The W3C Credentials Community Group

Verifiable Claims and Digital Verification

Go Back

Credentials CG Telecon

Minutes for 2018-12-19

Kim Hamilton Duffy: For reintro let's do Nate Otto

Topic: Introductions and Reintroductions

Nate Otto: Lead developer for Badger project for Concentric Sky, re-engaging with the group after not being able to for some time, glad to be participating again. I've also been very involved in open badges.

Topic: Announcements and Status Updates

Ryan Grant: Someone means to be on mute, but is not
Error: (IRC nickname 'heathervescent' not recognized)[Tue 12:08:23] <heathervescent> Announcements: No meeting next 2 weeks. 1st meeting is Jan 9.
Error: (IRC nickname 'heathervescent' not recognized)[Tue 12:08:54] <heathervescent> Announcements: Virtual Hackathon coming up
Joe Andrieu: Want to get people to help engage technology partners for Virtual Hackathon
Drummond Reed: I asked for clarification about two of the registries
Manu Sporny: Make decision re: registry to adopt process & 3 registries. Update to Object Capabilities (Chris Webber)
Chris Webber: Object capabilities document in good early shape. Group needs to review & decide to take on as official work. Do we want to vote now?
Christopher Allen: Not yet a formal work item, propose to schedule it to discuss it being a work item in January.
Joe Andrieu: Registries work item? Are we formalizing today?
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Drummond had some questions (via email) and wanted to hear more about two items.
Nate Otto: The other two items proposed were "Linked Data Key Types, and Credential Status Method Registries"
Manu Sporny: Linked Data Key Types, is the registry to resolve DID hardening spec stuff, key type expression, crypto suites, to express cryptography suites/key suites.
Nate Otto: +1 To the name "Linked Data Key Types" - It's pretty clear to me.
Drummond Reed: That's what I'm on the queue to ask about.
Manu Sporny: Credential Status Method Registries - w3c tpac, came out of revocation discussion, this is more than revocation, need to back up for all status, revocation is one status. To express different status methods you have with a credential. So far identified: list of credential status items posted somewhere on the web, 2) blockchain based status method (none proposed yet)
Drummond Reed: Concerned with calling the registry Linked Data Key Types, that because thought it meant something different.
Nate Otto: These are specific ways of describing keys in linked data, as opposed to keys FOR signing linked Data particularly. Maybe "Linked Data Key Classes"?
Dave Longley: All kinds of keys -- including how to represent using Linked Data
Dave Longley: Decentralized key management key types?
Drummond Reed: +1 To that
Dave Longley: Kinda weird -- because they don't *have* to be used in that manner.
Dave Longley: But more general.
Manu Sporny: Registries are unofficial, we can change the name. Committing with the purpose of registry, not the name (name can be changed). Re: Key Descriptions - open hostility to use this terminology from other groups. To generalize outside of linked data, need a different set of specs... we need to talk about JWK/JOSE. This would be a new class of crypto suites. Concern about generalizing too far.
Manu Sporny: I'd be happy w/ Decentralized Key Types? ... don't know about "Management"...
Joe Andrieu: These are the 4 work items we want to agree to work on.
Manu Sporny: 3 Registries, one process -- 4 work items.
Drummond Reed: OK, as long as we can discuss the name of the work item.
Joe Andrieu: Reviewing the 4 work items (in the agenda)
Kim Hamilton Duffy: +1 To that
Drummond Reed: +1 To approving those four work items
Manu Sporny: Or riding a horse on gravel.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: +1 To approving these 4 work items
Dave Longley: +1
Christopher Allen: +1
Ryan Grant: Manu, what is the voip-ccg mute capability?
Ted Thibodeau: +1
Chris Webber: +1
Christian Lundkvist: +1
Manu Sporny: +1 For approving 4 work items.
Christopher Allen: +1
Joe Andrieu: We have officially approved the 4 work items.
Drummond Reed: @Manu - I like "Decentralized Key Types"
ACTION: Manu to update CCG website with all 4 work items -- process, 3 registries (and create repos where none exist).
Manu Sporny: @Drummond - Ok, I'll rename the LD Key Types registry to "Decentralized Key Types" ... which makes sense... we assume they have links to other content (like who their owner is, etc.)
Joe Andrieu: (Template for DID spec proposals)
Drummond Reed: Update on DID Spec. Proceeding. Expect to get it done soon.
Christian Lundkvist: "Decentralized key types" sounds kind of strange, as if the keys are somehow decentralized.
Drummond Reed: Hmm, good point. Suggestions?
Lionel Wolberger: Offline checkin with JoeA
ACTION: Joe & Lionel to chat about Privacy work
Christian Lundkvist: Maybe similar to how we say "DID document" we could say "DID key types" or something like that
Drummond Reed: +1 To "DID Key Types"
Dave Longley: -1 To DID Key Types... not specific to DIDs
Dave Longley: It's for applications to use ... where those keys may be listed in a DID document, or elsewhere.
Drummond Reed: Hmmm, that's a good point too
Joe Andrieu: 2017 In review. Process - introducing the roadmap concept. Before presenting 2018 roadmap, wanted to do a 2017 in review.
Drummond Reed: How about "DID Document Key Types"?
Dave Longley: You can put them in things other than DID Documents, so i don't think that captures it or is too narrow
Dave Longley: Maybe we need to through in 'suite' somewhere and just shorten it up
Manu Sporny: Community Group numbers: flattened out, not many new members. Doing well on engagement. But haven't done a great job recruiting new people in the group. Have we hit capacity? Exhausted communities already involved? E.g. Lots of people from Consensys. Working group has picked up a few new people, but need more. Question for next year: what new venues should we go to evangelize and engage people from those areas?
Dave Longley: Or 'key classes' or something.

Topic: 2017 Year in Review

Joe Andrieu: 123 Non chair participants. Transitioned from 2 community groups as VC became a working group.
Christian Lundkvist: Just "key types" seems to capture it, but did that clash with JOSE?
Manu Sporny: +1 Hooray for new leadership and the pace at which we're progressing!
Drummond Reed: Yes, +1 to that.
Christian Lundkvist: Maybe -- key descriptions/key descriptors does clash ... "type" may be too general and cause a clash, so doing "class" or something like that may help make it clear that we're defining very specific bundled parameters. [scribe assist by Dave Longley]
Drummond Reed: I agree with Joe that the growth in the number of DID methods is a major sign of momentum.
Joe Andrieu: Successes: Adoption of DID draft spec. Number of DID methods created by 3rd parties. Have 6 DID methods in process/proposed from group members.
Drummond Reed: +10 To ICO FUD problem
Dave Longley: Details on success
Drummond Reed: Or better put, the "ICO hijacking" of SSI
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Plus several RSA Signature Suite 2017 implementations!
Manu Sporny: @Drummond - yeah, this group needs to figure out how to deal w/ that...
Joe Andrieu: Amira is incoming.
Nate Otto: #Openwashing
Manu Sporny: Impressed with 2017 progress. Seeing ICOs launching compatible, and they are closed, proprietary environments. As a community need to deal with this. They are damaging our ability to evangelize.
Dave Longley: Do we need a page where we list compatible technologies?
Dan Burnett: Could develop certification program. Most industry standards groups do such things.
Manu Sporny: @Burn, lightweight certification program would be: "Do you pass the test suite"
Manu Sporny: Not that we have a test suite right now :)
Kim Hamilton Duffy: +1 To more hackathons!
Frederico Sportini: +1
Christopher Allen: Appreciative of BTCR hackathon that resulted in bringing code back into the community. We need more working code and trying out new things.
Ryan Grant: +1
John Jordan: Unlikely public sector issuers, I would argue the only legitimate issuer of identities would participate in a closed identity ecosystem
Joe Andrieu: Yes, dlongley, we need something about listing other sources. We don't have a use case doc for DIDs.
ACTION: Chairs to decide if we need a Use Cases document for DIDs?
John Jordan: Hence, in Canada, DIACC role to establish a Pan Canadian Trust Framework for Verified Person, Verifiable Org, Verifiable Relationship
Lionel Wolberger: 1) Impressive when journalism was interested in fake news/decoy news. Good job. 2) Shepherding streams of selective disclosure and ...(trust?). This is going well with Soverign.
Markus Sabadello: Appreciate the separate DID methods. Feedback has been good to not be limited to one specific ledger. Looking forward to contribute to code - resolver and registration.
Adrian Hope-Bailie: Highlight of 2017: the realization at RWoT how aligned UMA (user managed access) work and DID/credentials work (w3c). Doubling down to extend this in 2018.
Joe Andrieu: Asking for feedback. What went well? What can we improve?
Kim Hamilton Duffy: +1 To screensharing
Joe Andrieu: Drummond suggested screensharing.
ACTION: Chairs to explore screensharing for calls
Dave Longley: Essentially the extra calls are "task force calls"
Dave Longley: "Task forces" being common in other W3C groups
Joe Andrieu: Thanks, dlongley for the language
Manu Sporny: Re: screensharing --- please don't lose audio recording capability in the process.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Yes
Manu Sporny: +1 To Rebooting the Web of Trust workshops playing a big part in where things are today
Joe Andrieu: +1 To RWoT. It's why I'm here at all.
Christian Lundkvist: Credit goes to the RWoT workshops for moving things forward. Thanks to ChristopherA for running those. And Manu's work in W3C.
Markus Sabadello: +1 To RWoT... and IIW too
Manu Sporny: Yep, remember that IIW has been incubating lots of these ideas for years... :)
Joe Andrieu: Propose 1st Tuesday of the month: Crypto Tuesday and invite journalists to this meeting.
Manu Sporny: Heathervescent: I love hearing all of the feedback, positive things that have happened - taking work happening here - all behind the scenes stuff, and making it visible to the rest of the world.
Christopher Allen: I’d too love to see a regular monthly cryptographer / security focus meeting
Manu Sporny: Heathervescent: I'm doing some work with ChristopherA for RWoT - amplifying information that is happening here to larger audiences... is there opportunity for material here? I translate from complex tech stuff to general public, I can see a way to help contribute to this community - bring more esoteric discussions to a more non-technical / consumer audience.
Manu Sporny: Heathervescent: but we don't want to derail the work w/ a bunch of journalistic questions - have a space for people to ask questions, but the answers have to be at the level of understanding for them - don't go down the rabbit hole.
Christopher Allen: There is also the question of 90 minute meeting
Lionel Wolberger: Picking a theme for the "crypto tuesday" and inviting people interested.
Christopher Allen: Proposing a 90 minute meeting.
Drummond Reed: +1 To 90 min calls to really get stuff done
Dan Burnett: Christopher, this is a great idea. The VCWG should run 30 minutes later, but that would mean you needed to start an hour later here :)
Joe Andrieu: Action?
Joe Andrieu: We will discuss 90 minute meeting in January.
Ryan Grant: Alternate proposal: longer meetings but fewer of them, preserving minutes spent in meetings.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: +1 To @heathervescent's point. Communicating at the level of understanding is critical for explaining subtleties we described earlier, around self-sovereign imposters
Manu Sporny: Yes, +1 to @heathervescent - we need to communicate this stuff to general public.
Heather Vescent: Exactly kimhd I was thinking of exactly that. To help manage reputation.
Joe Andrieu: Asking for help w/ hackathon.
ACTION: Zach Larson to reach out re: hackathon
Christian Lundkvist: I have to drop off, thanks everyone!
ACTION: Chairs to advertise hackathon
Zachary Larson: Do we have a link/material on the hackathon that I can share/promote?
ACTION: Co-chairs need to put together page for hackathon
Manu Sporny: Planning on Digital Bazaar being there.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: @ZacharyL not yet, but we should soon
Nate Otto: Could I get more information on "being there"? Is this an in-person event, online, decentralized?
ACTION: Manu to figure out Digital Bazaar participants of Hackathon
Drummond Reed: When is the hackathon?
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Sorry, have to leave
Ryan Grant: January
Drummond Reed: Thanks - can someone send an email to the list with full info about the hackathon?
Dave Longley: Week of January 15th, online.
Drummond Reed: Gotta run, thanks to all, bye
Joe Andrieu: Thanks for a great year!
Nate Otto: I'll potentially participate. I have use cases for DIDs!