Minutes for VCWG telecon 18 September 2018

available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2018/09/18-vcwg-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, Ted!

Kazuyuki

---

   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                    Verifiable Claims Working Group

18 Sep 2018

   [2]Agenda

      [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2018Sep/0004.html

Attendees

   Present
          Dan_Burnett, Bohdan_Andriyiv, Chris_Webber,
          Clare_Nelson, Tzviya_Siegman, Matt_Stone, Alex_Ortiz,
          Michael_Lodder, Bob_Burke, Yancy_Ribbens,
          Benjamin_Young, BrentZ, Daniel_Hardman, David_Chadwick,
          Kaliya_Young, Lovesh_Harchandani, Ted_Thibodeau,
          Tim_Tibbals, Kaz_Ashimura

   Regrets

   Chair
          Dan_Burnett, Matt_Stone

   Scribe
          TallTed

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Agenda review, Introductions, Re-introductions
         2. [5]Assign owners to unassigned issues
         3. [6]Review TPAC agenda working copy
         4. [7]Most stagnant issues
     * [8]Summary of Action Items
     * [9]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

Agenda review, Introductions, Re-introductions

   <scribe> scribenick: TallTed

   burn: the usual administrivia; review TPAC draft agenda; review
   stagnant issues; review pull requests...

   drabiv: Bohdan Andriyiv new to this call, has been in CCG for a
   while

   burn: no open actions... on to unassigned issues

Assign owners to unassigned issues

   <burn>
   [10]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&
   q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+no%3Aassignee

     [10] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?utf8=✓&q=is:issue+is:open+no:assignee

   [11]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/234 - comments
   on terms of use

     [11] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/234

   DavidC: will take 234

   [12]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/233 - gap
   analysis

     [12] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/233

   tzviya: created #233 with Joe to raise group awareness

   burn: any volunteers to shepherd Gap Analysis?

   stonematt: best if folks familiar with the tech named in #233
   could do this

   DavidC: has some familiarity, would work with someone

   stonematt_: will also help

   [13]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/231 - context
   out of date

     [13] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/231

   cwebber2: was doing implementation based on data model,
   realized some things were out of date, can give this a shot
   over next couple weeks

Review TPAC agenda working copy

   <burn>
   [14]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aYodpYXQg_C9zn3HcNQ
   oMN2A_ESsArJaA4jl3x0cahE/edit#gid=975531401

     [14] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aYodpYXQg_C9zn3HcNQoMN2A_ESsArJaA4jl3x0cahE/edit#gid=975531401

   stonematt_: we're looking at "2018 Schedule Suggestions" tab
   ... everything here came from the group; daniel and I laid
   things out as rough first thought
   ... we do have some fully open slots, and some time set asides
   for PRs later in the week
   ... no confirmation from PING yet

   DavidC: there's been no progress with PING yet, just their
   general "yes, we'll give you feedback" which feedback hasn't
   arrived yet
   ... will ping PING again, possibly with a draft of their
   response for them to just sign off on -- or argue with

   burn: any volunteers to help DavidC with that draft?

   ClareNelson: will help

   TallTed: hopefully the draft response will get a quick pass by
   this group before it goes to PING

   <cwebber2> I'm actually nervous about signing off on a
   same-origin policy... I'm not sure there's any reason VCs need
   to be restricted to any origin

   <DavidC>
   [15]https://www.w3.org/TR/security-privacy-questionnaire/

     [15] https://www.w3.org/TR/security-privacy-questionnaire/

   cwebber2: nervous about signing off on a same-origin policy...
   this seems very protocol-ly
   ... every LD system has to pass data along, not sure how
   same-origin will increase security of this system

   DavidC: this is more privacy than security. using pair-wise
   identifiers helps reduce the concern. "global ID" use would be
   problematic.

   <Zakim> ClareNelson, you wanted to say Threat Model discussion

   ClareNelson: unable to attend TPAC, still interested in
   contributing on "Threat Model/Trust Model/Security"
   ... see draft outline of interactive session at
   [16]https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/153XarXO1RLQrwoseuFd
   qiI--EeDc8bo7O73r2aLOeF8/edit#slide=id.p1

     [16] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/153XarXO1RLQrwoseuFdqiI--EeDc8bo7O73r2aLOeF8/edit#slide=id.p1

   stonematt: webex or other telecon possible?

   ClareNelson: yes, that's possible

   <ClareNelson>
   [17]https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/153XarXO1RLQrwoseuFd
   qiI--EeDc8bo7O73r2aLOeF8/edit?usp=sharing

     [17] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/153XarXO1RLQrwoseuFdqiI--EeDc8bo7O73r2aLOeF8/edit?usp=sharing

   DavidC: given recent discussion levels of delegation,
   attenuation of rights, and related -- this might need some f2f

   stonematt: "other topics" list is also on the gsheet, as time
   allows

   burn: last call for current TPAC agenda thoughts ...

Most stagnant issues

   <burn>
   [18]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Ai
   ssue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc++-label%3Adefer+

     [18] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?utf8=

   burn: we did talk a bit about #93 (JOSE/JWT VCs) last week,
   without significant progress

   stonematt: this needs some group work, as it's a
   Charter-related question

   <kaz> [19]issue 93

     [19] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/93

   burn: it's on the "other topics" list for TPAC

   [20]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/162 - WebAuthn
   with VCs

     [20] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/162

   burn: waiting on dlongley ... will ping him

   stonematt: also on the list for WebCommerce joint session

   [21]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/47 - "3 types
   of claims"

     [21] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/47

   burn: pinged joe and ChristopherA in July ... no update since

   [22]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/187 - travel
   use case

     [22] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/187

   stonematt: on todo list, will bump it up

   [23]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/204 - delegated
   authz & vc distro

     [23] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/204

   burn: can cwebber2 summarize status?

   cwebber2: crux is again whether VCs are an authorization
   protocol. if yes, then we should have delegation, trust model,
   etc., with 100% trust path. if no, then <100% trust raises
   other issues.

   <bigbluehat> current trust model text in the spec
   [24]https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/#trust-model

     [24] https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/#trust-model

   stonematt: line between protocol and data model is the hard
   part, again, still

   <Zakim> cwebber, you wanted to mention that's why this and
   capabilities *aren't* equivalent

   cwebber2: authzn should probably be removed to another layer

   burn: last minutes of call... TPAC time will be set for
   protocol/authzn discussion

   adjourned

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [25]scribe.perl version
    1.152 ([26]CVS log)
    $Date: 2018/09/21 10:29:40 $

     [25] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [26] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Friday, 21 September 2018 10:33:46 UTC