The W3C Credentials Community Group

Verifiable Claims and Digital Verification

Go Back

Credentials CG Telecon

Minutes for 2017-08-01

Lionel Wolberger is scribing.
Christopher Allen: First up - Review agenda, any changes?
No changes.

Topic: Action Items

Christopher Allen: Moving documents and resources
Christopher Allen: Updating credentials mission statement
Christopher Allen: Draft action items
Christopher Allen: We needed to choose a CG name, we've done that.
Christopher Allen: We need a new mission statement.
Drummond Reed: What is the new name?
ChristopherA submitted new mission statement for review.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Mission statement, current draft:
Dave Longley: Drummond, no new name; the name will remain "The Credentials Community Group"

Topic: Introductions and Re-introductions

No one new for introductions, on to re-introductions.
David I. Lehn: Hi, I'm Dave Lehn from Digital Bazaar. I am involved in doing a number of implementations around Verifiable Claims, Linked Data Signatures, Web Payments, and the related cryptography suites. I've been involved in this work for over 7 years and will continue to support the group by doing implementations for the technologies incubated here.

Topic: Update on Community Group Name

Christopher Allen: Regarding name change: after discussion, decided not to change the name.
Drummond Reed: Okay, I just didn't know that the "new name" was.
Manu Sporny: Fundamentally, this group started as the Credentials Community Group and only changed to Verifiable Claims after pressure from some larger organizations at W3C. In hindsight, it was a mistake to do this as "Verifiable Claims" has led to a number of confusing discussions related to what we're really doing here - which is creating credentialing technology. It was asserted by the "security community" that "credentials" were "usernames, passwords, and facebook logins" and didn't cover things like digital drivers licenses, educational certificates, and other concepts. Now that the group has more cryptographers, security advocates, and privacy advocates, it is clear that the group would prefer to keep the "credential" wording and thus we will have to circle back around to the organizations objecting to let them know that we've explored this topic in depth and have come to the conclusion that the group is really involved in the creation of credential technology.
Drummond Reed: I'm good with "Credentials Community Group".
Manu Sporny: Currently there are security, privacy experienced people in the group now so they can reflect the security-understanding of the word 'credential'
Manu Sporny: This community advocates for claiming the word for its broad meaning outside of the limited 'credential = username/pass'
Manu Sporny: This community holds the word to refer to credentials as commonly understood in the wider civic context.
Christopher Allen: The community could be easier to discover
Manu Sporny: Will take care of the redirects
Christopher Allen: The document availability challenge is made more difficult since the group has historically used many different docs in different locations
Christopher Allen: Need to discuss more about the signature standards
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Kimhd has an action item to sort out Credentials CG landing page to make it clearer where specs are, etc
Ryan Grant: Suggests a github for the documents
Ryan Grant: :)
Drummond Reed: Hooray!
Manu instantly grants rgant's request!
Joe Andrieu: +1 For Manu's magic trick
Manu Sporny: We also have this site for the signature stuff:
Manu Sporny: DVCG has docs in other places... manu discusses need to aggregate the docs
Drummond Reed: +1 For bringing all the docs and pointers back into one place -
Manu Sporny: What do we do after we aggregate the docs?
Joe Andrieu: +1 To move IRC channel
Manu Sporny: Proposed: rfc should no longer be #vctf
Christopher Allen: Acronym ccg
Manu Sporny: Propose to go to #ccg
Drummond Reed: +1 To "ccg" IRC channel
Manu Sporny: #Vctf will have a redirect
Christopher Allen: +1
Manu Sporny: Credentials COmmunity Group (CCG) has been accepted, so that name will be applied to chat and anywhere appropriate
Drummond Reed: +1 To doing the blanket change that Manu proposes
Ryan Grant: +1
Joe Andrieu: +1
Frederico Sportini: +1
Dave Longley: +1 To #ccg for IRC channel and ccg for telecon bridge
Christopher Allen: What to do about the former URL?
Christopher Allen: I'd love to see it have less, and move stuff there off.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: The W3C site poses some challenges regarding the control of the content, so I see it as a launching point for the credentials page
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Let's see it as an entry point
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Consider using the W3C wordpress blog
Kim Hamilton Duffy: But keep the bulk of the updates on Manu's site
Christopher Allen: Manu, what about old minutes, old agenda, etc.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: After mission statement is drafted, send a notification regarding the CCG name to the working group people who raised concerns about our name.
Manu Sporny: Order of operations (1) define mission statement (2) contact W3C systems team to update the mission statement on the W3C credentials community page (3) then notify web payments and privacy interest group
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Ok
Manu Sporny: Ok
Christopher Allen: Differentiate between CLAIMS and CREDENTIAL GROUP
Manu Sporny: Plan to split/fork the VCTF repo for Preservation of audio records
Manu Sporny: Will maintain transparency back to 2015 into the changes we've been through
Manu Sporny: This fork will also have redirects as needed to enable good accessibility
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Sounds good to me
Christopher Allen: Kudos to Manu for all the hard work and stewardship.
Manu Sporny: No problem - thanks to everyone else that's participating and making it happen, too! :)

Topic: Revising the Mission Statement

Christopher Allen: The purpose of the Credentials Community Group is to discuss, research, document, prototype, and test credential storage and exchange systems for the Iinternet, to allow for the standardized and interoperable creation of credentials and presentation of their proofs. It focuses on a credential as a verifiable assertion by an authority about a subject, entity, or person, and seeks solutions for both centralized authorities and self-sovereign
Christopher Allen: Identities. Its output includes [we do this how? write reports? write requirements?]
Chris shared the link. Page 3 has the revised version.
Ryan Grant: Its output includes creating draft specifications and test implementations suitable for further standardization
Drummond Reed: Suggests we use the phrase "both centralized, federated, and decentralized entities".
Dave Longley: "Both" might need to be removed in that case :)
Dan Burnett: We cannot call it a W3C standard or a W3C Recommendation
Dan Burnett: But we can call it a specification
Joe Andrieu: + 1 Federations
Moses Ma: You never use the term "reputation", is that deliberate?
Drummond Reed: I think it's good to include the whole spectrum of options—centralized, federated, decentralized, self-sovereign.
Joe Andrieu: +1 I like that framing of the spectrum: centralized, federated, decentralized, self-sovereign
Dave Longley: Membership is bounded/enumerable
Ryan Grant: (Adding language around output of the community)
Christopher Allen: Made changes in the text.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Discussion. Self-sovereign identity seems more critical to the recipient-side, enables longevity of claims etc.
... the new version seems more on the sender-side.
... Joe can you clarify self-sovereign identity.
Christopher Allen: Add to doc, this seems to be issuer-centric, perhaps we can add more language around the bearer/holder
Drummond Reed: By "federation", I mean this definition:
Manu Sporny: +1 To JoeA - it feels like we're listing different categories.
Drummond Reed: +1 To replacing "self-sovereign issuers" with "self-sovereign identities".
Ryan Grant: Way better
Joe Andrieu: Thanks, Manu. I wasn't even sure if these earbuds had a mic when we started the call. ;)
Ryan Grant: Drummond link to federated identity is helpful.
Moses Ma: Please address 'reputation'
Drummond Reed: I suggest changing "federation" to "federated identity systems" to clear up any confusion with other meanings of federation.
Christopher Allen: Reputation is a kind of credential and should be allowed for, but reputation brings many other ideas/concepts along with it, and broadens the scope significantly
Drummond Reed: We could say that "The outputs of the CCG could also support the development of interoperable reputation systems."
Moses Ma: Proposes defining reputation as a collection of credentials
Manu Sporny: Moses definition aligns with many discussions we have had. Given that, let's focus on the credential building blocks
Moses Ma: Ok, but let's make sure the building blocks collect the data needed to enable reputation.
Christopher Allen: Let's defer that discussion
Ryan Grant: +1 Internet
Christopher Allen: Internet vs web?
Joe Andrieu: +1 Internet
Lionel Wolberger: +1 Internet
Joe Andrieu: Watch that capitalization ;P [scribe assist by Ryan Grant]
Moses Ma: I'd be happy to lead a discussion in a month or so on low level functionality in VC that can support the development of robust interoperable reputation systems
Christopher Allen: Decentralized registry v blockchains
Ryan Grant: Correct. The Internet [scribe assist by Joe Andrieu]
Christopher Allen: Thoughts?
Drummond Reed: We don't use the term "blockchain" or "DLT" anywhere in the mission statement now.
Joe Andrieu: Not blockchains. +1 decentralized registries is inclusive without being restrictive
Dave Longley: "Blockchain" is unnecessarily specific, IMO
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Agree on blockchain too specific
Chris Webber: I even think that DLT is too specific, since I'm not confident using a DHT really qualifies as a DLT
Lionel Wolberger: +1 Blockchain too specific
Chris Webber: Decentralized registries is good
Adrian Gropper: I agree that reputation is much bigger than a set of credentials
Lionel Wolberger: Decentralization and immutability are the key characteristics we want to go for... we don't want to be more specific and say "blockchain". [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Ryan Grant: Changing my +1 to registry. seems sufficient for now.
Christopher Allen: ...Continues reading and discussing wording [see google doe for comments there] ...
Chris Webber: Btw, I'm convinced now that federation aligns with the decentralized social web usage
Chris Webber: So a-ok with me
Christopher Allen: Let's privilege terms that are more amenable to search engine access
Ryan Grant: What does "incubate" add?
Moses Ma: To draw interest, we should mention more benefits?
Kim Hamilton Duffy: I think experimental is redundant now
Joe Andrieu: That was amazing collaborative editing. Much improved, folks.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: I think we can close next week -- we seem close
Drummond Reed: Yes, we can close next week
Drummond Reed: I have to leave now, sorry
Joe Andrieu: Send not to list. we can close next week
Joe Andrieu: Note to list
Manu Sporny: Yes, give us a week to marinate on it...
Drummond Reed: +1