The W3C Credentials Community Group

Verifiable Claims and Digital Verification

Go Back

Credentials CG Telecon

Minutes for 2021-02-03

<manu> Wayne does standard intro to CCG, goes over how to queue, IPR agreement, meeting etiquette, etc.
Adrian Gropper is scribing.

Topic: Introductions & Reintroductions

Michael_herman: founder of project Trusted Digital Web - initiated virtual credentials discussion - living in BC
<michael_herman_(trusted_digital_web)> Alberta! :-)
Joe_a Legendary requirements, involved with RWoTrust - doing a salon on Feb 25 - check it out
Wayne Chang: Change in the Advanced Biometrics conference date per Kaliya
<michael_herman_(trusted_digital_web)> @joeandrieu does this work for personal messages?
Wayne Chang: Infrastructure Task force now, kickoff date still pending, sending Doodle today, NPM repository for test suites,
<bumblefudge> @Michael i saw that, so i'm guessing no :D
<joeandrieu> Kaliya, if you'd like to say something, please say it. Otherwise, I'd ask the chairs to remove that comment from the record.
... revisit work item templates - want to review - election objections satisfied - simplified to having signed contributor agreement and joined the group - elapsing the two week period and will be able to proceed soon
... changes discussed since Dec - please raise
Heather Vescent: About time? do we need to wait? when is this done?
Wayne Chang: Announced changes to mailinglust about two weeks ago - satisfied all - proceed
Heather Vescent: Have election stuff ready to go - how long should I wait?
Wayne Chang: Monday should be acceptable
Heather Vescent: To make sure: Monday Feb 8 EOD deadline for any feedback on changes - after the 8 Heather can do the election kickoff. - great TY

Topic: Updates from the ecosystem - DID Universal Resolver Task Force

Markus Sabadello: DID resolution is a CCG work item - draft specification covers going from DID to DiD document - no calla in Dec or Jan - there's a strong dependency on DID Core - previously when work started scope was clear...
... subsequently, some elements are now considered in DID Core - so relationship between DID and DID URL, resolving vs. dereferencing - things are still changing in DID Core - impact resolution spec so we did not work much on this specification
<bumblefudge> /me hehe DIF can cede a little time, I wanna see this :D
... sharing screen: DID Core Spec section on DID Resolution - defines inputs and outputs now in DID Core. What remains for Resolution spec: Resolving a DID and Dereferencing a DID URL. DID Core does not define the algorithm on how you drive at outputs - e.g. what metadataa is returned
<orie> /me did resolution can be whatever i want it to be <insert thanos meme>
... another item is Architecture. DID resolution is not a single protocol. Can be a local library or a hosted service - concepts such as local or remote resolvers - how do you trust a resolver - how does the resolver access the DID document -
<michael_herman_(trusted_digital_web)> A DID resolved can be implemented on a DNS server too:
<michael_herman_(trusted_digital_web)> A DID resolver can be...
... rulnning local full node or relining on API - client-side dereferencing - if you want to dereference a fragment part could been a server and some local to a client.
.... what are the implications for trust and security.
Orie Steele: Somehow the most important part of DID Core is still a CCG work item :(
... And then: the two sections bindings for JSON-LD resolution returns two types of metadata but the look is not defined in Core. HTTP bindings is also not defined E.G. if the DID does not exist but it's just an example
... progress slow due to interdependency with DID Core. There's a meeting page - want to upgrade the infrastructure - plan bi-weekly meetings starting next Monday - will review this in a bit more detail - invite anyone - lots of things still to do -
... work is still needed and relevant - will send email to list as invite
Manu Sporny: +1 Work is very relevant needed and necessary - i feel like the DID resolution spec is the next thing to go into the W3C process - a lot of people wanted to work on it in DID Core - expect that at some point the stuff in DID Core will move back to DID Resolution - work still needed - the next official WG
Waybe: brent ack: DID Core progress - goals - what is CR and more

Topic: DID Core progress

<heathervescent> Marcus FYI, you are still sharing your screen...
Markus Sabadello: I don't know how to turn off screenshare :)
<wayne> i think it's ghost sharing, not actually sharing just the afterimage
Manu Sporny: +1 ^^ Ghost sharing -- we're not seeing any updates.
Brent Zundel: DID Core specification incubated right here, worked on RWoT sessions, all of that work became the heart of the DID WG - have been trying to define a data model for DID Documents - DID URL - Additional Parameters - test suites - all according to W3C process
... started with working draft which is fluid - noe in order to turn it into an official W3C Recommendation we need specified periods. CR is the first phase means it's to the point where implementers can use it - during CR no substantive changes allowed -
... if there are errors we will need to enter another phase of CR - The LAST day to submit to this version of CR is FEB 9! - most of the big things have been resolved over time - structural things like an Abstract Data Model - introduced DID Spec Registry -
... had many in -depth conversations on privacy - an outstanding Use Cases Documents ever -
<orie> We have some awesome chairs and editors as well! Thanks to Brent, Dan, and the editors.
Wayne Chang: Questions for Brent?
<dmitriz> thanks markus!!
Markus Sabadello: Forgot to say - need to acknowledge Dmitri who figured out the relationship between the two specs -
Wayne Chang: TY Dmitri -
Manu Sporny: Could Brent reiterate the timeline for WG
Dmitri Zagidulin: (For those that are curious, since we were just talking about DIDs, and Solid was mentioned - here's the current proposal to the Solid community to use DIDs - )
<wayne> +1!
<agropper> brent: feb 9 deadline for pr >> editorial activity to resolve the pr >> by end of feb formal transition >> a couple of months for feedback from implementers >> editorial refinements >> transition to Proposed Recommendation which is the final stage
Wayne Chang: What are the biggest risks?
Brent Zundel: All the riskes and blockers have been raise - the most extensive conversations around privacy and security - DID resolution conversations have been done - I feel like most of the big issues handled - politics in W3C, DID is not on the same ground as VC - the view for
... what we're doing is shifting - invited to present to FIDO Alliance today - not anticipating a lot of opposition - hopeful
Wayne Chang: Great how aligned the ecosystem - positive to hear
Orie Steele: This time around Microsoft has a DID Method, so they don't want to see the spec killed.... nice :)
Manu Sporny: The CCG has been instrumental in helping to make this smoother than it was with VC - big community - many people watching - ton of thanks to the Chairs - Brent, Dan, Ivan, - incubate specs in CCG
Brent Zundel: +1 Ccg has been vitally important
... want to highlight - require proof you have done sufficient horizontal review - CCG has an opportunity to read the spec and raise issues - if you're waiting that date is late Feb or Early March
Wayne Chang: Any questions before we move on

Topic: DIF F2F

Balazs: Background started about two and a half years ago - goal to related work items across multiple WG - some misalignment across groups - was around IIW - first 3 were IPR-protected
<bumblefudge> Link to overview document full of recording videos here:
<bumblefudge> wayne, i believe you're still screensharing as well?
... since this year we switched to a virtual format and makes more sense to open the event from workshop to education - enable non-members too - there was a big upgrade to - extension to zoom - interaction space - 3 additional
... rooms where gdocs could be used - har 122 people at peak + 50 people in workshop rooms - 110 people with much overlap.
Juan Caballero: Content is my middle name - experiment with unconference format - more p2p sessions - speaking on behalf of work items or proposed work items - the main stage was report outs from the various groups -
<rgrant> present-
<phil.l> link to the article being referred to?
... Medium article with a paragraph and video - check it out - highlight Markus graph of Universal Resolver adoption - also less technical WGs represented - recommend following the link and check out their GitHubs - Produc Managers produces a lot of useful materials -
... in terms of the highlight from Member Stage, many sessions on work items such as PoC at comprehensive learner records, ID Union governance problems, Eric Welton research on OSS tooling for DID rubrics - DID method comparisons -
... use case for KERI - updates from OIDF -
Wayne Chang: TY - questions?
<bumblefudge> (the bitly link has no paywall :D )
Balázs Némethi: Here is link with no paywall:
<heathervescent> What's the link to the use case document that was mentioned?
Manu Sporny: What are the next 3-6-12 months for DIF? where's DID headed? a industry body that publishes interior recommendations - conformance testing - incubator for SDOs?
Juan Caballero: There was a meeting today - proposed new WG charter proposed - IPR protected group to do interior profile work - helping people navigate wallet gov standards - bridging role between inter- DIF not chartered as a trade association - up to the members
... in terms of interior - test suite maintenance and education after the March plugathon. Filling in gaps in W3C
Michael Herman: At meta level - there's more and more overlap between organizations -
<orie> monkaS ...TOIP / DIF / CCG
<balazs_nemethi> Thanks, Manu, DIF has a 2021 focus on implementations of the technology and adjacent actions that make that happen
<identitywoman> they all exist for different reasons. those reasons still exist.
<manu_sporny> got it Balazs, thank you
<michael_herman_(trusted_digital_web)> Maybe we need the comprehensive map/Venn diagram of what the entire landscape looks like today.
Juan Caballero: Agree but I don't have an answer
<bumblefudge> /me heather on q, no?
<michael_herman_(trusted_digital_web)> Know what we have today
<bumblefudge> as per re-entering the space, this might be helpful:
<michael_herman_(trusted_digital_web)> Heather, that's not what I'm talking about ...i.e. collaboration
Heather Vescent: Everyone loves collaborating - but pragmatically it's not going to happen - a dream - always going to be different silos - this is a robust marketplace
<michael_herman_(trusted_digital_web)> Something is needed today to simply understand the landscape
Wayne Chang: Diverse space is good
<charles_lehner_(spruce)> Thanks
<wayne> iniating kick of anyone remaining to alllw cgbot to do its thing...