- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 16:16:21 +0900
- To: public-vc-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2019/08/27-vcwg-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Amy and Ken!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Verifiable Claims Working Group
27 Aug 2019
[2]Agenda
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2019Aug/0019.html
Attendees
Present
Andrei_Sambra, Amy_Guy, jonathan_holt, David_Chadwick,
Dave_Longley, Dmitri_Zagidulin, Mircea_Nistor,
yancy_ribbens, Dudley_Collinson, Sercan_kum,
Dan_Burnett, Adrian_Gropper, Justin_Richer, Ken_Ebert,
Ned_Smith, Ted_Thibodeau, Brent_Zundel, Kaliya_Young,
Kaz_Ashimura
Regrets
Chair
Dan_Burnett
Scribe
rhiaro, ken
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Describe plan for the call
2. [5]Data Model Proposed Rec publication status
3. [6]Implementation guide
4. [7]Test Suite Issues and Discussion
5. [8]Use Cases document
6. [9]Other implementation topics
* [10]Summary of Action Items
* [11]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<rhiaro> scribenick: rhiaro
Describe plan for the call
Data Model Proposed Rec publication status
burn: the transition request was sent 5 days ago
<burn> [12]https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/158
[12] https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/158
burn: no comments yet, that's a good thing
... we're waiting for the 7 day clock to run out, after which
we can publish on september 3rd
Implementation guide
<burn> [13]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues
[13] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues
burn: we need to get through as much as we can today, this is
it
deiu: thanks to everyone contributing PRs for the past week,
we've seen a large number. Not sure we can fix all issues today
but most of them have PRs open so fingers crossed
<deiu> [14]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/54
[14] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/54
deiu: I suggest we start with PR 54
... this addresses the issue regarding vocab persistance and
immutability of vocabs used in contexts
... I've added some text
... it shoudl be fine, David has requested changes, which have
been fixed. David if yo'ure here would you mind approving the
PR so we can go ahead?
DavidC: they were only typos, will do
deiu: we can go ahead and merge this if everyone is fine with
it
<TallTed> [15]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/54/files
[15] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/54/files
deiu: *github wrangling live*
... anyone object to merging this? Ted?
... I know you wanted mor eexamples containing versioned vocabs
but I don't think we have time to do those
TallTed: I think doing it is important. The whole point of this
example is to say use a thing that's not going to change, and
using a thing that's going to change breaks the whole
philosophy
deiu: I agree, but we have all kinds of PRs right now that
don't have those URIs, it would take a lot of time
TallTed: we don't have to change them right now, but we do have
to commit to changing it. It's not okay ot publish this thing
that says use unchanging stuff with changing stuff in it
deiu: my suggestion at this point is to merge this PR, leave
the issue open and add a comment there that says we should
update links once we're done with everything else
TallTed: that's fine, could be a new issue, just want to make
sure it gets done
deiu: can you open the issue right now in parallel?
... going to merge this now
... we have 10 more PRs
... *deep sigh*
<deiu> [16]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/53
[16] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/53
deiu: This is about fixing non-json elements in examples so we
can copy paste easily without breaking the json. Just editorial
stuff, has been approved by two people, unless anyone objects
I'll merge
... We'll have to pass over the whole document once all the PRs
have been updated to check the new examples
... any objections to merging now?
... merging
... next is 52
<deiu> [17]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/52
[17] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/52
deiu: it's about web authentication. Dmitri has provided a
bunch of text, although I wonder if this text belongs in the
related specifications section instead of being a guide for
using web authentication
dmitriz: I didn't know where to put it, it seemed like a good
idea at the time. It's not yet ready to be its own guide
because the text has been waiting on the spec to change
... once it changes we can have a guide, but for the moment
it's just advisory
... I'm open to suggestions on what section to put it in
deiu: I think it's fine given how this text is formulated to
leave it in the related specifications section for now
... And add more text about how to use web authentication when
we figure that out
dmitriz: i agree
deiu: it's not really, this PR doesn't really fix issue 3 at
this point
... I feel like we should leave issue 3 open but still merge
this PR
dlongley: how would we fix issue 3?
deiu: with examples
dlongley: there's no way to fix number 3, there are no examples
that would work right now to use webauthn with verifiable
presentations
... our system involves other parties, and webauthn only does
authentication between two parties
deiu: i know david has been using webauthn in his
implementation, at least some feedback based on that would be
great instead of just a description
... does anyone object to merging this and closing issue 3?
dmitriz: the good news is that the webauthn group is working on
enabling this kind of stuff in the future, ther'es actual PRs
in progress where they're shuffling the various.. it is coming,
we just don't know when
deiu: okay. I suggest we just merge this now and get back to it
once we have more information
... everybody okay with that?
... clossing issue 3 as well
dlongley: I'm fine with that
deiu: merging
<deiu> [18]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/51
[18] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/51
deiu: embedding external credentials. David, you had some
changes requested.. the changes haven't been made, dmitri has
replied
<deiu> [19]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/50
[19] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/50
dmitriz: I made a copule of the changes based on david's
comments. Main one .. can we come back to this? I'm just about
to submit a rephrasing of it that I think David may be okay
with
deiu: okay, skip for now. Go to PR 50, ZKP sectoin
... anybody objecting to merging this?
... merging
<deiu> [20]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/49
[20] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/49
deiu: content verifiable data registries. We haven't had a
thumbs up from somebody yet. Could people take a look and see
whether this is okay? I think it looks okay
<Dudley> +1
deiu: anybody against merging it?
<deiu> [21]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/48
[21] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/48
deiu: that was the straightforward stuff, now we have some
discussions
... 48 about adding additional datetime attributes
... I'm not sure this is something we have to do. the
discussion is in my opinion not that relevant. David hasn't
provided an example list of attributes so we're not sure
exactly how useful they are
dlongley: I also think it's premature to merge this, I don't
think we should rush it today. We can point to the CCG and ahve
them comment on this
deiu: +1
<ken> +1 to dlongley's comments about defer
deiu: should we add some text saying we'll defer to the CCG in
the future
dlongley: fine with me
DavidC: seems to me that all the issues have been resolved in
the PRs. The only outstanding one is bikeshedding what the term
should be. As long as it implies its semantics I'm happy with
suggestions ted had made. I thought all the issues had been
resolved and it coudl be included
TallTed: the issue is it's trying to extend the VC data model,
but what it's really doing is talking about a particular
credentail subject, which does not require any extesnion or
change to the overall data model
dlongley: I didn't really comment here, I have a lot of issues
and I think there's a lot of different ways to model this. With
a drivers license you might want to say the crednetail subject
has a drivers license and then specify these properties. that's
an extension. There are different ways ot model this. I think
there's a lot of stuff to discuss here and we shouldn't just
push this in. I was waiting to see where the discussion goes,
there's too
much going on. I'm not comfortable with merging it yet
deiu: I agree with dlongley there. I suggest we add a comment
saying we defer to CCG in the future and leave it open
DavidC: okay fine
<deiu> [22]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/47
[22] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/47
dlongley: we could get this merged if we don't talk about the
specific way we go about doing it. We could mention you can use
hash values with a nonce without getting into how you go about
modelling it. There are a lot of different ways. We did the
same thing with the ZKPs. I think we could get something
merged, I dunno if david is amenable to that, but if he could
adjust this so it doesn't get into modelling specifics just the
mechanism we could
get this merged
DavidC: I took the actual example used by the iso mobile
driving license people to show their way, I agree there are
different ways you could do it. I can make it more generic
... I can refer to the iso driving license as informative. I'll
dod that.
<deiu> [23]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/43
[23] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/43
deiu: I'll postpone this PR and wait for you to add the changes
... PR 43 the jwt aud claim
... ted, you requested changes?
TallTed: with the caveat that you're going to do for the
example section it'll work for the comments
... the last one is for the aud jwt claim to be mapped to the
verifier.. I was trying to avoid the rfc 'recommended' term
DavidC: I hadn't thought of that clash. What are we using in
the rest of the document? Eg. about the time? issuance date?
what's the terminology? If I use the same phrase that should be
okay?
... I'll take a look through what they've used for that and
I'll use that terminology
TallTed: so this wll not merge right now, but later today?
DavidC: you asked for some changes that weren't part of my PR
TallTed: but it's also legit to make those small changes to add
on, but whatever
deiu: do you mind making those cahnges?
DavidC: I didn't want to get into arguements about something
that wasn't my change in the first place, to hold up the change
I wanted
TallTed: the only one flagged that way is where I said to take
out the word draft
DavidC: there's a proof one as well, and there's no proof in
jwts. You talk about making a change to a challenge, a proof
part
deiu: I'm not seeing that
DavidC: it's from 1 hour ago
... if someone is going through the examples to make sure
theyr'e correct, then this should be picked up then?
deiu: I think the only examlpe where ted has mentioned a
possible change has to do with highlighting the challenge not
the proof, and adding the comment class
DavidC: that's right
deiu: just fixing those dots
TallTed: I copied the line above and said change this to the
line below, which is adding span class comment
DavidC: it confused me because you did that 3 times and
deiu: it's editorial
TallTed: if we have to do it later we can
DavidC: I understand now
... I can make those if I can find them
deiu: any other comment about ted's comments?
... we're expecting this to be merged later today
burn: scribe alert scribe alert
<scribe> scribenick: ken
<deiu> [24]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/41
[24] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/41
deiu: DavidC, do you have anything to add?
DavidC: Now that we solved some of the dependencies, can
TallTed re-review?
TallTed: I'll review it later today.
<deiu> [25]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/17
[25] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/17
deiu: jonathan_holt?
jonathan_holt: There are some conflicts where dates are
defined. Is it required to have a full date-time or is date
sufficient?
TallTed: I don't think we need a full date-time.
jonathan_holt: I have some other issues with cardinality.
... This schemas is only for Verifiable Credential, but not
presentations.
... I'm ready for review, but not deployment.
... In some cases there can be a string or definition.
... The json-ld mapped some things to a local file or a remote
reference. I think it has to do with the json-ld parsers and
the version of json-ld they support.
deiu: We'll give you some more time to sort it out.
<deiu> Back to [26]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/51
[26] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/51
dmitriz: PR 51 is ready.
DavidC: I'm reviewing now.
dlongley: Can we discuss issues that move to CCG?
burn: ... In order to publish we have to agree that we will
publish. Then CCG takes over maintenance.
... We are working on the process of handover.
... This implementation guide will be taken over.
... W3C likes snapshots of documents.
... The discussion will continue in CCG
TallTed: This is a new mechanism. I would like a reference in
the document that points to the living document.
<dlongley> +1 to that
<dlongley> +1 to a reference to CCG and directing people over
there.
burn: There isn't a living document yet. It is ok to say that
the document will be updated by the CCG. Go there for details.
<burn> dlongley, can you propose a PR with that language?
deiu: Is today the last chance to merge PRs?
<dlongley> burn: i need the appropriate link for that
<dlongley> (where to direct people)
burn: At the end of Aug, the editors will fix editorial
content. Conversations can continue, and a PR that is resolved
with 2-3 reviews, a merge can still happen.
... If the issue is not fully resolved, then do not merge.
deiu: I think there are a few PRs that are just waiting for
final pending changes.
... DavidC will make some final changes. I will merge upon
final reviews.
burn: If is purely editorial, then group discussion is not
required.
DavidC: I've reviewed 51 and requested one change.
dmitriz: I just changed it.
DavidC: I'll approve the changes.
... I've reviewed the '...' changes. Should we change all of
them?
TallTed: I only edited the ones in your examples.
deiu: Please only change the ones in the PR now.
DavidC: OK, I'll work on the ones in my examples.
<burn> dlongley, I just don't want to lose this (pointer to
CCG). Can you at least add an issue with Editorial in the title
so Editors will see next week?
<dlongley> [27]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/56
[27] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/56
<TallTed> +1 merge
<dlongley> ^above PR for note to CCG
dlongley: I added the PR for future versions reference.
<deiu> [28]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues
[28] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues
deiu: any objections to merging pr #56?
... Issues.
dlongley: I'll close #4
<deiu> [29]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/24
[29] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/24
deiu: I'll close #2
<deiu> [30]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/45
[30] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/45
deiu: The is about uport choice of registered JWT value.
Justin_R: The issue as reported is not about uport's usage. My
comment is specific to uport.
... I don't know what is expected here.
... I only added clarifying text.
dlongley: I think we can close this based on my comments.
jonathan_holt: In the schemas problem I have right now,
depending on the format (JWT vs other), I don't know how to
differentiate the correct format.
dlongley: I think that is a new issue.
deiu: I think we can close this issue.
TallTed: Two points are raised: Collision resistant. JWTs only
require base64 conanicalization.
Justin_R: With regard to encoding for JWTs, they only require
base64 URL encoding. There are other JWT formats that require
more. These forms are more rare.
TallTed: While the compact form only requires base64, there are
other forms that require more.
... Can you add this to the issue?
Justin_R: Adding clarifiying text.
... Is the text accurate?
TallTed: The x in the table indicates that other things might
be required.
Justin_R: I'll be more pedantic. ;)
... There is no normative requirement in JWT specification.
TallTed: Compact form is a subset. Other forms can be used,
although not common.
... The limitation to base64 is non-normative.
deiu: Justin, can you edit the text.
Justin_R: In practice it is not seen. I think we should
eliminate the table.
deiu: Can we close?
Justin_R: Yes.
<TallTed> PROPOSED: The group has agreed to close
[31]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/45 based on RFC
citations therein.
[31] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/45
deiu: Objections?
DavidC: Can Ted review PR 43?
<TallTed> +1
<deiu> +1
<ken> +1
<dlongley> +1
scribe: OK
RESOLUTION: The group has agreed to close
[32]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/45 based on RFC
citations therein.
[32] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/45
deiu: I'll close this issue.
<deiu> [33]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/43
[33] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/pull/43
deiu: I would be very happy to merge PR #43
... objections?
burn: Merge conflicts can be resolved later.
deiu: I have to go. Great work today.
... Future PRs can be deferred to CCG.
DavidC: I'm putting in the comments fixes.
deiu: Yes.
burn: We need to discuss the call for next week.
... Should we meet with rebooting web of trust?
... I would like to propose cancelling next weeks call.
<dmitriz> +1 to canceling
burn: Next weeks call is cancelled.
Test Suite Issues and Discussion
burn: Matt will send email regarding the following week's
meeting.
<burn> [34]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues
[34] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues
dmitriz: No major changes in the test suite.
... There is one new issue moved from the data model spec.
... Are there suggestions from JWT implementors?
... Part of it deals with IANA registration.
<dmitriz> [35]https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/95
[35] https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite/issues/95
burn: We don't have an expert on the topic present.
dmitriz: I would like to leave this open and allow someone from
uport to comment.
... I'll leave a comment requsting review from Oliver.
... That's it.
Use Cases document
burn: No one on the call is present as editor.
DavidC: The IANA registration should be done.
burn: Has anyone at digital bazaar done it?
<burn> ACTION: DavidC and Oliver to register vc and vp with
IANA
dlongley: No, we left that to JWT implementors.
<burn> [36]https://github.com/w3c/vc-use-cases/
[36] https://github.com/w3c/vc-use-cases/
burn: Regarding use cases, Joe or Matt are not here.
<burn> ken: there are some IOT use cases. Have discussed with
Ted and Ned and close to having something in the doc.
<burn> burn: that will happen this week?
ken: IoT uses case are in process.
<burn> ken: I'm ready :) Don't know about Ted
ken: Waiting for Ted's final review.
[37]https://github.com/w3c/vc-use-cases/pull/105
[37] https://github.com/w3c/vc-use-cases/pull/105
scribenick: burn
ken: Ted asserted that role of person in company issuing cert .
. .
TallTed: this one is fine. I will give review.
ken: Ned, I need you to officially review as well.
Ned: okay
burn: ken, you can push on this one.
<TallTed> [38]https://github.com/w3c/vc-use-cases/pull/111
[38] https://github.com/w3c/vc-use-cases/pull/111
ken: Joe said he would merge once we had approvals
TallTed: For this one there are still some issues
... PR looks bigger than it is. I think it's right now.
scribenick: ken
TallTed: This is regarding nesting and organization of the
document.
burn: Ted are you happy with the changes?
TallTed: I am looking for feedback.
burn: I asked Matt to make sure that we wrap up this week on
use cases.
... Anything else on use cases?
<DavidC> >dlongley English spelling vs US spelling of
model(l)ing
Other implementation topics
burn: Please with Joe Andreiu or Matt Stone.
jonathan_holt: I'm still struggling with different json-ld
parsers returning different results for the same document.
dlongley: A base URI might be the problem.
... It is also the case that the parsers are being updated to
json-ld 1.1
jonathan_holt: I'm using the go version. It seems like the
digital bazaar is using protected feature.
<yancy> sounds like the same hiccup I had
dlongley: You need to be sure to use a parser that supports
protected because we use in the VC data model.
jonathan_holt: Also there were some small problems with nested
VCs.
dlongley: Please file issues.
jonathan_holt: Where should they be reported?
dlongley: File on the library you are using and we will work it
out.
<burn> [39]https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/46
[39] https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/46
burn: Other implementation issues?
... You wanted some text in the guide. Please write some text
as a PR and if we can get sufficient positive reviews, we can
add the text.
... Otherwise we can more generally add something as editors.
TallTed: I'll try.
burn: Anything else?
... No call next week.
... Look for an email from Matt for the next steps.
... Thanks all!
... See you at RWoT.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: DavidC and Oliver to register vc and vp with IANA
Summary of Resolutions
1. [40]The group has agreed to close
https://github.com/w3c/vc-imp-guide/issues/45 based on RFC
citations therein.
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
David Booth's [41]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([42]CVS log)
$Date: 2019/09/02 06:52:02 $
[41] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[42] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 2 September 2019 07:17:28 UTC