- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 16:08:45 +0900
- To: public-vc-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2019/02/26-vcwg-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a for taking these minutes, Charles!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Verifiable Claims Working Group
26 Feb 2019
[2]Agenda
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2019Feb/0016.html
Attendees
Present
David_Ezell, Justin_Richer, Matt_Stone,
Charles_McCathie_Nevile, Dan_Burnett, Grant_Noble,
Mike_Lodder, Tzviya_Siegman, Benjamin_Young,
Ganesh_Annan, Dmitri_Zagidurin, Kaz_Ashimura,
Manu_Sporny, Ken_Ebert, David_Chadwick, Ted_Thibodeau,
Brent_Zundel, Andrei_Sambra, Allen_Brown, Dave_Longley,
Oliver_Terbu, Yancy_Ribbens
Regrets
Chair
Dan_Burnett, Matt_Stone
Scribe
chaals
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Agenda review, Introductions, Re-introductions
2. [5]Unassigned issues
3. [6]F2F Agenda
4. [7]PR review (CR Blocker Checkin)
* [8]Summary of Action Items
* [9]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: chaals
Agenda review, Introductions, Re-introductions
Grant: Work at PegaSys/ConsenSys. Technical communicator, have
been providing feedback and editorial contributions to the data
model.
DanB: Agenda is simple: issues, f2f agenda review, blockers,
test suite… anything else?
ManuS: Are we looking line by line at the f2f agenda? Need to
ensure people know they are presenting
DanB: Sure
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]issue 433
[11] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/433
DanB / DavidC: looks editorial
RESOLUTION: Assign 433 to Manu
[12]432
[12] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/432
DavidC: Not quite editorial, we need to talk about it ...
... I will take it on. Don't think it is huge
RESOLUTION: assign DavidC to 432
[13]429 sorting out @contexts
[13] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/429
RESOLUTION: assign 429 to ManuS
ManuS: good news is I think this will come out as implementors
do the work
DavidC: two things: is the ID optional or not, and what does it
point to
ManuS: Might need some clarification in the extensibility
section.
DavidC: or a fuller explanation.
ManuS: Let me look at it in more detail, and see if I can fix
it or needs more discussion.
[14]428 Mandatory types
[14] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/428
DavidC: this is editorial - give it to Manu...
RESOLUTION: assign 428 to Manu
[15]427 Context URL is down
[15] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/427
DanB: Worked for me yesterday.
ManuS: Don't think we deployed context or vocab at the given
URLs yet.
... not sure what the timeframe is to deploy the content at the
URLs. Presume that is work for Kaz, not sure where it is up to
right now.
Kaz: Yes.
[Kaz notes in passing that the TAG will meet this week so we
can hope for them to look at the review issue.]
Kaz: I need to talk to webmaster to do this work.
DanB: is it worth putting a temporary note in the spec until
this happens?
MauS: I can do that (although not convinced people will read
the note...)
Manu: changing this is a lot of work, so we will just add the
warning until the files are updated.
Kaz: We have the approval to do this, so it's just a question
of deploying the documents. Not a big problem.
... BTW, these days the trend of W3C groups is to have content
on a github server, with a redirect from
[16]https://www.w3.org/… so if you want that, we might be able
to set it up. I'll check with the Webmaster about that
possibility.
[16] https://www.w3.org/
ManuS: I have some concerns, but we can talk about that
RESOLUTION: Assign 427 to Kaz.
DanB: Please make this high priority
Ken: When we move something, are we preserving the old
location?
ManuS: If we remove this we will break the internet, so once we
hit Recommendation we will never change the URL or the content
there.
Ken: Not sure if that is completely true. Errors creep in and
stuff needs to be updated. We need a plan for that.
ManuS: this is not a simple topic, but there is a plan. We
could talk about it at the F2F if people want to …
[17]Need MIME type guidance
[17] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/421
<TallTed> Errors in many w3 publications (particularly CR and
PR) are indeed preserved forever, albeit there may be an
"errata" supplement document. It's the unfortunate nature of
this beast.
Brent: Assigned to me, but not done
DanB: Kaz, can you please get Brent added to GitHub so he can
work on stuff.
Brent: I am already assigned to 413.
RESOLUTION: Assign 421 to Kaz, because he needs to get Brent
assigned...
DanB: We won't assign the other issues.
Kaz's note: As I mentioned on the IRC during the call, I added
Brent to the verifiable-claims-wg GitHub Team so that he can
handle the [18]Issue 421, and Brent has assigned himself to the
issue.
[18] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/421
F2F Agenda
<burn>
[19]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G1ygbZMI5nJB94ROuX-
Vtic4FgbeYl-S58E_DoXa7-w/edit#gid=285762982
[19] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G1ygbZMI5nJB94ROuX-Vtic4FgbeYl-S58E_DoXa7-w/edit#gid=285762982
DanB: We start 10am and go to 6.30pm each day because Spain,
and because we must have left the room clean and empty by 7.
... there are a couple of open blocks to discuss topics that
come up during the discussion, otherwise we will use them for
dealing with github issues.
... Discussion leads should be like before. Someone who can
lead each section of the discussion.
... There is a Google Slides deck for sections - find yours,
and put content there. The leads in there are proposals - we
would like to get confirmation
... First is digital bazaar assigned feedback from
implementors.
... We are not sure we will get a vote on a CR, but what if we
get feedback from early implementors, because that is the
number one priority. If there is none, we move on to other
issues.
ManuS: +1 would like to hear from uPort, Evernym, Sovrin, and
Dmitri … I expect we will fill 90 minutes. With a specific
focus on practical interop (not just test suite-based)
... once we see real deployment, real interop will come up e.g.
between JSON and linked data proof.
<oliver> +1
ManuS: Feel we need that discussion, and it could go in that
slot too.
DanB: Trying to get impleentation feedback, otherwise anything
else that blocks CR is the number one priority for this agenda.
... Can you put together a placeholder for upates from
implementors, and then those groups will have to fill in the
info
DavidC: Related to interop, I wanted to add it to the topics,
so sent it as an email about conformance. Spec is unclear about
what is mandatory and what is optional and that will affect
interop. I wanted to go through each requirement and make sure
the wording on that is very clear and consistent.
DanB: Agree we need to do that, not sure if face to face time
is best used on that. Is there a way to focus the discussion on
items where there is actual disagreement?
DavidC: I will try to list the items I think are unclear, in
preparation, if I have time, but not sure I can.
<Zakim> dmitriz, you wanted to suggest combining test suite
discussion and the implementations feedback
DanB: That would be great if you can- thanks.
DmitriZ: Does it make sense to combine test suite discussion
with implementation issues? Likely same people and topics.
DanB: The intent for implementor discussion is that we don't
have to have a test suite to get *into* CR. We will have a
think, because I was also wondering the same thing.
... maybe retitle the sessions a bit
... There is nobody for "Non-spec important issues". This
includes the implementation Guide - not needed by process, but
the community needs it.
... Is someone willing to talk about that and other items that
are critical to the WG but not needed for CR?
Brent: I would be willing to lead that.
DanB: Thank you! You don't need the answers, but if you have
some notes to lead a discussion that would be helpful.
... Registries. We have Digital Bazaar but could be someone
else…
MattS: We also call them out ...
ManuS: It's good ans concrete. There is also a broader
discussion. Are we going to vote for CR during the meeting?
After we decide we are ready for CR there are things beyond the
registries - Terms of Use specs, …
<burn> These sound like "non-spec important things" to me
ManuS: There is also a question of living document status for
the spec itself.
... Do we want a broader discussion around that? 30 minutes
would not be enough.
DanB: Sounds a lot like non-spec important iissues. Registries
are strong - there are things that don't block the spec but it
won't be approved without them.
... Implementors Guide is important, registries are necessary
because the spec depends on them.
... then there are issues about longevity and sustainability.
... Maybe we can move those to the second day. Do you want to
put something together on registries, and maybe take the other
items and list them on a slide so we can look at how to
schedule it?
ManuS: Sure.
stonematt: There will be a slide for "open blocks" Might be a
place to seed that discussion
<manu> chaals: 30 minutes is a bit short for where the group
should go next... don't need to get it all done now, that's a
continuing discussion.
DanB: Use cases doc - Joe. We want an update. Most groups do
their use cases long before the spec. We might be the other way
around. Allowed 60 minutes, if there is anything productive we
can do to make progress, let's do that.
... We talked about test suite - is there anything you can
update us on?
DmitriZ: There is a pending PR that has been approved by a
couple of people. I don't have merge power, can someone do that
please?
Manu: oops, I will.
DmitriZ: Let's have a discussion on test suite too.
DanB: please add slides on that section for the f2f.
... "Defer other open issues". (This is a hint - feature freeze
was 3 months ago)
... There are open issues, but it is time to put them down for
now. People should have very strong justification if they want
an issue to be open still.
Manu: Yay!
DanB: You are listed to say "next version, next lifetime, some
other group, …" The chairs will help too
... DID WG impact and coordination. We don't mind who does this
session.
... what will be the impact on our group given participant
overlap, etc…
ManuS: Think someone else should do this. Maybe Chris Allen or
Joe?
... except they will be busy until then, so looking for someone
else might be good.
RESOLUTION: We will assign this to Christopher for now.
Drummond might be interested - let's see.
DanB: Future work items - would be nice to have a volunteer.
This is if we do a full-on recharter to do new work (not just
finishing this under an extension)
... assigned chairs to action items and next steps.
Ken: I will do the future work items
DanB: Thank you :)
TzviyaS: Will there be remote participation facility?
DanB: I have to follow up with the host.
Manu: Think we will bring out own system, and can set up for
that with our own zoom. No idea what the network will be - if
it is strong enough to make that work.
DanB: The host recommended a videoconferencing system and
believes the wifi will be up to it. I will follow up.
Kaz: I can bring speakerphone and set up webex for it.
DanB: Let's discuss that as an option.
... It is a really nice "luxury" that we will actually have our
Team contact at our whole meeting
PR review (CR Blocker Checkin)
<burn> [20]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
[20] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
ManuS: Think the PR from Grant will go in as editorial, there
are 2 that have been floating for a while and need decisions.
One is [21]https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/384 syntax
and proof trade off. There has been a lot of work but no
feedback from Pelle on whether this is ready now. Ditto from
Oliver. There have been dozens of comments raised and responded
to, so feel comfortable
... 412, converting subjectOnly is trickier. There are people
saying they won't, or might, implement it. Maybe we can change
this to be framed as "nonTransferable" and mark it as "at
risk". David what do you prefer?
[21] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/384
DavidC: The non-transferable mirrors stuff on physical objects
as credentials. This provides more flexibility.
<dlongley> `notTransferrable` from the original holder or wrt
the subject?
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to dial in
Manu: so you prefer to make the new property notTransferable
and mark it at risk. Anyone object to that?
[silence]
Manu: Will do.
Oliver: I don't understand every entry on the table still. I
would prefer to have more use-case oriented approach, rather
than it just being technology-focused.
<manu>
[22]https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/
384.html#syntax-and-proof-format-trade-offs
[22] https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/384.html#syntax-and-proof-format-trade-offs
ManuS: Sure, but I don't know how to reconcile that. What will
produce the least number of objections, to get us as close as
we can to consensus. For us to do it as you suggest there would
need to be a PR that demonstrates the approach in practice. I
don't know how I would write that. Then we can look at which PR
has most support. I have tried hard to take the input I got, so
I would prefer if there are issues in this to fix them, rather
... than trying to make a drastic change because that might
generate quite a lot more objections without answering the
actual problem that this PR addresses.
... So, would you put in such a PR, are the group willing to go
through the work of dealing with review? The alternative
question is whether you would object to the current PR.
<ken> Changing the name to from SubjectOnly to NotTransferable
does not change any of the qualities of the attribute already
discussed in issued #412.
OliverT: OK, I hope we can provide review by the end of this
week.
ManuS: This is all editorial - we can make these changes in the
future. But as an editor I think this would be a huge amount of
work. There are so many use cases it is hard to write about one
and capture everything.
Oliver: The table only has a few disadvantages of JSON proofs.
This could go into the table easily.
<Zakim> burn, you wanted to end the meeting
Oliver: Many entries make sense. But I think there are some
points missing that might help with JWTs.
<stonematt> slide deck for F2F:
[23]https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_AKEYKWqaiMIUb6tlo3
yVONTl9Z-71H4XfdTtgUF88U/edit?usp=sharing
[23] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_AKEYKWqaiMIUb6tlo3yVONTl9Z-71H4XfdTtgUF88U/edit?usp=sharing
Manu: +1 to adding those, if you make the suggestions.
DanB: Thanks folks, out of time, talk to you next week.
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
1. [24]Assign 433 to Manu
2. [25]assign DavidC to 432
3. [26]assign 429 to ManuS
4. [27]assign 428 to Manu
5. [28]Assign 427 to Kaz.
6. [29]Assign 421 to Kaz, because he needs to get Brent
assigned...
7. [30]We will assign this to Christopher for now. Drummond
might be interested - let's see.
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
David Booth's [31]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([32]CVS log)
$Date: 2019/02/27 03:37:15 $
[31] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[32] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 4 March 2019 07:09:48 UTC