- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 01:29:46 +0900
- To: public-vc-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2018/10/02-vcwg-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, Dave Longley!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Verifiable Claims Working Group
02 Oct 2018
[2]Agenda
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2018Oct/0000.html
Attendees
Present
Dan_Burnett, Matt_Stone, David_Ezell, Clare_Nelson,
Ganesh_Annan, Greg_Natran, Oliver_Terbu, Dave_Longley,
Manu_Sporny, Chris_Webber, Adrian_Gropper,
Ted_Thibodeau, David_Chadwick, Kaliya, Ken_Ebert,
Yancy_Ribbens, Bohdan_Andriyiv, Lovesh_Harchandani,
Kaz_Ashimura, David_Lehn
Regrets
gkellogg
Chair
Dan_Burnett, Matt_Stone
Scribe
dlongley
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Agenda review, Introductions, Re-introductions
2. [5]Assign owners to unassigned issues
3. [6]Recruit TPAC Discussion Leads
4. [7]Data Model PR review
5. [8]AOB
* [9]Summary of Action Items
* [10]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribenick: dlongley
Agenda review, Introductions, Re-introductions
burn: There are no action items today. We'll skip that. We'll
do our typical review of unassigned issues, just one new issue.
The main two topics will be TPAC agenda, specifically with an
eye for a lead for all discussion topics and then to go through
PRs.
... We've had a slowly increasing list of PRs that need to be
resolved, then an update on our test suite if we can get an
update there.
... I believe we have one new person on the call today. Oliver,
can you introduce yourself?
Oliver: I'm Oliver, I work for Consensys, uPort, I met a few of
you at RWoT and I'm joining these calls to make sure uPort
aligns with the VC data model and stuff you're standardizing,
glad to be here.
Assign owners to unassigned issues
<burn>
[11]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&
q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+no%3Aassignee
[11] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?utf8=✓&q=is:issue+is:open+no:assignee
burn: The new issue we have is:
[12]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/237
[12] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/237
burn: Basically, this was in response to our request to try to
understand what it is that has been needed for ZKPs to work
within the VC framework. We've had a hard time understanding
that precisely and this is some info from Mike to figure out
those needs.
manu: I had asked Mike specifically for exact examples of
what's in Indy and that's what he's done in the issue. The good
news here is that we finally have something to work with, the
bad news is that we're going to need a new signature suite to
be written for the Indy-style signatures.
... Now that they'd provided this we know what to put in that
spec and we'll be able to tell whether or not the VC data model
works with what they've provided. The good news here is that I
think it will fit the data model, but it will take several
weeks to work through that stuff. Produce a new spec, do an
analysis on the alignment.
... This is what we've been needing for a while now, so this is
good.
Recruit TPAC Discussion Leads
<burn>
[13]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aYodpYXQg_C9zn3HcNQ
oMN2A_ESsArJaA4jl3x0cahE/edit#gid=975531401
[13] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aYodpYXQg_C9zn3HcNQoMN2A_ESsArJaA4jl3x0cahE/edit#gid=975531401
stonematt: I know Manu and some of the Digital Bazaar team have
had conflicts for the last few weeks so may not be up to speed
with the agenda for TPAC. This is for Thurs/Friday for Oct
25-26. We've highlighted some conflicts that will be for those
at TPAC. We've highlighted a few discussions that we thought DB
might help lead the discussion for.
... Commercial update status and some subelements of the WCIG
Joint session that I know Manu has responded to. We're looking
for you guys to take those or not so we know if we're covered.
... Terms of Use/Rights is the third one. David Chadwick
volunteers to help facilitate that discussion and he asked that
Chris Webber assist with that discussion but he wasn't on the
call last week so we made a note to get confirmation from him.
manu: We're canceling having the Veres One meeting, too many
simultaneous meetings going on.
... We might do just a Wednesday breakout session for that.
<cwebber2> I'm happy to help facilitate in the discussion,
though I'm not sure where/when it's taking place?
stonematt: Going back to Thursday then... I see Chris has
volunteered on IRC, we'll make note of that. The 2018
commercial update status is paired with getting to CR. Those
might blend together a little bit. The idea here is to say
what's really happening in the VC space and what's the status
of implementers, etc.
... Talk about rechartering, as well. We'll talk about where we
are today and cover that at 8:30 but we'd like a report on
implementation status.
... Manu did you just volunteer for that?
manu: Yes, I can contact all of the organizations that we know
are using some variation of VCs, they may not be completely
aligned with the spec but there is strong intent to use it and
I can report out on that.
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about test suite + vcs.
stonematt: I think that's right, one of the discussion during
rechartering ... the organic emergence of standards is to have
implementers be active.
manu: Yes, the other challenge we have is that we don't have a
test suite yet we can't definitively say if any companies are
conformant. We're way behind on test suite and implementations
at this point it's going to lead to a charter extension if we
don't get our act together on that. I realize that we're
largely trying to do the test suite implementation, it would be
fantastic to get others to step up and help with that.
... We understand priorities and will try to make progress on
that before TPAC.
stonematt: I'm hearing a call to action for the chairs, maybe
in the next meeting to have a more robust test suite
discussion. Do we need call time for that?
manu: Frankly, we need someone to step forward and help Chris
write the test suite. It's not talking, it's doing. We need
some company here to put a developer forward to help with the
test suite. Digital Bazaar is shouldering that burden, Lucas
has volunteered but we're not seeing progress on the test suite
and it's an existential threat to the group.
stonematt: Is anyone on the call able to say they're in and
will help on the test suite?
Yancy: I'm willing to help with the test suite, I had more time
when I volunteered a week ago but didn't get feedback on
questions I had. It looks like things are clearing up for me
again later this week but it would certainly help to get some
feedback from others who have worked on the test suite.
manu: I failed to mention you had volunteered, thank you,
Yancy. I think you, me, and Chris Webber need to get on a call
and start making progress.
stonematt: That was a nice tangent discussion, that will help
us get going on this really important topic over the next month
while we prep for TPAC, only 3 weeks away, time is ticking
down, can feel pressure of the meeting hovering over us a
little bit.
... We have a couple of open slots, thank you for volunteering
that, Manu.
... On both Thursday and Friday -- we have open slots. The idea
for this is to leave some space for items that might come up
earlier in the day so we can say let's talk about that
later/tomorrow. Gives us a little flexibility to spin off and
do some topic we didn't identify prior to the meeting. Maybe
work on a proposal or do some test suite work that comes up.
... Our intention is to leave flexibility for things like that
in the schedule or accommodate long running discussions.
... If there is anything missing that you'd really like us to
talk about, now is the time to get it on the schedule, please
raise your hand now.
<Zakim> burn, you wanted to sync with David Ezell
burn: We need to sync with David Ezell... David I wanted to
point out that just like you said 10am on Thursday we have a
joint session with WCIG. At 1:30 Allen Brown is giving his
presentation on Digital Contracts. If that time hasn't changed
for you that would be good for us, we'd like to come and join
and listen in.
dezell: Sure, I'll put that one our Wiki. I know Allen is
giving that talk at X9 or at least a rendition.
<burn> our Google agenda is at
[14]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aYodpYXQg_C9zn3HcNQ
oMN2A_ESsArJaA4jl3x0cahE/edit?ts=5b7c306f#gid=975531401
[14] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aYodpYXQg_C9zn3HcNQoMN2A_ESsArJaA4jl3x0cahE/edit?ts=5b7c306f#gid=975531401
dezell: First of all, thank you, Dan and Matt for working that
out with Ian. I really wanted this joint session and having you
step into the breach really got it done. We have a topic which
I think Manu is interested in, I know you've been really busy,
Manu.
... That is Digital Offers -- which is sort of a cross over
between payments/commerce and credentials.
... I think going forward it will be even more important and I
had offered extending out joint meeting for 15 minutes to get
an update.
... From Linda Toth ... but we're only meeting Thursday. We're
compressed down.
... Can we address this topic after the meeting, I'd like to
hear from Manu on thumbs up/thumbs down on that.
... Do you think Digital Offers during that meeting is a
good/bad thing?
manu: If it's Digital Offers and we're talking about getting
the VCWG in there to talk about it that would be a really good
thing. Once this group understands what's happening with
Digital Offers this group will understand why it's really
important. Whereas the WCIG may not get VCs to the degree we
do.
dezell: Can we extend that session by 15 minutes to accommodate
that?
burn: The challenge, if you notice, if that we have 2:30-3 is
completely free but that's when the AC meeting starts and we
expect to lose a good number of people. If the people who are
critical won't be at the AC meeting we can handle that.
... And stretch up to the hour.
dezell: We probably shouldn't take your group time doing this
but we should talk.
stonematt: Let's try to connect outside of the call time. Let's
try to work it out.
dezell: I'll drop our agenda into IRC.
<dezell>
[15]https://www.w3.org/WebCommerce/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_Oct201
8
[15] https://www.w3.org/WebCommerce/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_Oct2018
dezell: Quick question -- Ian said to me that Manu would be
organizing this session, you sound way busier.
manu: Yeah, but I already signed up for it so I plan to
organize it, I have a fairly good idea of who needs to say what
and at what time ... easier to do that than transfer the
knowledge.
dezell: Trying to get you out of the hook.
manu: I appreciate it.
stonematt: One other comment to make is one the status -- we
had a question from Kaz to publish this publicly vs. just in
the google sheet. At some point we'll put it online as HTML.
We'll try to get these questions nailed down so we can publish
it.
... One of the other items we had discussed last week, was the
PING placeholder, any update, David Chadwick?
DavidC: Clare and I went through the answers to PING that I
wrote last year and revised it and sent it to the group. This
week we'd ask you to look at it and we'll sent it to the Ping
group next week.
... I started drafting our response ... while they talk about
the Web privacy model there is no document that exists for that
and they are currently working on it. They've pointed me at two
documents, one is the questionnaire and we've already
referenced that and there is another doc on privacy and we'll
look at that and response.
... So we'd be asking for a meeting at TPAC to finalize this.
<ClareNelson> +1
stonematt: That seems like a reasonable approach, do you know
if they have a similar placeholder in this time slot?
DavidC: When we presented this to them a month ago they didn't
think there was a need for a meeting. But that's possibly
because there's nothing to work on so I'd like to get a solid
draft to them before TPAC so there's something to talk about.
... What I can do is send the plan to them, rather than send
the actual draft, etc. right after this meeting and say the
time slot we're proposing is 11:30 on Friday. And if that's not
convenient to them they could suggest another time slot and we
could move things around.
stonematt: That's a good idea. If we're going to have a no go
on this time slot it would be easier for us to juggle times now
rather than later, I would appreciate that if you don't mind.
DavidC: Ok, after we're finished I'll email them with the plan
and time slot.
stonematt: I think we've all thought that's a good use of our
time previously to meet with Ping
<Oliver> We had no time to consolidate comments to the privacy
document. Are fine by accepting comments until the end of this
week?
<manu> +1, we should meet with PING.
<ClareNelson> +1
stonematt: Everyone still in favor with coordinating face time
with PING?
<stonematt> +1
<dlongley> +1
<stonematt> +1 to coordinate with PING
DavidC: All their efforts are focused on fixing up the
questionnaire and not focused on responding to use and that's
why I'm proposing doing a draft for them.
stonematt: Thanks for that.
manu: David you might have already covered this so I apologize
if this is repetitive, but one of the strongest push backs that
the VC had when we charted was around privacy. That was a big
point made among the membership, I'm concerned that if we don't
get feedback from PING then people could use that as a reason
not to progress the work.
... It may look strange if someone does the privacy review, but
if PING signs off on it, then that's one thing.
... If you've had a talk with PING about that and they will
have their WG come to consensus on it that would be good.
DavidC: Yes, I've had that email with them and I'm a member of
the PING WG anyway.
... They know that's coming.
manu: There may be some folks in that group that are staying
quiet but they disagree, have you gotten them to commit? The
plan is great, but concerned about the commitment.
DavidC: I don't know about those who are being silently
resentful. I have gotten immediate responses for where to go
for privacy docs.
manu: Ok, thanks.
stonematt: Any objections to moving on?
none
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note response to us is important.
Data Model PR review
burn: That was really good, diverged but relevant for the PING
meeting, critical timing wise, thank you everyone.
<burn> [16]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
[16] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
<manu> HUGE thank you to DavidC for pushing the PING review
forward!
<dlongley> +1
burn: Thank you David!
<stonematt> +1 to DavidC for driving the PING
coordination/Discussion
burn: We can walk through them but I want to ask first, Manu,
if there are any we can move quickly.
manu: No, I'm still catching up.
burn: Ok, starting with the oldest:
[17]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/210
[17] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/210
stonematt: I made a couple of edits to the PR, according to the
last notes for approach.
... I think I have responded to the group and there's a couple
of easy conflicts to resolve but as soon as I get thumbs up I
can make those resolutions and pull it in.
... I can make adjustments and pull it in, looking for thumbs
up from the group.
burn: Any comments on this one? Any objections to Matt applying
the final suggestions before pulling it in?
none
burn: Ok, go for it, Matt.
stonematt: I'm on it.
<burn> ACTION: matt will apply David Chadwick's changes and
then merge
Oliver: Is this an optional feature?
<manu> Awesome, thanks so much for pushing this forward
stonematt !
stonematt: It's optional and in the advanced concepts section.
It indicates the type of refresh service and a pointer, can be
in VC or VP and issuer has some control over where to put it
and can of course not include it at all.
burn: Next is:
[18]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/214
[18] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/214
manu: I prefer we come back to it, it changes core language in
the spec and we have to be careful.
burn: next is [19]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/217
... [20]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/227
[19] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/217
[20] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/227
DavidC: I asked for review from Dave and Manu, Dave has given
me his review. I wanted Manu's review so I don't have to do two
updates. So if Manu can review and add any suggestions, I'll do
an update.
<burn> ACTION: manu to provide requested review of 227
manu: I apologize for not getting to it, am setting aside time
over the weekend to review all the PRs.
burn: [21]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/228
[21] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/228
manu: Just wanted to +1 this one.
... Daniel Hardman put in a good, concise PR, this one is
easier.
<dlongley> +1 from me
manu: Modulo some minor editorial things that doesn't change
the meaning of what Daniel is saying.
burn: Does that have to happen before that goes in?
manu: No, we can merge and then we can make those.
burn: Then I will hit the button now.
... [22]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/229
[22] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/229
stonematt: I think one of our last discussions where we spent
time on this ... Chris you had the task for splitting the PR.
cwebber2: Ack, it's on my radar.
discussion about Chris's long range radar
burn: [23]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/230
... Chris, can you look and see what you think might need to
happen?
[23] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/230
cwebber2: Looking...
manu: I think the PR looks good, the only thing I'm concerned
about ... we made this discussion about the difference between
a regular credential and verifiable credential, VCs must have
proofs on them. I think the PR is good and we need to say
VerifiableCredential, but my only concern is that people may
use them on non-proofed data.
... We may need some spec text that says something is typed as
a VerifiableCredential but that doesn't have a proof on it when
verifying.
cwebber2: My main point was that we should be consistent, but
it may be that a more reasonable approach would be to make
everything say "Credential" and it's the existence of the proof
that makes it verifiable.
manu: That was the intent before but the counterargument is
that people have been confused by "Credential". There's this
strong typing argument that David Chadwick has been making that
you dont' have to infer by looking for a proof.
... Maybe we still keep "Credential" in the vocabulary but you
don't expose that. Those types of credentials are a corner case
that we want to support but not something we want to mention in
the specification.
... If we have agreement on that then we pull in the PR.
DavidC: If we look at the actual text... line 1637, you'll see
this is about embedding a VerifiableCredential under a
VerifiablePresentation but it says Credential but I think it
should say VerifiableCredential, that's the one that should
change more than the type. Type credential
PrescriptionCredential seems ok ... the proof will be inside
that outer type.
manu: The proof shows up in both places. The argument I'm
making ... now we're having a discussion about this PR so maybe
it's not ready. We may confuse things by talking in detail
about credentials without proofs on them. Fundamentally most of
the use cases we have aren't about that. Maybe we should make a
conscious decision to talk about doing non-verifiable
credentials but don't provide examples and only talk about
verifiable credentials in the spec.
DavidC: I'd be happy about that. Clare and I had a separate
discussion about the trust model and that entered into the
discussion there ... talking about how the verifier can trust
it. You said some time back about another way to trust and I
said you need a trusted channel then. This wording confused
Clare.
... Maybe we can remove it from the trust model as well.
manu: I wouldn't go that far, we don't want to go into detail
on this.
<Zakim> cwebber, you wanted to ask about does that mean that
the VerifiableCredential must have a proof then
burn: Chris is on queue and let's wrap this up.
cwebber2: I think this needs more work. Various points made
than I was expecting and I'll try to capture them on the PR.
burn: Thanks.
<TallTed> TallTed: it seems to me that a VerifiablePresentation
could well include [Unverifiable]Credential(s) along with
VerifiableCredential(s) ... just to note another wrinkle
burn: [24]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/235
... This requires Tzviya's work ... and she said she'd handle
it before the end of Sept.
[24] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/235
stonematt: There's a PR from her 2 days ago and it might be
that.
manu: I was going to say that the other one had language that
we wanted to pull in. Daniel, I think, didn't quite understand
which part the accessibility folks were talking about and he
addressed something different that should still be addressed
and Tzviya is addressing the other thing. I say keep both PRs
open.
... In the worse case I can pull in Daniel's stuff that we
shouldn't lose.
... Let's keep both open.
burn: Plan is to keep both open.
... [25]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/236
[25] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/236
stonematt: This is ready to go.
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to reject :P
manu: We should do it the other way.
... I think one was wrong but I think you picked the wrong one.
Those of us who do work on airplanes can't do editing if it
isn't relative.
... Switch both to relative, thanks!
stonematt: Ok, I'll do that.
burn: Thanks everyone.
<kaz>
[26]https://www.w3.org/2018/10/TPAC/schedule.html#Thursday
[26] https://www.w3.org/2018/10/TPAC/schedule.html#Thursday
AOB
kaz: Sorry to be late
... I quickly skimmed the minutes and wanted to add some
clarification
... The purpose of my asking for possibility of the HTML
version of the TPAC agenda was that we're encouraged to add a
link to our agenda page from the TPAC agenda page above
burn: Yes, Matt you and I can coordinate offline by email.
... Thanks everyone!
<kaz> [adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: manu to provide requested review of 227
[NEW] ACTION: matt will apply David Chadwick's changes and then
merge
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
David Booth's [27]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([28]CVS log)
$Date: 2018/10/02 16:21:11 $
[27] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[28] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2018 16:30:53 UTC