The W3C Credentials Community Group

Verifiable Claims and Digital Verification

Go Back

Credentials CG Telecon

Minutes for 2019-11-05

Dave Longley: Regrets+
Joe Andrieu: Thanks, Dave
Yancy Ribbens is scribing.
I will scribe at least once today

Topic: Introductions and Reintroductions

Joe Andrieu: In the future and for the last two weeks we sent an email saying please sign up
... we have a did resolution call on Thursdays
... have the link to the zoom in the agenda
... operates under the IPR of the group
... this is house keeping

Topic: Announcements and Reminders

... if you have an action item please let us know to move it forward
... which is part of the overall call today

Topic: Review action items and work items

Joe Andrieu: The first is vc schema identification
Kim Hamilton Duffy: This one is approved
... and the repo has been created in this location
... under community specifications
... I included some basic information about getting the doc in spec text
... for anyone on new items you can iterate on until you're ready to release a task
Kim Hamilton Duffy:
... basically there's two options, easy and hard way
... creating CCG specs, just write mark down and bike shed on it
... the other just use raw respec
... gabe and orie are a techie lot so shouldn't be an issue
... otherwise reach out
Joe Andrieu: If markdown feels like the native place to play with, then keep using bike shed
... tracking VC maintenance charter
... do we have anyone who has been working with the staff on this charter?
Kim Hamilton Duffy: The charter has been submitted
... this should be closed
Joe Andrieu: Likes closing issues
... just an idea for a future meeting
Kim Hamilton Duffy: There was some catchup
... like how to we host json-ld context
... it might be a combination of action items in CCG working group
... but also might be in the json-ld working group
... also wants to callout if anyone else has updates here
... wants to make sure json-ld discussion we had a few weeks ago is under way
... will close it next week if nothing
Joe Andrieu: Last one is a DID explainer
Dan Burnett: This is something the DID working group should take on

Topic: CCG 2020 Scope of work

Joe Andrieu: The chairs had an interesting conversation
... we definitely see the CCG being a big tent
Dan Burnett: I can "transfer" that issue to the did repo for you to use as a starting point. Shall i? [scribe assist by Kim Hamilton Duffy]
... we have a couple items that are tracking to go to ietf
... anything in digital credential world which relates to identity can start here
... there's some understandable tension
... what should the CCG be doing
... there's no should by the W3C
... so I want to open the conversation
... some of this is how do we be effective
... some of it is thing we are trying to be better at
... we are on this call as volunteers and we need to channel our energy effectiely
Adrian Gropper: Interested in oauth and did doc storage
... if this is something we can take up here i'll be pleased
... I'll link to a set of slides
... and will leave it at that
Justin Richer: Still confuses me that we are working on DID resolution and that it hasn't been moved to the DID WG
... as we're figuring out what this group should be doing, we should also consider what we should not be doing
Kim Hamilton Duffy: We have Adrian's topic on our future meetings list. I'm very interested in the analysis he's done
Dmitri Zagidulin: Couple of things about DID being done as part of the CCG
... for one, the constraints of the charter
... and the other is that of inclusion
... there are a number of people who have stakes in DID but can't join the DID WG
Justin_A: while not enumerated in the did wg, there are so many places in the current and final doc that will have normative requirements against this
... from the inclusion point then letting them talk about only one piece of the DID but not letting them talk about all the rest and only talk about resolution but not anything else is not inclusion
... having just the resolution on the outside won't let people be truly engaged
... I don't think people will be satisfied with only the resolution part
ChristoperA: I want to speak at the higher level and there are a lot oc communities that can benefit from DID
... but not enough to say it can be an internation standard
... the number of companies that are not members of the w3c and have expressessed interest is the majority
... the best example is the pulling together of the different starage and encrypted storage by Kim
... and pulled together at rebooting
... is what I hoped for
... not everything needs to be an international standard
... like Bitcoin is not an international standard
... some things should be moved into IETF
... but I want this to be a home for that stuff that is not going to be an international standard
... the things we can demonstrate is after 2 years incumbation we can start the VC or DID working group
JoeAndrie: I don't know if we can do normative stuff it needs to be in the charter
... I would argue against putting it in the document itself and it is method specific
... standards is about what you do and don't do
.... so the fact the peer did is not a valid did when specifying the resolution
... and it's still being spec'd out
... the pattern that the charters was created under was like the vc wg
... and we could do the protocol
... but it did let us get the data model published
... lets at least get the data model and methods specified as a start
Justin Richer: Thanks for the context
Joe Andrieu: Fair.
... doesn't think the VC spec should be a model spec because of data serialization
... I don't think the did document should be a document and should be split into separate concerns
... with that in mind that's what I think it makes the most sense to have these three together
... guidance like when I hand you a url this is what happens to get a did doc back
... and in my mind this should fall under the did chartare
... process can be worked
Joe Andrieu: Having some awareness of what we can do
Adrian Gropper: Picking up on the inclusion point that was made
... I'm confused and having a hard time keeping up with the working being done with DIF and hyper ledger
... happy to be told the CCG is not the place to take it up
Dan Burnett: FYI, charters can be extended. Politically, there is likely better support today for additional work in the DID WG than there was when we began creating the original charter.
... I want to know what the relation will be between diff and hl for interop
Kim Hamilton Duffy: I think that this is the perfect placed for the interop discussions that agropper is having
... certainly the storage and layers and protocols.. there's a lot of meaty topics that need to be picked apart
... it's hard to figure out how it all fits together
... we had the same conversation in DIF as well
... and how encrypted vaults fit with identity hubs
... and there's proposal to move forward with hubs ins certain way
... there's a discussion upfront about different layers of responsibilities
... think there's a meaty area and that implementaters are saying there's a high level discussion
... and what agropper has done is to start the conversation here
Joe Andrieu: This is the rwot paper which is the result of a conversation lead by kim in august
... and it became a paper that was published at rwot in prague
Adrian Gropper: Works for me. I hope Manu is available next week as well.
I'm going to introduce where I'm coming from
... I see even my own work which are not standard track destinations
... papers where it seemed like the CCG was the best place
... and so I thought where have we had success
... like the use case document
... I think we're a great entrypoint for work going in to the w3c wg and there are other works going into the IETF
... there are some that are not getting traction
... maybe because it's not really standards track
ChistopherA: I'm sympathetic to the fact that we don't have time
... and the only things that's been shown that can be done is the did resolution spec
... one is that we have this CCG report which has no international standard and there are no laws around it
... what are the policies about how not to give information to others
... they are all behind expensive paywalls
... and I'm disappointed that we haven't been able to deliver on any of those things
... and as Joe has pointed out we haven't succeeded
... DIF and Hyperledger are not going to merge and are not here
... and I don't want W3C to be competitive with DIF
... once again it's the data hubs architecture is the commonality
... and the marketplace has decided what's the winner and choosing one now and making choices that lock you in now could be a long term mistake
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Trying to be in charge of too many things is a sign we need to shift our roll
... I like not being able to use github
... and user stores
... when we started we put a lot of guards in to have fewer work items
... I think now the backlog is more organized
... I'd be thrilled to help onboard new people
... doesn't need to be experienced in github
... I think there's also the idea of how to we make that appealing
... I think CCG and documents like that and standards track like that could be really useful
... our own organization systems are not very clear
... I would like to give a chance to take a different approach to incubate different work items
Joe Andrieu: One of the things that's happened is with the new vc maintenance charter and we've been tasked with the work but we don't have any staff support to do it
... is there any way to get staff resource?
... burn do you know anything?
ChistopherA: mine is similar. working groups need to have time constraints
... but not having time limits is worse
... I've seen this in places with never ending coummunities that never finish
... the VC work is a global international standard is done
... now it's the CCG responsibility to maintain the standard
... and there are these other works like the registries that could go on perpetually
... I'm hoping we can here from some other people that aren't going to leave their current communities but will will help out here
Joe Andrieu: How do we be more effective and how to we play nicely with other groups in this space
... how can we coordinate
Nate Otto: As a perspective of non W3C member, and so far the w3c hasn't been at the top of the list for membership
... this group helps me keep tabs on other groups and IMS global
... such as other groups working on other non-international standards
Jeff Orgel: As a bystander I want to say that the soul of this community will be hard and I want to give a nod to all of the good work being done here
Kim Hamilton Duffy: I think to the more recent point about how do we fit with other identity groups, there was a conversation about what happens in DIF and what happens in Hyperledger
... I'm only saying that to give a more broad context
... it's becoming more murky over time
... I think at first it was more about developing prototypes
... I think specs and developing use cases is still a sweet spot for us
... as someone who's involved in all of these groups, it's a good point that this is a good entrypoint
... they can discuss something here and not worry a company is going to patent it out from under them
... I'm interested in finding ways we can all work together but I don't have good answer yet
Joe Andrieu: Standards track work could go to DIF?
ChistopherA: please post to mailing list