<juan_caballero_(dif/spherity)> next week i can scribe!
Charles E. Lehner is scribing.
<juan_caballero_(dif/spherity)> i'm not at a good desk but at least i'm not driving this week
<juan_caballero_(dif/spherity)> i can screenshare the google doc of use cases, or joe or eric can, all good
Topic: Specification Structure Proposals
<tallted_//_ted_thibodeau_(he/him)_(openlink_softwa> "We've all" is an overstatement, relative to current audience.
Jim_StClair: ... I support Adrian with his use case, Health care ✪
<orie> TallTed, folks on this call have been working on this item for a long time... I recognize there are new folks here... but we starting from scratch seems very dismissive of work that has already happened... we need to find some middle ground that isn't back to a blank slate.
<orie> TallTed I agree with your asssertion that this has not been handled in the open correctly though.
PROPOSAL: Create a VC HTTP API specification for HTTP protocol for the purposes of issuing a Verifiable Credential (do not use the OAS file as inputs to the specification).
<juan_caballero_(dif/spherity)> the OAS (openAPI/Swagger doc) files are... the last year's work?
<orie> well.... in fairness to folks, those files are the only thing you can read.... about the work item.
<orie> we don't have anything except those files and the readme...really.
<orie> the work items has a commit history....
<orie> "we all" refers to contributors
<orie> in that history.
<mprorock> why is commit history irrelevant if it is in the open and as a ccg work item repo
<mahmoud_alkhraishi> I feel like we're losing the thread of what we're trying to do here
<mahmoud_alkhraishi> we're trying to make it more accessible
<mahmoud_alkhraishi> and explain what has been done
<evan_tedesco> I didn't take it as unfriendly. Orie just talks like that haha.
Mprocock: My perspective may be unique: I jumped in and VC-HTTP was already a thing. I had a need to exchange credentials, issue and verify them over a REST Web service. ✪
<dlongley> If we just gave the spec that some people want to write down a different title -- that reflects it as an "input document" -- would that unstick all this?
<dlongley> it could later be renamed to VC HTTP API as the official spec ... or not, but at least it would be written down.
<mahmoud_alkhraishi> is this a single documetn?
<mprorock> @ted is the VC spec not that in some ways? e.g. protocol agnostic what are vc's and what can you do with them? and then the vc-http-api being how do you do those things over http
PROPOSAL: Create a VC HTTP API specification in ReSpec format so that we can document and iterate on the current Open API Specification client-server HTTP protocol for the purposes of issuing a Verifiable Credential.
<bblfish> where is that OpenAPI spec?
<juan_caballero_(dif/spherity)> (wait i will retract my +1 because I'm not 100% clear on the "issuer first" timeline)
PROPOSAL: Create 1 ReSpec specification based on the OAS files, in addition to separating the existing OAS files into modular components.