- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 03:24:18 +0900
- To: public-vc-wg@w3.org
Sorry for the delay but the minutes from the VCWG call on 21 May 2019
are available at:
https://www.w3.org/2019/05/21-vcwg-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, Tim!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Verifiable Claims Working Group
21 May 2019
[2]Agenda
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2019May/0012.html
Attendees
Present
Brent_Zundel, Dan_Burnett, Dave_Longley, David_Chadwick,
David_Waite, Dmitri_Zagidulin, Isaac_patka,
Justin_Richer, Kaz_Ashimura, Ken_Ebert, Tim_Tibbals,
Yancy_Ribbens, jonathan_holt, oliver_terbu,
Andrei_Sambra
Regrets
Amy_Guy
Chair
Dan_Burnett
Scribe
tibbalst
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Describe plan for the call
2. [5]Test Suite Issues and Discussion
3. [6]Implementation topics discussion
* [7]Summary of Action Items
* [8]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<burn> scribenick: tibbalst
Describe plan for the call
Yes. Didn't realize you wanted in window.
WIll start.
Test Suite Issues and Discussion
<burn> Test suite:
[9]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues
[9] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues
isaac: (invited guest for today's call) - first attendance.
Bloom: Credit and Identity Protocols. Updated recently with
spec. Want to get feedback on their implementation and make
sure it’s interoperable. - Have a detailed spec. Can send email
to public mailing list. - Can listen in on call.
yancy: Yancey Dialed in by phone.
dmitriz: Have a couple of documentation issues from brent.
<dmitriz> from brent:
[10]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/pull/27 and
[11]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/pull/25
[10] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/pull/27
[11] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/pull/25
<dmitriz> and corresponding issues:
[12]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/26 and
[13]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/24
[12] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/26
[13] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/24
davidwaite: New attendee. Just listening in.
dlongley: will make comments on PR to make changes.
jonathan_holt: Trying to build specification to validate that
all the attributes are there and all qualified values. Where
would I find repository of appropriate values for field?
dmitriz: short answer. Schema is supposed to be open ended.
<dmitriz> [14]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/23
[14] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/23
dmitriz: issue 23 Points out by andrew jones. Utils file needs
a copyright on top.
... will add copyright. Assign me.
<dmitriz> [15]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/22
[15] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/22
dmitriz: issue 22 by brent.
... changed the spec in March from ISO to RFC.
... had to figure out how to convert back. volunteer to be
assigned
<dmitriz> [16]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/21
[16] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/21
dmitriz: question on how to increase time outs by brent.
... something missing in config file. brent wants to override
the timeout.
... I will add timeout to readme.
<dmitriz> [17]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/19
and [18]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/18
[17] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/19
[18] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/18
dmitriz: 2 issues on same thing by yancy.
... W3 id serving the context is not returning the JSON
context. Throwing an error. Need someone to update content type
to application/json-ld
<dmitriz> just to clarify: W3 id is serving the context, but is
returning the wrong content-type header for it.
yancy: Was able to get around the issue.
... used local file.
<dmitriz> also I believe issue
[19]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/9 by yancy is
about the same thing (plus a CORS header)
[19] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/9
burn: need update on content type.
<dmitriz> propose we assign issues 9, 18 and 19 to kaz.
kaz: will update.
<dmitriz> next up:
[20]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/14
[20] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/14
<burn> I just assigned kaz to those
<dmitriz> propose close:
[21]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/2
[21] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/2
dmitriz: last issue. old one from when test suite was first
being planned. Propose to close it.
... Chris webber thinking outloud on the issue.
burn: recommend add comment in before closing.
... please close after adding comment.
jonathan_holt: Trying to understand more on the issue.
dmitriz: Trying to structure verification which is not
implemented in test suite.
... last of issues.
Implementation topics discussion
oliver: no implementation topic but on test suite. Wanted to
ask that implementers will create wrappers for library?
dmitriz: topic brought up in Barcelona. Answer was yes.
dlongley: Build driver on top of test suite. Pass any
information to library. Additional Layer for most part. Some
driver will receive information.
oliver: Please add diagram in test suite to explain this?
<ken> +1 to adding a diagram
<brent> +1
dlongley: Need volunteer to make diagram.
oliver: Started one and may be able to provide. Oliver
volunteered.
yancy: Wanted to ask /clarify on bad cardinality. If using
Json-LD parser, what are the algorithm that figures out if only
the base context when it should fail. It is missing context. It
could be done in different ways besides using context. Looking
for clarification.
<Zakim> dmitriz, you wanted to answer yancy
dmitriz: if using json-ld processor Will just throw an error
about missing context.
<Zakim> dlongley, you wanted to answer
yancy: Want to make sure we are doing the same way.
dlongley: Updating PR that context field needs to be checked by
all implementations.
... Additional constraint that it must be present and have
certain values in it.
... Don't think the spec must have two context.
yancy: it does.
... Spec says to check explicitly.
... Can look at PR and review data model to understand better.
ken: how to get to optional tests to invoke?
dmitriz: short answer is the optional tests that are being
skipped in the queue are not implemented. Expect sovrin
community to implement. Not sure where to start?
... Will need to implement them if you want to invoke
... There are a couple of tests that are skipped regarding term
dictionary. Question to group if that should be a test and if
testablel
oliver: Question on short tests themselves. [could not get
question]
burn: there are no normative statements on use of 'vp' in JWT.
What tests can there actually be. The only test can be
existance and that it has contents.
dmitriz: Dave can go into more detail. Basic and advanced tests
do cryptography checking. Should it check signature?
<Zakim> dlongley, you wanted to respond to oliver
oliver: Fine with also writing the JWS test(s).
dlongley: Even if there are things that are non-normative would
be great to have tests to check
oliver: If the JSON-LD contains issuer or issuance date
property, the JWS test would check to see if they are
transformed correctly.
dlongley: having an optional test is good.
brent: If fully conformant VC, would that credential fail test
suite if fields do not have the data. Should test suite fail
it?
dmitriz: Please raise if there is an issue if optional fields
are blank and it's raising an error. Maybe a warning.
... Up for discussion if it should be warning.
brent: Hope is that it shouldn't test suite should not fail.
<Zakim> ken, you wanted to ask about reporting
brent: Will raise issue if actually a problem.
ken: Question: unimplemented feature like terms of use. If we
have items that we are not using do we just let test fail?
dmitriz: good question.
burn: ALways help to report which ones you did not implement.
Big difference between failing and not implementing test.
dmitriz: Helpful to us to split the test invocation commands to
run the tests and the optional tests, terms of use tests, etc.
That way there may be less confusion on which ones are passing.
<brent> +100
<Zakim> jonathan_holt, you wanted to discuss recursive approach
<ken> +1 Selective test running will also speed up the testing
for me.
jonathan_holt: Can break down into chunks. Can implement test
if needed.
dmitriz: Agree with JSON schema Valid approach. Only reason to
split out because of the way test suite is structure. One of
the tests... Send in terms of use and see what it does. If
library doesn't handle it will mark it as fail.
... Need to separate out tests.
jonathan_holt: Will be breaking out tests. Will give some
feedback.
burn: support for selective test running.
oliver: Optional vs. Mandatory. Will be difficult to identify
what should be in each. (One proof must be present. but proof
property is optional). So what is the test?
dmitriz: Thought change that proof property was required.
burn: for Verifiable credential is required to make it valid.
dmitriz: Answer question?
oliver: Will need to check specification
... Proof property is not specified as required.
... Is there a test that proofs that it's there?
dlongley: Can you clarify?
oliver: How do we show compliance?
dlongley: Compliance is based on report if passing. [what was
solution?]
dmitriz: Tests are always checking proof property. Need way to
specify that they have way of external proof.
<ken> +1
<brent> +1
<oliver> +1
burn: valuable?
<yancy> +1
<dlongley> +1
<Zakim> ken, you wanted to ask about preliminary vs. final
reporting.
burn: Will allocate more time for these types of conversations?
ken: Report as soon as you have it?
dmitriz: Report to PR in implementation directory.
... if updates.
<Zakim> burn, you wanted to remind about testing spec, not
implementations
burn: is the goal of this to test the specification, not
implementation? No one wants to submit that there
implementation is inferior. Marketing departments should not
use the results to compare. In the implementation report to
test specification. If you want to do a conformance test for
implementation it would require WAY more tests. A failure
should not be viewed as a failure of the implementation.
... question?
oliver: Mobile drivers license standard is about to be
finalized. Have opportunity to provide how VC and they could
align/cooperate. What needs to be changed in each standard to
work together? Should use opportunity.
DavidC: need to submit comments for meeting in July (in
Portugal). Have made suggestions. There is an issue that MDL
specifies protocols. There needs to be a protocol. To be
useful, we need to discuss protocols.
burn: will not have group decision by Thursday. Chairs can
discuss going forward.
... Need two hour timeframe due to issues. Talk next week.
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
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: 2019/05/22 11:33:13 $
[22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2019 18:25:23 UTC