- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 03:56:43 +0900
- To: public-vc-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2018/10/16-vcwg-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, Matt, Manu and Dave!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Verifiable Claims Working Group
16 Oct 2018
[2]Agenda
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2018Oct/0007.html
Attendees
Present
Alex_Ortiz, Benjamin_Young, Brent_Zundel, Chris_Webber,
Dan_Burnett, Dave_Longley, David_Chadwick, David_Ezell,
Ganesh_Annan, Greg_Natran, Joe_Andrieu, Kaz_Ashimura,
Ken_Ebert, Lovesh_Harchandani, Manu_Sporny, Matt_Stone,
Mike_Lodder, Oliver_Terbu, Ted_Thibodeau, Tim_Tibbals,
Tzviya_Siegman, Yancy_Ribbens
Regrets
Chair
Dan_Burnett, Matt_Stone
Scribe
stonematt, manu, dlongley
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Agenda review, Introductions, Re-introductions
2. [5]Action Item Review
3. [6]TPAC Agenda Schedule Review
4. [7]TPAC Content Review/Discussion
5. [8]Data Model PR review
6. [9]Test Suite Update
* [10]Summary of Action Items
* [11]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
Agenda review, Introductions, Re-introductions
<scribe> Scribe: stonematt
burn: quick look at action items, TPAC agenda, TPAC content, PR
review
any agenda suggestions?
crickets...
burn: any first time participants?
Action Item Review
<burn> [12]https://goo.gl/V4XTBT
[12] https://goo.gl/V4XTBT
burn: none this week.
TPAC Agenda Schedule Review
<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
<inserted> scribenick: manu
stonematt: A couple of adjustments from last week - joint
session was scheduled over formal break.
... only time that they serve coffee -- we don't want people
coffee-less, so moved things around a bit.
... Shifted start time to 8:30am - extra 30 minutes in morning.
break at 10am to 10:15am... then head over to joint session for
75minutes.
... Then discussion about use cases / problem domains - led by
Joe... then lunch.
... Quite a bit of transition time from one room to another
between joint sessions, use cases, and lunch.
... We will get a full hour on use cases, we'll be flexible on
when we go to lunch.
... after lunch, we head back out to Allen Brown's discussion
about digitla contracts... moved claim/subject discussion to
Friday as a result.
... That was an open slot before, that's the net of changes
that we made this week.
dezell: I wanted to thank the WG for being flexible on this,
our joint work is important.
stonematt: one other thing - PING placeholder is still sitting
on Friday time slot... not confirmed yet, but will become open
session if they don't pick that up.
<inserted> scribenick: dlongley
manu: We have a lot of joint meeting time/updating people time.
I'm not seeing too much issue processing, which is fine, but I
was just trying to understand if we're going to do issue
processing. How much are we expecting to do? Are we just
spending most of our time updating the membership on where we
are?
stonematt: I think that's true on Thursday, on Friday ... we
expect problem domains to be a working discussion. Friday will
have terms and rights, zkp spec alignment, so on, those are all
related to issues raised by the group. Last few sessions on
Friday to fill as well, so there will be a bit of a balance.
I'm willing to adjust if you think we're not seeing things we
want to work on there.
<Zakim> burn, you wanted to say that all open slots are for
issue processing
burn: Manu, we very specifically intended for anything left
that is open to be for arbitrary issue processing.
<manu> +1 all sounds great, just wanted to understand the
general "theme"
burn: We tried to take the big issue discussion we knew about
and scheduled them but left the remaining time or just that --
more issue processing.
manu: That's great. The other thing I'm guessing is that having
the prioritized list for processing issues would be great (from
the editors). I will try to create that.
<manu> ACTION: Manu to create a list of prioritized issues for
W3C TPAC processing.
DavidC: On Friday we have a topic on terms of use and rights
... is that the delegation issue or something else? I've sent
some draft slides off to Chris.
stonematt: Context is authorization here -- role of VCs in
authorization. Maybe we should rename that topic as such.
DavidC: I think Terms of Use is a large topic on its own and it
got into authorization and delegation as well and I was
wondering if they should be a separate topic if it's needed.
stonematt: 60 minutes may not be enough time to get through all
that but all appropriate for our F2F. These PRs and issues have
had lots of discussion. We should be open to is first figuring
out what to cover in the first hour and then what to do to
continue the discussion later.
<manu> DavidC: Ok
<Zakim> burn, you wanted to explain 'theme'
<inserted> scribenick: manu
burn: Manu, you had asked for a theme - we were actually
hamstrung a bit - with all the other conflicting meetings, AC
Meetings, coordination w/ WCIG - we ended up needing less of a
theme per day vs. named issues that people were interested in
done ASAP.
... I know it looks themeless and it is to some degree
themeless -- there should be plenty of time left for issue
processing.
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about "close"
<inserted> scribenick: dlongley
manu: I'm wondering if we need to start marking hard
discussions on issues we're going to close. Things we won't
respond to because we're out of time and we need to start
wrapping things up. Prioritizing is good but it has a flip
time, if we don't get to these issues we're going to close them
for this version of the spec. Thoughts on putting aside time
for that?
<inserted> scribenick: manu
stonematt: To clarify that positioning - we'll declare some as
deferred - no objections to that suggestion.
burn: I was going to say something similar - we'll need to call
a halt - nothing new goes in - one way to do that is to look at
what we have tests for.
... Matt and I will talk about this, allocate specific time in
agenda to discuss this... what we may limit. One of the ways we
can do that is to say "anything new has to come with tests" --
that's a strong limiter... we're trying to get to the first CR.
... From that standpoint, we can start being hardnosed
immediately now
... Strong chair suggestions for closing/deferring early.
... That's an important part for what needs to happen at the
F2F meeting.
TPAC Content Review/Discussion
<stonematt> Scribe: stonematt
<burn>
[14]https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uYpGnciqzR3g0cfrWRr
hCoHhqV8VyBxPclqz3co3Oq4/edit#slide=id.p
[14] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uYpGnciqzR3g0cfrWRrhCoHhqV8VyBxPclqz3co3Oq4/edit#slide=id.p
stonematt: I just delete the detail agenda.
... in the slide deck.
... <agree>
burn: status of threat model slide?
BrentZ: I'll copy them in today
burn: test suite update cwebber?
... please add slides. you can tweak them if you need to.
cwebber2: can I link to a PDF?
burn: prefer global deck, but PDF is ok. (better that than
nothing)
... we can also import PPT also
... friday - terms of use and rights
... David, will you work on this?
DavidC: yes, will work with chris on this.
<burn> +1 to summarizing agreements and disagreements
cwebber2: DavidC slides look good as a representation of his
positions. I'll also summarize what the consensus points are
and where the disagreements are. what do you think about this?
... this will help frame the discussion at TPAC
DavidC: sure
burn: reminder that sooner is better. TPAC expects slides
available 1wk ahead of discussion. Our discussion is Thursday,
so this Thurs is key
DavidC: who is Liger?
dlongley: I'm Liger making comments...
<TallTed> it's helpful if you log in to Google before you make
comments...
discussion about google attribution for comments for signed in
and anonymous users
DavidC: PING update - made the request for this time on Friday.
not locked down yet
... haven't finished planning their agenda yet
... PING is focused on the new questionnaire
burn: hopefully they'll be available for a future call, we'll
probably need it
... future of working group charter
... chairs will make a few bullet points to frame the
discussion
... JSON-LD/JWT direction. ChristopherA thought this would be
discussed at rebooting, but it wasn't
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to throw COSE grenade into that
particular discussion -- we did talk about JWT, JSON-LD, etc.
at RWoT7
burn: open timeslot about ecosystems
manu: we did discuss in Rebooting7,
... worked with sovrn and MSFT. have updates for the group
burn: that's good. plenty for this time slot. who can direct
this session and put together a few slides
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note it isn't settled.
manu: just noting that nothing is settled. there are a couple
of camps that aren't supporting the direction. there's a
proposed way forward. reasons that some are or aren't using
JWTs. I should not be the person to direct the conversation
burn: w/out ChristopherA here it's hard to know what the
current status is. there has been some good discussion about
current status and progress. manu would be interesting if you
can open with that update
... chairs will connect with ChristopherA
... manu would you add a placeholder slide to represent the
timeslot of "update" then "discussion"
... rest of time is reserved for open issues
... any comments on deck?
... any concerns getting updates by tomorrow?
<DavidC>
[15]https://support.google.com/docs/answer/2494888?hl=en
[15] https://support.google.com/docs/answer/2494888?hl=en
DavidC: if you invite people by name, they're comments will
show up with proper attribution
Data Model PR review
<burn> [16]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
[16] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
BrentZ: can we start at the bottom?
burn: sure
<manu> [17]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/214
[17] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/214
manu: start w/ PR214
... what do we call the DID ledger? suggested "verifiable data
repository" - lots of discussion. need more people to comment -
at an impasse right now.
... another terminology morass
<manu> [18]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/217
[18] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/217
manu: pr217: [19]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/217
... not much debate at a high level/philosophical level
... some conflicts that need to be resolved
... need final review of images.
... asks lovesh to update images in another PR
... pr227
[19] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/217
DavidC: manu waiting for your review
manu: ok
... pr229 delegation. up to DavidC to allow this language to go
into the spec. if not, we need a counter PR
<manu> [20]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/229
[20] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/229
DavidC: there's a lot of comments on it. I thought this one was
going to be part o the discussion next week
<manu> [21]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/230
[21] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/230
manu: not asking for a big change to the spec. I think this is
ready to go. want to double check with the group before we pull
it in
DavidC: I raised another issue to deal with the difference
between mandatory and optional
manu: can we pull this in and deal with that issue separately?
DavidC: yes
manu: ok, I'll pull it in
... other PRs were pulled in this week.
burn: thank you
Test Suite Update
<manu> manu: Yaaay, Chris Webber for all the very hard work and
amazing progress over the last 2 weeks!!!
cwebber2: things are good. all but 3 tests are implemented.
about to push them out with some documentation. will make
relevant slides for TPAC today
burn: thank you!
... anything else today?
... thank you cwebber2
... can you demo it at TPAC?
cwebber2: I won't be there
manu: Ganesh will be doing the presentation at TPAC
burn: thanks all!
... adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Manu to create a list of prioritized issues for
W3C TPAC processing.
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([23]CVS log)
$Date: 2018/10/16 18:54:06 $
[22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2018 18:57:50 UTC