The W3C Credentials Community Group

Verifiable Claims and Digital Verification

Go Back

Credentials CG Telecon

Minutes for 2019-11-12

Jeff Orgel: +
Jeff Orgel: Hear ya
Liam Broza: Howdy
Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin: I'm on a phone, not able to scribe
Jeff Orgel: I wish...I am shamed but ever busy working on project with you all in my backround. I never am totally free!
Jeff Orgel: As you can see...;saw it coming...
Jeff Orgel: :(
Ken Ebert: I'll scribe
Ken Ebert is scribing.

Topic: Introductions

Liam Broza: I work on LifeScope.
... Looking at integration with Solid
Dmitri Zagidulin:
Dmitri Zagidulin: Liam and his team are also looking to implement / integrate with identity hubs and encrypted data vaults.
Christopher Allen: I'm with Blockchain Commons. We are working on a variety of infrastructure projects.
... We stood up a torr exit node.
... I'm co-chair of the CCG for the last three years.
... I'm also founder of RWoT

Topic: Announcements

Joe Andrieu: No additional meetings for the rest of November.
... In Dec, no calls on the 24th and 31st.
... Did resolution calls on Thursday at the regular time.
... We are focused on closing open work items.
Manu Sporny: The next RWoT is in Buenos Aries in March?
Joe Andrieu: Yes.
... 10 RWot is week of March 16 starting Monday night.
... Lighting talks and socialization of ideas that evening.
... Limited travel scholarships will be available.

Topic: Action Items

Dmitri Zagidulin: The API is being versioned.
Joe Andrieu: The registry action item is vague.
Dmitri Zagidulin: The two registries are to be consolidated.
Joe Andrieu: It is mostly done?
Dmitri Zagidulin: What else needs to be done?
Christopher Allen: Should we add a link from the old registry to the new one?
Dmitri Zagidulin: Yes.
Joe Andrieu: Did we have the meeting?
Christopher Allen: We are still having the same conversation in the DID WG.
... Right now it is still not fully shown in examples. Who else is using it?
Joe Andrieu: The last comment on the thread was Kim's thinking that we were done. Orie raised a further question.
Manu Sporny: I think the issue is Orie mentioned how you extend the json-ld context. It could go in the VC Implementation Guide.
... Mixing all the topics together is the wrong thing to do.
... The general process is the same for most uses. There is general confusion, but I don't know what exactly is unclear.
... Different people have unique problem use cases.
... I don't know what the next action is.
Orie Steele: People encounter the json=ld through different groups. In a place where we need to onboard someone to json-ld, we could point them to the right place that explains each part.
... I find it on github. Others may need a pointer to where the PR can be submitted.
Dave Longley: +1 Good idea from Orie
Manu Sporny: I agree with Orie. I don't know if this is the same issue that ChristopherA is experiencing.
... We will try to help as suggested by Orie.
Christopher Allen: My issue is more regarding schemas and json-ld signatures.
... The schema is not needed for JWT signatures, but may be needed in the credential.
... I'll write it up as a separate issue.
Manu Sporny: I don't think people need to worry about it. It is already defined as base functionality in the VC spec.
... App developers should not need to dig into it.
Christopher Allen: If I want to sign json-ld how do I do it?
Manu Sporny: The CCG could define a context for other use cases.
Markus Sabadello: DID documents are separate from the VC and should define how to do a json-ld signature.
Joe Andrieu: Next steps for #88
Manu Sporny: ChristopherA will raise a new issue. Orie will raise several PRs.
... We will response to ChristopherA's issue. We will will respond to Orie's PRs.
Christopher Allen: Good
Orie Steele: Agree.
Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin: Where are the issues located again? ��
Joe Andrieu: Not sure how this is different than what we have already discussed.
... Amy's last comment seems to go towards splitting the registries.
Amy Guy: +1 To closing
Amy Guy: (Dmitriz has since un-merged the sections though :P)
Manu Sporny: I suggest we close #56.
Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin: Thanks. I'm on a phone so struggelig with the overview ��

Topic: Personal Data Stores Comparison

Adrian Gropper: There are 9 slides in the presentation.
... What protocols should we consider for interoperability?
... (Review of slide deck)
Manu Sporny: I think slide 7 is probably not the right way to go... was more or less with Adrian up until that point.
Manu Sporny: I like slide 8... in general... good first cut.
Joe Andrieu: Thanks for the presentation. Questions?
Manu Sporny: Thank you. I think the diagrams help. I think you have raised a number of valid questions. Where do we address them?
... There is a strong desire to bring communities together to avoid duplication of work.
... I would like to propose a task force that includes people from DIF, Aries, CCG, etc.
Liam Broza: Count me in
... It would be a neutral space to discuss these topics.
Manu Sporny: Yay, Liam! :)
Manu Sporny: ... And in spec format --
Liam Broza: I would like to volunteer to be a neutral host for the discussion.
... We have weekly calls Tue/Thu.
Christopher Allen: Under which IPR?
Liam Broza: It would need to be determined.
Adrian Gropper: I consider these slides I presented to be public domain
Joe Andrieu: We could possibly do this under CCG. It could alienate some.
Jonathan Holt: I would like to get away from client/server and address peer/peer.
... How would you address this?
Adrian Gropper: My answer would be to defer to OAuth and Justin_R
... IETF work could address it.
Orie Steele: I'm in favor of formalizing this topic. IPR is not my expertise. A single umbrella could be W3C. I am active in DIF and Hyperledger.
... Those communities move quickly without the rigor of W3C.
... Peer/peer can come later.
Dave Longley: Another side note wrt oauth: not sure how things get easily decentralized with oauth client registration ... a DID-based capabilities approach doesn't require this kind of registration and could potentially help with delegation concerns
Adrian Gropper: +1
Adrian Gropper: +1 To dmitri's comment
Dmitri Zagidulin: The client/server vs peer/peer is often brought up. Client server are roles that two parties play. It does not imply a larger server and a small client.
Manu Sporny: IPR is a huge issue. We want it to be patent free for all to implement.
Dave Longley: The broader oauth ecosystem is compatible with decentralization. and does not always require registration. [scribe assist by Dmitri Zagidulin]
... We cannot participate in a discussion that does not have strong IPR.
... I appreciate Orie's comments. We want a broad tent.
... A neutral setting is preffered.
... Let's just call a zoom meeting with DIF, Aries, etc. to get us on the right path. We don't need IPR for that call.
... When done, we can consider a W3C task force or other path. Some items might be done in DIF, IETF etc.
... The conversation should be about how to work together.
Joe Andrieu: Thanks, manu.
... In addition to IPR there is also anti-trust to consider.
... Standards organizations help mitigate and shelter us from these risks.
Adrian Gropper: I think it is important to have those representing resource servers participating in the conversation.
Orie Steele: +1 For getting resource providers to the table
... I don't see this representation at Aries.
Joe Andrieu: Regarding the scope of CCG, some of our conversations lead to standards track, but we also want to have a safe space for other conversations.
... Manu, can you coordinate the zoom call?
Manu Sporny: Yes.
... I'm trying to invite Aries, DIF, and CCG and those involved in personal data stores.
Ted Thibodeau: Zoom is just a product/tool, parallel to webex. w3 calls sometimes use zoom. important to draw the lines of "open"/"uncommitted"/"no IPR agreement" stuff clearly
Joe Andrieu: Yes and include agropper's service providers.
Joe Andrieu: The end!