- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 23:11:08 +0900
- To: public-vc-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2019/06/25-vcwg-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, Amy and Matt!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Verifiable Credentials Working Group
25 Jun 2019
[2]Agenda
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2019Jun/0007.html
Attendees
Present
Allen_Brown, Amy_Guy, Andrei_Sambra, Benjamin_Young,
Dan_Burnett, Dave_Longley, Dmitri_Zagidulin, Ken_Ebert,
Manu_Sporny, Matt_Stone, Ted_Thibodeau, Yancy_Ribbens,
David_Chadwick, Kaz_Ashimura, Adrian_Gropper, Sercan_Kum
Regrets
brent_zundel, tzviya_siegman
Chair
Dan_Burnett, Matt_Stone
Scribe
rhiaro, stonematt
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Describe plan for the call
2. [5]PR announcements
3. [6]Issue lightning round: close the issues we can
4. [7]Test Suite Issues and Discussion
5. [8]Implementation topics discussion
6. [9]General Implementation Topics
7. [10]Implementation Guide
* [11]Summary of Action Items
* [12]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<TallTed> burn - Worth noting -- that was last week's agenda,
misdated. Though it might still be accurate for today.
<burn> oops
<burn> hmm
<burn> hmm, I think that means that Matt didn't send out the
agenda, when I thought he had. So no agenda :(
<burn> Let me prep one quickly.
<rhiaro> scribe: rhiaro
burn: we're starting in 1 or 2 minutes, not waiting any longer
<TallTed> burn -
[13]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2019Jun/0
011.html
[13] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2019Jun/0011.html
<burn> Agenda:
[14]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2019Jun/0
011.html
[14] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2019Jun/0011.html
Describe plan for the call
burn: same plan, go through PRs and issuesa nd move on to test
suite, and anything else that is implementation related
... anything else?
PR announcements
<burn> [15]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
[15] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
manu: we have a couple of PRs piling up, will get to them this
week, will be done by the end of the weekend at the latest
... many of these are old
<burn> [16]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/641
[16] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/641
<manu> [17]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/668
[17] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/668
<manu> [18]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/670
[18] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/670
manu: oliver, based on what I heard are you concerned about
getting this iat nbnf and misleading statements in? I don't see
any issue, we should be able to pull those in. Do you have
background on 668 or 670 that you want to cover?
oliver: Is tallted on the call?
... as far as I know the nbfs PR ?? looks like number ..
TallTed: I think I'm good with this, I had a rephrasing on 670
of issue 669, about the ait must be set for digital signatures.
My wording is because used is an overused word, set is right
for what we're talkinga bout
oliver: I didn't have a chance to update the PR, I spoke to
some of our uport guys to do it on behalf of me, I'm fine with
the new language
... also fine to provide an additional PR later this week if
necessary
TallTed: I can make the suggestion as a PR against your fork
oliver: that would be great thanks
manu: I'm not hearing any big issues> once that's in I can
merge, and Ted yours would be a new PR on top of that
... I'm not hearing any issues with those PRs
... oliver, if we make those updates you're happy with the
state of the jwt section?
oliver: yes, I'm fine with renaming iat into nbf, ?? should
reflect that change, this is what we agreed last week
manu: dmitri is that an update you had scheduled for the test
suite?
dmitriz: I believe oliver made that update in parallel, just
waiting on the spec update, should be in there I think
<manu> [19]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/663
[19] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/663
manu: looking at 663, it's a fairly benign change, any concerns
from you?
TallTed: no, if it goes in I'm good
manu: good, it'll go in
<manu> [20]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/664
[20] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/664
manu: next up is 664
... which is the nbf not iat one. Is this also needs to go in
along with olivers updates? or is this .. this feels like it
might stomp on oliver's pr
TallTed: it might even be the same
manu: I'll merge oliver's PR because it has more changes in it,
and then I'll check line for line whether your PR is reflected
in his PR
TallTed: my PR is two three character changes
manu: My expectation is oliver's pr includes that
dlongley: oliver's covers everything that Ted's does
manu: I'm going to close 664
<manu> [21]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/665
[21] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/665
manu: next 665
... by brent
... looks like thumbs up from longley and dmitri. Anyone else
had a chance to review?
... this is a clarification not a substantive change
... looks good to me
... but we need another reviewer not from digital bazaar
... thank you ken
<manu> [22]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/666
[22] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/666
manu: next up 666
... by markus
... seems benign
... it's a typo, we'll merge that (what's the worst that could
happen)
<manu> [23]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/671
[23] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/671
manu: 671 is DavidC
TallTed: it's covered by 670
manu: but that one got closed
... why is this closed
TallTed: not closed yet
manu: 670 is changes requrested. We'll close 671 since it's
included
TallTed: that's what I would do
manu: that's all the PRs. Nothing controversial there. We're
trying to get to PR (Proposed Rec) as quickly as possible. Any
outstanding PRs (pull requests) that people feel they m ust get
in before I make a final Proposed Rec version of the spec?
oliver: what about the test suite PRs? There are a bunch of
tests for covering jwts that might be important to get them in
before PR
<dmitriz>
[24]https://w3c.github.io/vc-test-suite/implementations/#confor
mance-testing-results
[24] https://w3c.github.io/vc-test-suite/implementations/#conformance-testing-results
dmitriz: we're gonna talk about it in the call, they should all
be in and we have the updated conformance results over here ^
... so that includes uport, digital bazaar, sovrin, evernym,
danube tech and credly
... there's still a work in progress in dividing the
implementationr eports into intentially not implemented vs
otherwise but this should be the latest snapshot
manu: have you had a chance to chat with andrew jones, dmitriz,
on the work he's done to split up optional vs not optional
tests?
dmitriz: yes
... I have, this is one step past that in the sense that not
only do we have required vs optional we also have presentation
vs credentials, we have a matrix
... that's still being updated
... we're coordinating
burn: oliver if you're going to be on later, the report shows a
large number are not successful for you which I think yo uthink
should be. We shoulld cover that later
dmitriz: I suspect that's an artefact of the test setup
manu: we're at the end of CR, the expectation is the spec is
locked down. We'll not be making any changes, that's the frame
of mind you should be in. There may be editorial changes if we
find that there is a normative change we need to make we'll
have to go back to CR (we don't have time)
... it's super important that we make sure there's nothing else
anybody wants in this revision
... the other thing that's imporant is to make sure, as oliver
mentioned, that every test you want to see passing is passing
in the test suite. Once we see that, the report is that, and we
see two checkboxes for every feature we want, that is the
signal typically that it's safe to go to proposed rec
... because that means we can keep those features, rip out the
feature at risk stuff which don't have enough implementations.
That's what we're doing when we go into proposed rec it's sent
to the membership and they get one last go at the spec to see
if it's appropriate, they have the option to raise formal
objections to transition to rEC, and editorial changes, based
on the feedback we get we have to make a decision about whether
the spec is done.
... Going back to work on it would require rechartering. Or
it's just a bunch of editorial things we missed during review
... all that to say the gating factor right now I think is
making sure that the implementation report is exactly where we
want it to be and I think the only thing we're really waiting
on is the jwt stuff, we have to make sure there are two
conforming implementatoins for the jwt stuff. My understanding
is that oliver and markus have implementations. We have to see
green checkmarks across them. Once we have that we're ready to
go to PR
... and in preparation for that I'm going to make a PR-ready
spec
... that doesn't mean we're going into PR when that's ready,
just thatw e're locking it down
burn: time to select our scribe
<rhiaro> scribenick: stonematt
ken: some internationalization exams covered?
manu: status is complex, we know what to write in spec.
... no i18n tests in spec. examples are non-normative. will
update to reflect where we are.
... discussion has triggered an update to the spec in another
WG
ken: thank you. how about #641?
manu: will resolve/fix
ken: 2nd item. test results don't reflect what I thought my
implementation for ZKP
dmitriz: will look into it.
ken: file issue?
burn: yes
... we about to call the spec "done", so if there's an issue or
potential issue in test suite. file it
dmitriz: should we have i18n test?
manu: we could have one in the example context. requires some
details to take offline. a bit hesitant - requires everyone to
run the test suite again, if we add a new test
<Zakim> burn, you wanted to explain about IR after PR
manu: we can add it post rec - we can add tests during
maintenance mode
burn: regarding implementation reports: if you know someone
else who may not be able to get the implementation done, they
can still be submitted after PR. They will not be listed in the
initial set when we go to PR
<dmitriz> ken: I see the ZKP test results in the report's JSON,
so I suspect the issue is in the HTML generation.
manu: will confirm that we have the latest and greatest from
each. and confirm that the report reflects the results of each
test
... did you have time scheduled this week
dmitriz: yes and have meetings scheduled. will make another
pass to reconcile spec to test suite one last time
<rhiaro> scribe: rhiaro
stonematt: did we set a date when implementations need to be
in? If we know people who are working on one? Can we give them
a real date rather than do it as fast as possible?
<scribe> scribe: stonematt
stonematt: on the implementation reports, whats the deadline?
manu: July 5
Issue lightning round: close the issues we can
<burn> [25]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues
[25] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues
<manu> [26]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/667
[26] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/667
<manu> [27]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/669
[27] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/669
manu: looks good right now
... burn is planning to close some 7day close issues
... bit open issue is DavidC type discussion. will have a
meeting this week offline w/ manu and stonematt
... any other issues?
Oliver: do we need to get PRs in for the implementation guide
also?
manu: yes
Oliver: will review and submit next week
manu: you can go ahead and put in PRs on the implementation
guide b/c it's a WG Note
Oliver: also need to update my report
manu: chat w/ marcus to verify that both implementation cover
the same tests, so we have at least 2 tests for each feature
burn: wil start coving implementation guide in future agendas
DavidC: also have a colleague doing a JWT implementation.
Test Suite Issues and Discussion
<burn> [28]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues
[28] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues
ken: Evernym's implementation showed passing in JWT section
also
burn: dmitriz please review verify readiness of TS . it will
become the blocking factor in PR soon
<burn> [29]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/59
[29] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/59
dmitriz: assign to self to fix html generation
<dmitriz> [30]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/45
[30] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/45
dmitriz: issue 45 test suite. error in report generation. fixed
PR 57
... issue 30, categorization of tests, assign do dmitriz
<dmitriz> [31]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/30
[31] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/30
<dmitriz> [32]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/28
[32] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/28
dmitriz: somewhat mysterious report generation failure. will
coordinate w/ ken and bzundel
... need help debugging
issue 23
<dmitriz> [33]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/23
[33] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/23
dmitriz: missing copyright - will be adding that today
<dmitriz> [34]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/22
[34] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/22
issue 22
dmitriz: tests change to RFC3339. address this week by dmitriz
<dmitriz> [35]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/21
[35] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/21
dmitriz: documentation and timeouts - adding clarifying
comments top readme. issues have beed fixed/addressed.
<dmitriz> [36]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/19
[36] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/19
dmitriz: next up a couple of context issues
... has kaz fixed this?
burn: he's not on. last I heard he was working on it
<dmitriz> [37]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/18 <-
same thing
[37] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/18
<dmitriz> and [38]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/9
[38] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/9
<dmitriz> (also same)
dmitriz: kaz mentions he's still working on those
<dmitriz> [39]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/14
[39] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/14
burn: I will comment on them as well
issue 14
dmitriz: needs a bit more content in the readme from the issue
comments. dmitriz to do this
<dmitriz> [40]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/2
[40] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/2
issue 2
dmitriz: don't thing this applies anylonger
... that's all
burn: anything else about the test suite?
Implementation topics discussion
General Implementation Topics
burn: open floor on this topic
Implementation Guide
burn: seeing no-one on the Q
<burn> [41]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues
[41] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues
burn: there are both PRs and Issues
... Andrieu you started out a leader her, are you planning to
continue?
deiu: maybe
burn: any volunteers to lead as editor
... you are listed as editor
deiu: I'll do it
burn: Thank you for volunteering!
... let's start w/ PRs. deiu will you start walking through
them
deiu: ok
<manu> [42]https://w3c.github.io/vc-imp-guide/
[42] https://w3c.github.io/vc-imp-guide/
<manu> [43]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pulls
[43] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pulls
<deiu> [44]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/7
[44] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/7
deiu: has anyone reviewed?
burn: you can ask for specific reviews by adding them as
reviewers on the PR
deiu: call for general review and give thumbs up/down
burn: these are not in the spec, so we don't need the same sort
of review
<deiu> [45]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/11
[45] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/11
burn: let's look at each and get a "next step"
<manu> +1 to merging 11
deiu: will add links to other repos
burn: looks like you can merge
deiu: I don't have the button to merge
<burn> Kaz needs to add Andrei as editor of imp-guide
<scribe> ACTION: kaz add deiu as editor to Imp-Guide
[DONE]
<deiu> [46]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/12
[46] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/12
ken: reviewed this one last week. one section is ready to go,
others were pending
deiu: this one can be merged right?
ken: yes, merge this
deiu: we still need the JSON-LD, JWT, and ZKP sections
burn: pr12 is only a partial fix for this issue
<kaz> [kaz has just sent a GH invitation to Andrei]
deiu: leave the issue open w/ the checkboxes
<deiu> [47]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/13
[47] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/13
deiu: have approval by ken - editorial update
burn: has conflicts to resolve before merging
deiu: add editorial tag
bzundel will you rebase?
<deiu> [48]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/15
[48] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/15
deiu: editorial updates.
... looks good to merge
burn: merged
deiu: everyone please look at PR7 and give feedback
... moving to issues
<deiu> [49]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/1
[49] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/1
deiu: opened by dmitriz adding JSON schema
burn: why line Io/credentials?
... need a volunteer
dmitriz: suggests yancy
yancy: I guess I could, I thought jonnycrunch was doing it
<burn> kaz, please make jonnycrunch assignable on issues in
vc-imp-guide
<deiu> [50]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/2
[50] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/2
<scribe> ACTION: kaz please make jonnycrunch assignable on
issues in VC-Imp-Guide
[DONE]
deiu: need a couple examples
... dlongley can you do this?
dlongley: looking, will add examples from test suite
<deiu> [51]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/3
[51] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/3
burn: manu do you have anything to add or suggest here?
DavidC: when we've proven that it works we'll add it here
<kaz> [kaz has sent an invitation to jonnycrunch as well]
manu: we should mention that multiple people are working on
this. demo'ed it at Rebooting last year. we can add text here
... I will not work on it until after PR
<deiu> [52]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/4
[52] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/4
burn: there are a variety of ways to handle this
manu: hashlinks are the "current" way but not the only way. can
add text for this
burn: anyone else at digitalbazaar?
manu: Ganesh can do this, we'll volunteer him
<deiu> [53]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/5
[53] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/5
deiu: related to number 4 relating to non-credential data
burn: we asked if we could close this and got no reponse. will
confirm/close.
<deiu> [54]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/6
[54] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/6
deiu: need a discussion on this before we have a resolution
burn: Brent has some ideas about this, will reach out to him
<deiu> [55]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/8
[55] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/8
deiu: benefits of different syntaxes and proofs
burn: manu did you write this?
manu: yes and it's been merged
ken: the PR was added and in prose
burn: last section is Olivers related to JWT
<dlongley> stonematt: At the F2F the table was getting unwieldy
and we decided to do a section by section bit in prose and
leave the comparison to the reader
<burn> stonematt: we recognized table was too unwieldy since
couldn't agree on factors. Decided to do prose and leave the
comparison to the reader
<ken> Section by section was also my recollection.
burn: content it key for now, we can reshape it later if needed
deiu: I'm happy to get the content merged in.
<deiu> [56]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/9
[56] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/9
deiu: re: context ordering
burn: dlongley to you...
dlongley: reading it now...
... I think this is in the spec itself.
burn: DavidC is this required in the implementation guide?
DavidC: is there a general order when you have multiple
contexts
dlongley: the JSON-LD explains ordering. maybe a link to that
spec
DavidC: JSON-LD isn't required, so write our own?
dlongley: if you're creating new contexts, they should be
compliant w/ JSON-LD
... is there something we need to add to ImpGuide
DavidC: provide text indicating that you must understand
JSON-LD context if you are creating them
dlongley: making sure we're not unnessarily adding text and
that it's addressing the right issue
DavidC: this issue is about adding values and order.
dlongley: in Implementation guide, we would cover it where we
describe how to create a new credential
... when the VC spec is done, there will be a new section here.
I will be working on that
deiu: let's open a new issue to cover that
dlongley: ok
burn: make sure we have it documented and a "who"
<dlongley> [57]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/16
[57] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/16
burn: thank you
<deiu> [58]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/10
[58] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/10
deiu: last issue, 10, use of aliases
dlongley: close this and reference issue 16
DavidC: TallTed suggests that Uris don't require context, is
that right?
dlongley: if using all URIs, don't need contexts, but this is
aliases
TallTed: if you use IRI you don't need context b/c context
translates to IRI.
<dmitriz> +1 for the need to clarify this
DavidC: but what about ordering?
TallTed: if context is present, then ordering matters b/c if an
alias is linked twice, order matters
DavidC: al, because it defines who's IRIs takes presence
... should prevent that
dlongley: you can do that with the protected attribute
TallTed: it's better to do this case by case instead in the
spec
DavidC: why?
TallTed: because we'll need to redefine things
manu: it's an open world assumption, so there are use cases
where this may happen
DavidC: I get it.
<TallTed> +1
dlongley: the resolution is to mention it in issue 16 and show
example of how to do simple aliases with an example, and give
alternative example showing use of IRI
deiu: that's all, thank you!
burn: last of the agenda, other business?
... have a discussion about authors
... thanks all!
... bye
Summary of Action Items
[DONE] ACTION: kaz add deiu as editor to Imp-Guide
[DONE] ACTION: kaz please make jonnycrunch assignable on issues
in VC-Imp-Guide
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
David Booth's [59]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([60]CVS log)
$Date: 2019/06/27 14:08:13 $
[59] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[60] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2019 14:12:12 UTC