Re: TO-DO for the PR transition of the VC specs

> On 17 Feb 2025, at 09:39, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Guys,
> 
> as usual, I have created a draft for the PR transition request:
> 
>  https://github.com/w3c/verifiable-credentials/blob/main/admin/PR-March-2025/Approval_request.md
> 
> It is a large request, and it is easy to get something wrong. Could all editors please review it. I have made some annotations in the text, but here are the main points that must be taken care of:
> 
> 1. (Manu) the dates for VCDM and DI are wrong, set to 2024 instead of 2025.
> 
> Note to everyone: the March 6 publication date is fictitious and must be, eventually, changed. We cannot issue a PR request in February (the deadline set for the end of CR of the CID spec is Friday, February 28), meaning that the earliest date this request can be raised is March the 3rd or the 4th. The reviews of the request happen on Fridays. Let us suppose that we get an approval right away (i.e., on the 7th). In that case the earliest date for publication would be the 13th but, with a transition of this magnitude, I would prefer the 13th or the 15th. (This leaves enough time for everyone involved, like myself, the webmaster, the

Sorry, mixed up the dates: earliest on the 11th, not the 13th.

> persons responsible for the creation of the official AC review form, etc.)
> 
> Note that this is based on getting an immediate approval on the 7th. In my experience, that would be a wonder 😉.
> 
> 2. (Mike, Mahmoud) the URLs for the PR snapshots for JOSE-COSE and Schemas anticipate the merge of two Pull Requests[1,2].
> 
> 3. (Brent) we should not forget, when passing the resolution asking for a transition, to also pass a resolution on whether the WG would have the right to do class 4 changes on the specifications while in maintenance. (I suspect the choice is not to allow, but that has to be on record.) The respec structure in the spec should reflect that decision (afaik, the right term is `updateableRec`, but it is not part of the Respec documentation 😒)
> 
> 4. (Mike) there should be a section (e.g., Appendix) in the JOSE-COSE spec listing all the significant changes on the document since its last publication as a CR. The reference thereof must be added to the transition request.
> 
> (All) check that these change sections are indeed up-to-date!
> 
> 5. (Mike, Brent) there is a remark whereby SD-JWT is technically mature enough to refer to it normatively in the clause on dependencies. I would need the correct IETF terminology on the phase where that document is in (see the section on dependencies in the request).
> 
> 6. (Manu, Brent) there was no reference to the JSON-Schema spec in the issues for last horizontal reviews (see section on Wide Review). I added some text, maybe that works. 
> 
> In general, if there is any update necessary on that section in the request, please do. (I copied some text out of earlier transition requests.)
> 
> 7. (All) the implementation section in the request refers to the official test suites but, at this point, it is also worth referring to existing adoptions, or pre-adoptions of VCs, and also other types of implementation. I listed some reference in the text, please amend it at will. The goal is to prove (also to the AC, when the time comes) that there really is, and will be adoption.
> 
> 8. (All) you may have seen that the patent disclosure table has been spammed[3]. I can only hope that these are not the sign of a systematic attack on VCs and it is only someone who had some (dubious) fun. I have already contacted our system team on this.
> 
> 9. (All) make sure that all your documents pass the pubrules' and link checkers [4,5]. Seasoned editors know that [5] can be a pain, because it often creates false errors that must be checked nevertheless.
> 
> 10. (Manu, Mahmoud) I have raised a separate issue on what has to be done with vocabularies, context files, or schemas. Strictly speaking, I believe, it is not _required_ to do this for the PR transition itself, but it may be wiser to have it done nevertheless. Some AC reps might complain about the location of vital resources on github...
> 
> I hope I have not forgotten anything significant!
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Ivan
> 
> [1] https://github.com/w3c/vc-jose-cose/pull/332
> [2] https://github.com/w3c/vc-json-schema/pull/247
> [3] https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/vc/ipr/
> [4] https://www.w3.org/pubrules/
> [5] https://validator.w3.org/checklink
> [6] https://github.com/w3c/verifiable-credentials/issues/61
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C 
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43