- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 14:55:19 +0900
- To: public-vc-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2018/09/25-vcwg-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, Dan!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Verifiable Claims Working Group
25 Sep 2018
[2]Agenda
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2018Sep/0006.html
Attendees
Present
Dan_Burnett, Matt_Stone, Ted_Thibodeau, Greg_Natran,
Clare_Nelson, Brent_Zundell, David_Chadwick,
Gregg_Kellogg, Alex_Ortiz, Yancy_Ribbens, Ken_Ebert,
Kaz_Ashimura
Regrets
Chair
Matt_Stone, Dan_Burnett
Scribe
burn
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Agenda review, Introductions, Re-introductions
2. [5]Action Item Review
3. [6]Assign owners to unassigned issues
4. [7]Recruit TPAC Discussion Leads
5. [8]Have we deferred delegation?
6. [9]Data Model PR review
7. [10]Test Suite
* [11]Summary of Action Items
* [12]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribenick: burn
Agenda review, Introductions, Re-introductions
ken: Ken Ebert joining us from Sovrin
Action Item Review
None
Assign owners to unassigned issues
None
Recruit TPAC Discussion Leads
TPAC agenda:
[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: many of our normal attendees are at RWoT, so light
attendance today.
... One topic I want to consider is the focal use case
discussion. It's not on the agenda and we would like it to be.
... also we need discussion leaders for all items
... JoeA asked for Thu for use case review, but that day is
pretty crowded
... any opinions on that? If not, the chairs will work
something out.
... 30 mins for use cases, could do it 2:30 during the AC
meeting time.
<kaz> [14]VCWG registrants
[14] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2018/registrants#VClaims
stonematt: (no comments) chairs will take offline
... now, about discussion leaders. Chairs will get us started.
... We will ask DB to give us an update on commercial status.
We will then meet with Web Commerce about joint interests, and
largely an update from us.
... JWT support plan/trend next.
burn: this will be discussed somewhat at RWoT. May or may not
need much time at TPAC to discuss depending on how it goes.
stonematt: maybe we will only need 30 minutes, but we will at
least want an update. We will wait until next week to finalize
this item.
... Issue #207 (at TPAC). Opens with name of 'claim' and
whether it should be 'subject'. DavidC you are active in this.
<kaz> [15]issue 207
[15] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/207
DavidC: I would be willing to be discussion leader but expect
to be talking with my own opinions quite a bit. What does the
topic chair do?
stonematt: very much like our f2f calls. Maybe a few others
visiting.
... an opinionated facilitator is fine.
burn: it's not really chairing, mainly making sure that the
discussion moves towards a resolution
stonematt: frame discussion, maybe a few slides to get things
moving.
DavidC: yes, I can do that. We want this to work for normal
people and not just experts.
stonematt: Next slot is Digital Contracts. Allen is presenting
in the Web Commerce group and we will join them so we can hear
too.
... Next is threat model. Clare volunteered to help but won't
be there.
<Zakim> ClareNelson, you wanted to say threat model
ClareNelson: If you click on the second tab of the spreadsheet,
row 15 has a link to the draft presentation. Whoever volunteers
will have an easy time :) A nice, exciting session.
... I will be remote but just need someone in the room. Great
opportunity!
stonematt: did you look at this topic in the use cases
document?
ClareNelson: Yes, but I have not incorporated the content into
the presentation. Manu is helping me understand some of that
document.
stonematt: the focal use cases section is fairly complex. We
discuss the threat model there. May be helpful in the
discussion.
ClareNelson: passport topic was very complex.
stonematt: yes. (lists the other focal use cases)
<BrentZ> raising hand
stonematt: Today we want a volunteer interested in
security/threat model to volunteer to lead locally.
<ClareNelson> no problem DavidC
DavidC: didn't have a chance to look yet but will
BrentZ: I volunteer :) and will serve as Clare's local
representative at the meeting.
stonematt: re: presentations, last year we made a Google
Presentation for each day. We will set up that deck and make a
title slide for each section so that you can move your content
in there before the meeting. But keep on with your content dev
for now!
... Next topic is test suite. Chris Webber is at RWoT. We will
probably ask him to lead this but would happily accept another
volunteer
... Friday morning. ToU and rights. We've had much discussion
here. We allocated a full hour (and will be discussing today as
well). This is a topic that could benefit from f2f time. David,
are you interested in volunteering for this as well?
... anyone else?
DavidC: Happy to work with someone else on this.
... Maybe you could ask Chris to join me on this topic as well
so we can do it together.
<scribe> ACTION: Matt Stone to ask Chris Webber if he will work
with David Chadwick on leading the ToU/Rights section.
stonematt: The key thing here is to distinguish between what we
have in scope today (data model) vs. what might be in a future
charter regarding protocol.
... We can definitely stray into the latter area in our f2f
discussion but need to eventually focus.
DavidC: need to define the semantics of a data item.
stonematt: later that day we will talk about rechartering, so
it's expected to talk about future items to some extent.
... Next item is ZKP
BrentZ: I volunteer to lead the discussion on this one.
stonematt: Thank you!
... DavidC or DanB, any update on PING?
DavidC: They have sent out updated version of the privacy and
security questionnaire. They will propose a procedure for how
other groups will interact with them. Namely, fill out their
questionnaire.
... we never sent them our answers to the questionnaire.
(Dan B disagrees)
stonematt: are we/they suggesting we don't have a meeting with
them?
DavidC: I think we should.
... and I will talk with them about it.
... we should all look at the answers I wrote up a few months
ago so maybe we can forward the answers to them next week.
ClareNelson: glad to help Brent with ZKP session.
DavidC: I have the answers locally on my computer. Can send
them out again or post them. Just need ot know where.
burn: I don't think there will be time for review before next
week because of RWoT but we can get reviews of them next week.
DavidC: I will send out the answers I wrote up before by this
weekend. We will plan to send answers to PING in two weeks
time.
stonematt: Next topic is recharter. Maybe we extend, maybe we
recharter, maybe we don't. That's the discussion. Who should
lead?
burn: We should open the discussion as chairs.
stonematt: The remainder of Friday is open issues/PRs/topics.
... Thanks everyone for volunteering!
Have we deferred delegation?
Related issues:
[16]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/labels/Delegation
[16] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/labels/Delegation
stonematt: we may not have everyone on the call today that we
need for this discussion, but let's try.
... I believe we are planning to defer this, but we want to
confirm that. How should we approach this discussion over the
next few months?
... There are multiple items with the Delegation label, and
maybe the decision differs for each
DavidC: question: what does deferred mean? That there's no
mention when the first version comes out?
... anybody can issue anything (any VC). If you create one
you've already done delegation. What does deferred mean?
stonematt: much of the discussion has gone beyond data model
into how it might be used by individuals or computers. That's
more than just verifying the claim. Anything beyond stating a
claim we should stay away from in the data model spec. In the
protocol discusison we can talk about it.
DavidC: But in X.509 cert, it contains a field indicating
whether delegation is allowed or not. If you get the cert as a
user, you cannot delegate if the cert said you couldn't.
<DavidC> The field is basic constraints
stonematt: yes, this sounds like it is still an open issue. We
need a way to resolve this in the current charter. We are not
all aligned here. Today's answer is that we don't know what it
means to 'defer' this topic.
burn: +1
<TallTed> +1 deferral is not yet clear, as the topic definition
is not quite clear...
stonematt: we will put this back on the agenda for next week.
We have some PRs in this space.
Data Model PR review
[17]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
[17] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
<stonematt> [18]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/235
[18] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/235
scribe: PR #235. No one from this PR on the call today.
... looking for ones I think have appropriate attendance to
address today.
<stonematt> [19]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/229
[19] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/229
PR #229: DavidC, have you been following this?
DavidC: yes, but not in the last week.
stonematt: Probably falls into same discussion around
delegation space.
DavidC: yeah, no progress.
stonematt: #228 hasn't been pulled in yet, but should be ready
for editors to merge.
<stonematt> [20]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/227
[20] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/227
stonematt: David on #227 what is the status?
DavidC: waiting for comments from Manu and Dlongley before
revising. Still need Manu's input.
stonematt: we will put pressure on Manu after RWoT
... #217 Lovesh?
<stonematt> [21]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/217
[21] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/217
BrentZ: I can talk with Lovesh on this and #214 to find out the
status. Will have something to report next time.
stonematt: Thanks!
<stonematt> thanks BrentZ !
stonematt: #210 That's mine, and I will work on it this week.
The strategy is to move the refresh service out of the core and
into Advanced Topics.
... that's all the PRs
DavidC: on #210, I suggested some wording that Manu agreed
with. Can you please review and incorporate?
stonematt: Yes, will do.
... I will reach out to you directly with any questions
Test Suite
stonematt: Yancy, are you on the call?
Yancy: Yes. Haven't had a chance to dive into the test suite in
the last two weeks. Will try to this week. Unfortunately I will
not make it to TPAC.
stonematt: we haven't had movement on the test suite for over a
month.
... would love if you could look into it.
Yancy: will do.
stonematt: I think that's it. Any other business for today?
... thanks all. See you next week!
<stonematt> Good bye all!
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Matt Stone to ask Chris Webber if he will work
with David Chadwick on leading the ToU/Rights section.
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version
1.153 ([23]CVS log)
$Date: 2018/09/26 05:51:30 $
[22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2018 05:56:27 UTC