- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 11:29:08 +0900
- To: public-vc-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2018/12/04-vcwg-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, David Chadwick!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Verifiable Claims Working Group
04 Dec 2018
[2]Agenda
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2018Dec/0000.html
Attendees
Present
Dan_Burnett, Markus_Sabadello, Benjamin_Young,
Tim_Tibbals, Dave_Longley, David_Chadwick, Kaliya_Young,
Ken_Ebert, Manu_Sporny, Matt_Stone, Ted_Thibodeau,
Tzviya_Siegman, Ganesh_Annan, David_Ezell,
Dmitri_Zagidulin, Joe_Andrieu, Kaz_Ashimura,
Mike_Lodder, Brent_Zundel, Oliver_Terbu, Yancy_Ribbens
Regrets
Chair
Dan_Burnett, Matt_Stone
Scribe
DavidC
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Agenda review, Introductions, Re-introductions
2. [5]Unassigned issues
3. [6]Get to CR Schedule Review
4. [7]Initial Consensus vote by WG
5. [8]draft concensus vote
6. [9]Initial Consensus vote by WG
7. [10]Next week's call
* [11]Summary of Action Items
* [12]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<burn> scribenick: DavidC
Agenda review, Introductions, Re-introductions
Unassigned issues
Matt does not believe there are any
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note ongoing bikeshed vote!
<manu> Link to the ongoing bikeshed poll on "Identifier
Registry": [13]https://www.opavote.com/en/vote/4635712146112512
[13] https://www.opavote.com/en/vote/4635712146112512
Manu gave an update on the poll for terminology of the ID
registry
26 (?) people already participated in the poll
<burn>
[14]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&
q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+no%3Aassignee
[14] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?utf8=✓&q=is:issue+is:open+no:assignee
Noone assigned to #253
Get to CR Schedule Review
Noone volunteered, but since it is not important, defer
assignment for now
Initial Consensus vote by WG
At TPAC advised to be early rather than late
and not to ask for an extension if no CR already published
We need to publish by 15 Jan 2019
Can only publish on Tuesdays and Thursdays (providing it is not
a blue moon :-)
We have already had informal reviews from many groups (ex.
security)
People do not like giving them a review document just before
holidays
But two weeks plus holidays is a good strategy to adopt
which makes it next Tuesday, Dec 11
<stonematt> publishing date milestone calculator:
[15]https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/
[15] https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/
This explains the pressure for finishing issues and PRs ASAP
If we can document changes after publication, then this is
acceptable practice
All above said by stonematt
stonematt: if the format changes due to edits after initial
publication, then a new CR will need to be published
<stonematt> what's expected in the "explainer"
<JoeAndrieu>
[16]https://github.com/w3ctag/w3ctag.github.io/blob/master/expl
ainers.md
[16] https://github.com/w3ctag/w3ctag.github.io/blob/master/explainers.md
<Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention requirements update
JoeAndrieu: use cases team have been going through their doc
since the TPAC
... how does the use case and requirements docs fit into the
timeframe
<tzviya> wide review [17]https://www.w3.org/wiki/DocumentReview
[17] https://www.w3.org/wiki/DocumentReview
JoeAndrieu: use cases doc will make changes to data model due
to more requirements on DM
stonematt: the DM CR needs to show that we have met the
requirements
... we need to know how well current DM doc matches use case
requirements
... will talk to JoeAndrieu after this meeting to get details
kaz: need to check implementability of all the mandatory
features in the DM
burn: we have a test suite already
Manu: usually implementations follow the publication of CR and
do not preceed it
kaz: CR entering criteria is generating a list of features as
an implementation plan document, and CR exit criteria is
filling that out as an implementation report with 2 or more
implementations for each feature
burn: we need an implementation doc after the CR is published
<TallTed> [18]https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-overview/
[18] https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-overview/
TallTed: is struggling to see how current DM fits the initial
WG requirements
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that given all of these items,
and given our velocity, next week isn't happening (especially
given the workshop)
TallTed: a lot of work has gone into the the current DM, but I
believe there is still a lot of work to do
... too much to go to CR this week or even next week
Manu: everyone is under pressure, so meeting the suggested
schedule will be very difficult
... we could publish on 15 Jan and give 45 days notice now
... this gives everyone advance notice of our intention, and we
do not anticipate any major changes between now and then
... multiple people are implementing the current DM, so I do
not believe (unlike TallTed) that the current DM is not
implementable
... the working group is working well, the process is something
of a ball and chain
... the current DM is not the final DM, but is it good enough
for v1?
... will the current DM cause any major difficulties to users?
If not, then we should be able to accept the current DM as the
initial version
<Zakim> burn, you wanted to talk about timing and to talk about
process confusion and to question the 15 Jan date and to say no
new features
burn: the major issues are ZKP and JWT
... unfortunately these topics were started late in the cycle
... we will not publish a CR in January if we cannot do a full
review immediately
... up to 6 month extension is relatively easy to get providing
you have already published a CR
... the fact that we already have implementations does not mean
that the current CR is stable
... no new features after CR is published
... so ToU needs to be either resolved ASAP or removed now
<Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to say that revisiting/revising
demands backward-compatibility, so it really has to be more
than "good enough"
TallTed: I do not propose to formally object, but I am
objecting to some of the current spec details
... v1 should be the minimum required to make VCs usable
... it might be 3 to 5 years before the next version is
chartered
... and it might mean that v2 is incompatible with v1
... so v1 will need to fail elegantly with a v2 system
dezell: I chaired schema WG. Getting CR published was
challenging
... as far as I know producing a ruby when a diamond was
promised is OK
... so if the spec if not finished but is going in the right
direction, then AC should approve this
<Zakim> burn, you wanted to ask Ted for the specific pieces he
thinks might need to be left out and to remind people about W3C
Notes
burn: if a feature is not solidly agreed, it can still be
written up in a non-standard WG Note
<TallTed> +1 WG Notes are good things
burn: so if we cannot fully work out an advanced feature, then
putting it in a non-normative Note is one way forward
... TallTed can you say which features you think should be
pulled out?
... ToU is one obvious one to me
Sorry. .... > TallTed
<manu> yeah, +1 to that, TallTed
<manu> ... and was what was intended.
<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to ask if you want me to start
discussion with w3m about possible charter extension (given the
current charter expires at the end of March 2019)
kaz: should I start to talk with the W3C Management about
requresting an extension?
burn: let's talk about that during the VC Chairs call
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that we also have wider review
than we think... that we can share with W3M.
burn: requesting an extension is not so we can relax now, but
rather so that we can finish what we are doing
manu: we have requested very wide ranging reviews, which is
more than a lot of other WGs
... US Federal government has said it plans to use VCs
<burn> agree with Manu. I mentioned at the beginning that I
believe we alreaxdy have very wide review
<burn> And am happy to defend that in a transition call
manu: everything is going well for us, except the W3C timeline
process :-(
draft concensus vote
Initial Consensus vote by WG
burn: who in the working group would object to us publising
what we have today apart from editorial changes?
<oliver_terbu> :)
manu: does this include the pending PRs?
<stonematt> +1 after ZKP, JWT, ToU disposition
<dlongley> +1 after the PRs are in
<manu> +1 after PRs are in
<JoeAndrieu> as long as the PR goes in, I won't object. I would
today. (Btw, David Chadwick approved the PR, so we're just
waiting for Manu)
<oliver_terbu> +1 after ZKP, JWT
<dmitriz> +1
+1 after PRs are in
<JoeAndrieu> -1 without PRs
<ken> +1 after ZKP, JWT, (remove or fix) TOU
<TallTed> -0 because I wasn't prepared for this question as
such. I have concerns, but a reread after PR application may
resolve them.
burn: +1 means I approve publication, -1 I do not
<dezell> +1 with PRs
<manu> ... and we don't have any crazy PRs at this point, IIRC.
<Tim_Tibbals> +1 especially with Added first few examples and
text to data model that highlights zkp #265 PR.
<brentz> +1 after ZKP
Next week's call
burn: who cannot attend next week?
<brentz> cannot attend
<ken> cannot attend
<burn> Lots of cannot attends next week, some unminuted
<oliver_terbu> what about rescheduling?
<Tim_Tibbals> move call?
burn: should we cancel next week?
... if we do not have the current PR editors available next
week then we should cancel
sorry burn-> stonematt
<oliver_terbu> i could also attend the meeting but if the spec
editor is not available, it won't be productive
burn: next week's meeting is cancelled. This gives you an extra
hour to work on the PRs :-)
... the next call will be 18 Dec and this will be the last one
this year
<stonematt> thanks all!
<kaz> [adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
David Booth's [19]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([20]CVS log)
$Date: 2018/12/06 02:27:40 $
[19] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2018 02:30:11 UTC