomson via WBS Mailer <[sysbot+wbs@w3.org](mailto:sysbot+wbs@w3.org)> wrote:
[…]
>   
> Additional comments about the proposal:  
>   The charter includes this line:  
> 
> > The details of all the entries will have to be updated when the charter is finalized.
> 
>   
> which should disqualify this vote. We abstain on the basis that the list is  
> indeed accurate. Significant changes should cause the vote to be nullified  
> and re-run.  

This comment was probably misunderstandable, for which I have to apologize. The “details” that are referred to in the sentence were exclusively meant to cover the precise references on exclusion drafts and the exclusion period end dates. It so happens that all dates are still correct but, when writing the charter proposal, it was not clear whether new CR snapshots would be published for some items during the charter review, which would have necessitated to change those dates. No other change were planned or intended.

As it stands, the final charter text will contain exactly the same list.

>   
> We understand that the BBS work in the IETF needs to finish before the BBS  
> work can be concluded. Given the churn in that work, the timelines in the  
> charter are likely unrealistic.  

We are still hopeful that the IETF BBS work will go to the final stage soon, in which case there are no problems anymore. But, indeed, this may not happen, and that may mean that the BBS Cryptosuite will remain, alas!, as a CR for a while waiting for the IETF document and review. However, there is no normative dependency in any other specification on the BBS Cryptosuite, i.e., this would not jeopardize the delivery dates of the other documents.

See also [1] for a recent discussion on the WG.

>   
> The “other deliverables” section mentions a number of non-normative  
> documents. The HTTP API seems to be highly normative. This should either be  
> an agreed deliverable or removed.  

This concern was discussed at the F2F meeting in Anaheim[2], and we agreed to remove that reference from the final charter text.

>   
> The added clause:  
> 
> > […], where interoperability can be verified by passing open test suites.  
>   
> should be removed. This sort of loophole only encourages a lack of proper  
> testing.  

This text has been taken over, verbatim, from the official charter template text, see [3], which charters are required to follow as is. I think an issue should be raised in the corresponding repository[4] but the current charter text must remain unchanged.

I hope I have answered all comments.

Sincerely

Ivan Herman

[1] https://www.w3.org/2017/vc/WG/Meetings/Minutes/2024-09-27-vcwg#section4-1
[2] https://www.w3.org/2017/vc/WG/Meetings/Minutes/2024-09-26-vcwg#section1-2
[3]  https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/charter-template.html#success-criteria
[4] https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts

----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43