The W3C Credentials Community Group

Verifiable Claims and Digital Verification

Go Back

Credentials CG Telecon

Minutes for 2018-01-16

Ryan Grant is scribing.

Topic: Reintroductions

David Chadwick: University of Kent, UK. been working on credentials 20+ years, x509, been in this group for a while.
David Chadwick: Medical implementation, moving towards fingerprint reader on smartphone
Joe Andrieu: Many people heard connection issues with the audio

Topic: Announcements

Joe Andrieu: There is a DID hackathon this week! YAAAY! ;)
Frederico Sportini: Cool
Joe Andrieu: Crypto focus is coming up next
Frederico Sportini: +1 Cryptothuesday
Joe Andrieu: "Implementor's stand-up" will be scheduled after DID draft is final
Joe Andrieu: Next RWOT is March 5-9 in Santa Barbara. There is a golf tournament, so plan travel appropriately.
Ryan Grant: The golf tournament is for us? not a travel issue...
First Non-Annual RWoT Disc Golf Tournament Monday March 5
Joe Andrieu: Disc golf tournament is "us"
Chris Webber: We talked about object capabilities. is that in the schedule?
Joe Andrieu: Is that an approved work item yet?
Christopher Allen: We need to formally propose this <describes process>
Christopher Allen: 2Nd Tuesday
Joe Andrieu: Is there any reason to wait until February?

Topic: Work Items

Joe Andrieu: How about next week?
Christopher Allen: Quorum should include MarkM and other object-capability interest people, which was reason for expecting early February to work.
Chris Webber: <Plans to write up this proposal>
Manu Sporny: DID spec has pull request ...
Joe Andrieu: Data Minimization & Selective Disclosure has seen plenty of work, hopefully we can wrap that up before the month is up.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Meta -- do we have an irc command to remove action items from agenda?
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Planning to use a clever hack of creating an action item to remove an action item
Manu Sporny: All registries have been created
ACTION: chairs remove action item "Kim provide feedback on VC Browser API and polyfill re BTCR"
Manu Sporny: Update via pull requests
Manu Sporny: Not aware of other W3C groups that should manage these registries. we are on the bleeding edge.
Joe Andrieu: DID Reconciliation Proposal
Manu Sporny: Here is the link to the DID reconciliation --
Manu Sporny: You can preview the pull request here:
Manu Sporny: This covers all the issues known to be raised in prior conferences and meetings
Manu Sporny: We need people to do a review, to see that nothing was missed, and that it represents the consensus
Joe Andrieu: Clarifies that "DID hardening" is ongoing
Manu Sporny: Preferred method at this point is github pull requests
Joe Andrieu: Proposal - thursday group offers explanation
Drummond Reed: Proposal - continue Thursday calls only to cover remaining issues
Joe Andrieu: One of the risks is that some of the tuesday regulars can't make it on thursday, and there's a potential fork in consensus. now is a good time for anyone interested to review and make sure their feedback is integrated.
Joe Andrieu: Does hope to get engagement model - maybe February

Topic: Outreach

Joe Andrieu: Outreach cn be taken to email, but...
Joe Andrieu: We'd like to get an inventory of verfiable claim libraries
Joe Andrieu: We'll reach out to known libraries
Manu Sporny: Javascript DID clients, VC test suite <-- not a library yet, just examples
Manu Sporny: Examples are in python and javascript
Manu Sporny: Developers can wrap in library
Joe Andrieu: This irc channel will also remain open

Topic: Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) aka Roadmap Review

Joe Andrieu: Roadmap Review
Joe Andrieu: Events under CCG umbrella (to be listed later)
Joe Andrieu: <Many other things that scribe missed>
Christopher Allen: +Q
Joe Andrieu: Credential handler API and DID spec are well underway
Manu Sporny: We should totally put this on our landing page.
Heather Vescent: +1
Manu Sporny: +1 To use cases for DID Spec
Manu Sporny: (We need those to help grease the skids for W3C Process)
ACTION: @kimhd work Credentials Community Group 2018 WBS graphic onto landing page
Joe Andrieu: If you know of something that we should be doing, but that is not in the
Manu Sporny: Clarification on W3C process
Manu Sporny: We need use cases
Manu Sporny: DID specification, to get into standards track, needs several thing.
Manu Sporny: Use cases, tag review
Manu Sporny: Multiple interoperable implementations
Manu Sporny: Demonstrate that there are people who would join the working group
Manu Sporny: These things need to be added to the chart
Nate Otto: Interesting that TPAC will be October in France. The organizers of ePIC (themes: ePortfolios, Blockchains, Open Badges, and Identities) were considering Paris or Lyon for October 2018 as well. Maybe they could attach their event on the front or back of TPAC.
Manu Sporny: Let's add the chart to the landing page
ACTION: chairs ensure we're sending out info about RWoT in Santa Barbara (if not already in progress)
Christopher Allen: We're missing a huge category: data verification
Christopher Allen: Early in our charter, we said we were not going to start a separate group for that
Christopher Allen: There is probably a whole column here
Christopher Allen: Would love to see manu redraw column1, and dave redraw column2
Joe Andrieu: We have overlap with data verification group, but are you considering a new toplevel or new final reports?
Christopher Allen: New finals.
Christopher Allen: Maybe manu can answer what the process is
Joe Andrieu: We have not really integrated the work of that group into our work, and it shows up in its absence here. let's get some boxes on here that are specifically carrying on the work of the data verification group.
Joe Andrieu: For col1 and col2, manu's feedback on 1.1.1
Joe Andrieu: For 1.1.2, not really sure what the future of that is
Joe Andrieu: Own working group
Manu Sporny: Digital verification: there's no process on what we need to do, other than naturally progress the specs based on their need
Manu Sporny: The specs are moving ahead because of what we need out of them
Manu Sporny: W3C staff conversations regarding specs that are using things that don't have specs behind them, are good reasons to start a working group.
Manu Sporny: Problem is that W3C normally doesn't start such small working groups
Manu Sporny: We can start it
Manu Sporny: Standard chaining is one of the ways that these things get moving
Manu Sporny: We don't have a very clear route for the signature stuff
Manu Sporny: There seem to be a lot of people pulling for the DID spec
Manu Sporny: If we can prove the DID spec has enough interst, and that the people working on these things are the same, then VCWG could move there -- we could combine groups.
Manu Sporny: No idea how we move signature suites forward
Drummond Reed: Manu, I thought that you thought the DID spec would go into the VCWG? Why has that changed?
Manu Sporny: DID spec is most likely to transition to a WG, and it might be its own WG, or with verifiable claims
Manu Sporny: Update LDS spec, and write spec for koblitz signature suite, and write signature suite for the signatures that Sovrin are using
Joe Andrieu: Are those eventually going to be proposed recommendations?
Christopher Allen: They will eventually fit under 1.1.3
Christopher Allen: A number of these things we will be talking about on "crypto tuesdays"
Joe Andrieu: We'll put that in 1.1.3, and get that updated
Manu Sporny: The weason we don't know which working group, is that they are trying to get very focused with working groups
Manu Sporny: We may be able to craft some text that VCs are using DIDs, so it fits there
Manu Sporny: Largely it's driven by W3C management, and they're focused on reducing overhead, but we don't know
David Chadwick: Item 5e
Manu Sporny: With respect to the Browser API, we need browser vendors to support and that will most likely be another WG.
David Chadwick: Review privacy and security has already been accomplished
David Chadwick: Lifecycle model
ACTION: Remove action item 5e DONE
Christopher Allen: We'd asked DavidC to let us know what has not been integrated correctly.
Christopher Allen: We can close this as a completed work item that did not need its own draft, because the items were merged into other documents.
David Chadwick: Will draft an email to be put on the agenda for a futuere week
Joe Andrieu: That's a wrap.
Nate Otto: Thanks, all. Cheers! Hackathon continues