Verifiable Traceability Task Force
Transcript for 2022-09-06
Our Robot Overlords are scribing.
Benjamin_Collins: I think I think I did it last week so I'd like to claim claim immunity as possible if we want to.
Chris_Abernethy: I can I can publish the notes that's no problem.
<benjamin_collins> This meeting is held by voice over Jitsi at the above link, and covers Pull Requests and Issues on items related to the use of various CCG projects related to Traceability and the Supply Chain.
<benjamin_collins> Starting with interop issues
<benjamin_collins> starting interop PR's
Benjamin_Collins: Oh yeah all right I'm just a little bit since it's not making up for that that's what I'm doing.
Chris_Abernethy: Yeah so this is a PR in the purpose of this is to clarify the request body for credential status requests the existing schema indicated that there was a credential ID which is a string and a status which was an array of objects that contains type and status but there was no definition of what some of the possible values are for those or which of these fields are our properties are required.
Chris_Abernethy: Define that so it made sense to modify our schema to incorporate some of those changes namely adding some required fields and producing some values for the credential status type and Status values.
Chris_Abernethy: I don't believe Ted is here today.
Chris_Abernethy: This one is mine so this is a request to change the schema for the credential note item and right now we have a we are allowing both string and object with ID for credential subject but.
Chris_Abernethy: We wanted to restore we want to restrict this so that it's just credential with ID no string.
Chris_Abernethy: Yet you're absolutely correct I misspoke on the requirement.
Chris_Abernethy: And I believe the pull request includes out as an optional item.
Chris_Abernethy: And this also includes various example updates in modification to the conformance test as appropriate for this change.
Chris_Abernethy: I'm happy too yeah paying some folks if we don't do this we're not in line with the VC data model so I think it's important so already I ping you officially verbally and I'll ping Mike and mood as well.
Chris_Abernethy: Whether or not we should merge this.
Chris_Abernethy: This is another yeah this is another one of mine this is another VC data model change the proof property for embedded when the proof is embedded that has to be present if it's an external proof like a VC J WT where the proof is part of the encapsulating object and it doesn't but that's that's not what this particular spec item represents there's a separate open API spec item for VC J WT so in this.
Chris_Abernethy: Scenario proof should always be required.
Chris_Abernethy: And I did update that folder name as you pointed out in this thanks for catching that.
Chris_Abernethy: Let me do that after the call and as long as everyone is okay with me merging after I resolve conflicts I can I can do that as well.
Chris_Abernethy: So this is an issue that is a placeholder to change the script that updates the embedded conformance schema items in the conformance test Suite that's used to verify the responses right now when a spec includes an example that's also included and it doesn't need to be it just adds to bloat in the postman sweet so that can be.
Chris_Abernethy: Have not had a chance to work on this.
<orie> Excellent... that conformance is .... to the spec.
Chris_Abernethy: So when we run the postman conformance sweet one of the things that it does is for each request it's making it takes the response and verifies it against the compiled open API spec so that we don't have to you know individually verify each element whether it's there or not we just run it through a their fire and in order to do that it needs access to those items so what we do is whenever the spec is.
Chris_Abernethy: We compile it into Json and then we extract the relevant portions and put them in two variables in the postman Suite so that they can be referenced in used for that verification purpose in cases where the spec includes an example that is also included but not used in this case this isn't something that's displayed to users so examples are not helpful there this is just used for verification of responses from the system under test.
Chris_Abernethy: I'm happy to work on this it's a easy fix it just hasn't been something I've been able to get to you.
Chris_Abernethy: Sure this is simply an orphan ticket that the work has been completed and it's ready to close.
Chris_Abernethy: That goes for the next three as well.
Chris_Abernethy: So this is a question and I wonder if we shouldn't add a label called discussion for this sort of thing but that may be a side issue but the reason I opened this is because the response for a post to credential status is listed as a 200 Response Code but there's no response body and my question here is should we change that to a 20-4 no content response or.
Chris_Abernethy: At a response body definition.
Chris_Abernethy: With either one I think 2 or 4 no content is probably more appropriate but I think we should open it up to discussion.
Chris_Abernethy: Yeah currently it doesn't seem to be needed.
Chris_Abernethy: I'm happy to take this on if we want to make it ready to PR.
Chris_Abernethy: Yeah and I'll self-assign.
Chris_Abernethy: So 349 is an interesting one because it's a question of how do we respond to a request that is formatted correctly but which the server can't respond to and in this case it's because the issuer that comes in in a credentials Issue request does not represent any known key materials for the the implementation so.
Chris_Abernethy: Can't be satisfied.
Chris_Abernethy: Call Ted plenty of this out I think and suggested that that request is probably the right not the right choice and I tend to agree with him because requests are formatted correctly.
<orie> its 4xx... the server didn't make a mistake.
Chris_Abernethy: Or is suggesting 400 is correct I think tell Ted suggested 501 not implemented which I think is right out but 422 on processable content could be a good option because the syntax of the request is correct but the server's unable to process the instructions.
Chris_Abernethy: Or do you want to comment on maybe why you think I see a change it to 4 XX yeah so that's where we stand I think.
Chris_Abernethy: Yeah and I think one of the initial questions that Ted was bringing up is that it is this a should the server have this key material like is this a service configuration and I suggested that perhaps that was a bat slow to go down and it might not even it might not be worth it to try and sort of inspect errors in that way and simply suggest that the client.
Chris_Abernethy: Made a mistake here.
Chris_Abernethy: Do you want to want to comment on that.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Yeah I really think that this could go either way I'm not.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): I'm not totally wedded to 501 but I think it is the more.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Apt error here whether the client should know better or not is debatable it is entirely possible that the issue is on the server side.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): So my mind how does the server know that it's got all of its key material properly.
Chris_Abernethy: Yeah but I think you know I would counter that with how does the server confidently serve a 404 error instead of a five hundred you know this should the server have that documentation and it's misconfigured or does it not exist I would suggest a we assume the server set up correctly in this case.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Well 404 not found is pretty clear it's not found it doesn't say why it's not found right it doesn't say it hasn't been installed and it exists and it doesn't say that it doesn't exist and that's why it's not there.
Chris_Abernethy: Right but but 400 implies client error and I think you made the argument of distinction between client and server error.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): The 404 implies that the client screwed up and ask for something that doesn't exist and so it shouldn't have asked for it but it is entirely possible that the thing is supposed to be on the server and it's there by accident somebody didn't put on a redirect that there were supposed to or whatever this happens constantly.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Okay so on that I would say then 422 is the right response to use.
<orie> yeah, i could live with 422
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): I don't think it's perfect but I think it's the best of what we've got available.
Chris_Abernethy: I would be inclined to agree with you Ted and I think this is a perfect opportunity to make use of the the details in our error responses to indicate why.
Chris_Abernethy: This couldn't be processed.
<orie> 500 === explosion.. and potentially an SLA violation.
Benjamin_Collins: Yeah also you can kind of think of it somewhere to like a 403 error where it's like not authorized like say I was trying to do something that's like obvious like me has been I try to you know send a request with an issue or it may even that you know did web maybe net or something you know the server is going to look at that and say you don't have authorization to use this.
Benjamin_Collins: Or that's completely wrong where I don't know what you're talking about like that's not an error that's happening on the server that's you know this client doesn't have authorization to use this identify.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): I'd be okay with that as well I mean that's part of the challenge here right is that these response codes.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Were developed for a specific application which is not the application that we're putting them into now.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): So we can shoehorn something in ugly that is close but not quite or we could suggest maybe some additional error codes here.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Unrecognized key or something might be a way to go but you know that's an extension that's a new error code.
<orie> 400 with a better error code would also work.
Chris_Abernethy: So Ori are you suggesting it sounds like what you're suggesting and Ted suggesting are slightly different Ted are you suggesting using a new currently as yet undefined HTTP Response Code or are you suggesting what or he's saying chat or it's 400 with some additional context.
<benjamin_collins> Note that on the issue we have 3 votes in support of 422
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): I think 422 with initial context is fine what I was suggesting would be a different yet yeah as yet undefined.
<orie> saddly I need to drop.
Chris_Abernethy: I think it would probably be best to avoid.
<orie> make excellent decisions :)
Chris_Abernethy: Standard response codes and I think based on our discussion and some of the approvals in the comments if 422 is probably as close as we're going to get.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): And we're totally allowed to add extra context to what goes back with these.
<benjamin_collins> i think the main thing here is 4xx > 5xx
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): So that I think that probably the best we're going to do given that we're not going to extend the codes Beyond what's already defined.
<benjamin_collins> and then inside 4xx, 422 is probably the closest
Chris_Abernethy: Okay in this I think we can ready for PR this and go with go with the 42.
Chris_Abernethy: Just as a side note this also applies I think for.
Chris_Abernethy: Presentations with incorrect holders to sort of the same scenario.
Chris_Abernethy: Yeah yeah sorry I didn't mean to pollute the issue here.
Chris_Abernethy: 329 is mine as well so.
Chris_Abernethy: This is scenario where you can make a post to credentials issue with a number of types in the options I believe you can do Ed 25-19 signature Json web signature VC J WT I think is something we're working on implementing but the response linked data proof schema only allows one value there and it seemed like that.
Chris_Abernethy: allow the same values that.
Chris_Abernethy: Pour it into proof type in the request.
Chris_Abernethy: So I would I would like to move this to ready to PR if nobody disagrees.
Chris_Abernethy: Five 5351 this is mine as well.
Chris_Abernethy: Let me just review this.
Chris_Abernethy: So this is related to the link tissue credential options EML file there is a property called created which is defined as a string and the description is the date the proof was created and the question here is should we modify the description of this text indicate that it should be or must be a valid XML date-time string and test that accordingly.
Chris_Abernethy: This is what we do for.
Chris_Abernethy: Issue in State Property.
Chris_Abernethy: I don't know where that originated but it is in our traceability API currently.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): I think this came from the DC data model.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): And has to do with the jaw translation.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): I'm a little concerned that it's defined as the date the proof was created and not the date time especially given that people still I think want to use it as valid from.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Well that's debatable.
Chris_Abernethy: That's I think what issue and state is for.
Chris_Abernethy: No this is a proof option for the issuing a credential.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Oh I see okay.
Chris_Abernethy: My personal opinion is and I want to open a separate issue for this is that you should not be able to adjust to the date the proof is created that should be filled out when the proof is created but I don't I haven't looked into that enough to know if that's an appropriate suggestion to make.
Benjamin_Collins: I would tend to go that direction as well that issue and state is when the proofs are set to take hold and then the proof created is assigned by the system for when it was actually signed so I can make a claim that as of last year I graduated from college and that is my claim and the issuance date would be as of last year but time I made that statement would be like.
Benjamin_Collins: like today or a minute ago.
Benjamin_Collins: And that taste and you know we would ideally want to preserve that functionality that you know if I said I graduated from college a year ago that you know the statement made and the issuance they would be the same if I'm playing it today you know the issue of state would be a year ago and then the proof that would be today when I made that statement.
Chris_Abernethy: Should we comment that this entire property should potentially not be permitted in a credentials Issue request proof option set.
Chris_Abernethy: Oh yeah that would be great in us and we can maybe do a little bit more research I can look into this further.
Benjamin_Collins: And then double strike against the VC API it's up to us I think ideally we would want the time that the proof of your side will be assigned by the system.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Just looking at this yellow file I'm a little as is probably following the same convention that's being followed elsewhere and it's going to be confusing to me there too.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Credential status is a double word there right but created and type are not so it's not clear what they assess what their associated with.
Chris_Abernethy: I believe that this is from the VC data model so I don't think we decided that.
Chris_Abernethy: But if we wanted to change it I think we would have to open an issue there.
TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): And then I'm extra confused by the method of credential status.
Chris_Abernethy: That's I'm with you there that's probably a terrible description.
Chris_Abernethy: If you want to let's leave the comment in there that we have I am happy to do some further research and.
Chris_Abernethy: Look into the other apis that we need to adhere to and make sure that this is something that we well to find out whether or not we can talk about removing this.
Chris_Abernethy: Is it required.
Chris_Abernethy: Well if it's not required then we can say for our purposes in our profile so to speak that.
Chris_Abernethy: It's emitted right.
Benjamin_Collins: I like that angle.
Chris_Abernethy: So I think.
Chris_Abernethy: I think we need yeah let's maybe table this and get some input from everybody and maybe think about this for a week and come back to it.
Chris_Abernethy: It would be it would be great if folks could think about both paths you know if we do need to keep this should we in fact be verifying it as a date if we do not need to keep this then that's that's a moot point but we should think of both options.
Chris_Abernethy: Yeah that you know writing conformance tests really brings out brings out a lot of things thanks so let's see this is for the same item the options created and this is a positive test for various items here if we do not include it because it's optional then we should verify that the response contains a value.
Chris_Abernethy: That is close to.
Chris_Abernethy: With appropriate fuzziness for for Network time if we do provide it then the response should contain a value that matches the one that we provide provided so this is just additional testing.
Chris_Abernethy: And I think I'm going to put a comment that this is related to 351.
Chris_Abernethy: I think that if we could get consensus that this is appropriate to add in the cases where we are in fact going to allow this value then.
Chris_Abernethy: We can we can make it ready to PR.
Chris_Abernethy: Yeah this is all conformance testing because if we omit the created date you know assuming that we're allowed to specify what we want that to be if we omit it because it is optional what do we expect in the return value and I would posit that it should be issued by the server at the time that the proof was created and that should be reasonably close to you know now we're now is the time that you issued the request.
Chris_Abernethy: I think that we should probably hold off on this until we come to a conclusion on whether or not we're going to allow this field at all because if we aren't going to allow it then this would be wasted work so I suggest I'll put a comment - that we should hold off.
Chris_Abernethy: Marcia your tongue.
Chris_Abernethy: So in 360 the request body to the credentials verify endpoint does not actually require that there be a verifiable credential in the body which that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
Chris_Abernethy: That should be required because if it's not there then you can verify anything.
Chris_Abernethy: Alternatively if anyone you know has a dissenting opinion I would.
Chris_Abernethy: Say that we need to discuss what the response should be someone or miss it and I think it would still be bad request.
Chris_Abernethy: I'll take it.
Chris_Abernethy: So yeah so 342 is interesting I started this out because as you know we used to use the first item in the also known as array as a way to figure out the endpoint for a deployment of the chair of the implementation of this API we no longer do that we now use the services node in the did document and we get the end point out of there.
Chris_Abernethy: So that leaves.
Chris_Abernethy: Inch of use cases where we are checking that also known as zero is present examples have it etc etc and this was a proposal to remove those in Horry countered with why are we using also known as at all why do we not simply require dude web and drop support for dookie so that everything is signed with did web we require did web anyway as.
Chris_Abernethy: as part of the process for discovering.
Chris_Abernethy: And points so everyone is going to have one and I thought that was interesting I ran some tests and started using did web as the issuer in some of my requests locally and it works fine so I think we should discuss what people think about this.
Chris_Abernethy: Yeah and I you know I ask Cory excuse me or why we didn't do this in the first place and he let he let me know that at the time that we started did web was not as widely supported as it is now.
Chris_Abernethy: So I'm in favor of this so I you know I put my plus one in there.
Chris_Abernethy: Yes I agree a hundred percent I think that's great.
Chris_Abernethy: I have a comment on that that I found about that since our discussion this morning and if you so the current API spec requires that did Jason be available from the same place as credentials issue right same they need the same prefix so that being said if you also had another way to provide if you provide a did somewhere else that.
Chris_Abernethy: And you know.
Chris_Abernethy: Need a sub path but then pointed to a service implementation that did not have the sub path now you're maintaining did documents into different places so that seemed like a little bit of extra work and maybe that we should just remove the / did Json from the spec entirely but if we do that then how do we test that folks are including the right service Block in the did document I don't think we can because.
Chris_Abernethy: we don't.
Chris_Abernethy: we don't know.
Benjamin_Collins: Isn't this the finding that it was tender though.
Chris_Abernethy: I think so Nest maybe if you could outline again.
Chris_Abernethy: And I think what you're proposing is that you you have it did web that does that includes a sub path to specify tenant information but that the associated did document for that will include a service endpoint that does not include that information.
Benjamin_Collins: I think this might be hard to discuss without it picture documents it's talking about I think you know I think you can you can have a did web with a service point that starts the points to a different you can include any URL you want in the service block on the did so I could say Hey you know my did web is hosted on transmute but if you want to send me a presentation and I'll send me a presentation at measure dot IO / my tenant named yeah that would be perfect.
Chris_Abernethy: So if you're if you're providing the.
Chris_Abernethy: If you're providing the did web with the path information in it.
Chris_Abernethy: And you're pointing at an implementation that also contains the path is that is that how you do it.
Benjamin_Collins: I think I'm kind of jumping ahead of I think where you're going is like eye on transmute we have a did web document that represents a that represents a customer's you know did method but they don't want to see you know transmute that Industries they want to have their own name on their own did web so we could give them the option to download their did web and then that would result of their host name and then the service can point to.
Benjamin_Collins: to Maven better measure or whatever.
Benjamin_Collins: Work that presentations so you can kind of do that with did webbing the case of where you generate the did weapon versus where you hosted it what you can do that in two different locations.
Benjamin_Collins: If that's what you're getting at.
Chris_Abernethy: I think I think it is and then my question is at the actually deploy implementation what did document are you serving up at did Json.
Chris_Abernethy: Right but but someone is making the deployed implementation right so it exists somewhere because you're pointing at it yeah.
Chris_Abernethy: Yep it's entirely possible that I'm just I've turned myself around in my head so I'm happy too.
Benjamin_Collins: Yeah I think the main thing here is to draw a diagram to discuss what we're talking about the main thing with the web is the identifier points to the location where it's hosted on the web server you know where is generally you know the service was generated where you know okay you know Mason mavin error measure transmitter is is hosting your key material that's where it is versus where the document is actually hosted three two separate places.
Chris_Abernethy: Yeah I got it.
Chris_Abernethy: Well I can't I can't because I have to kick everybody.
Chris_Abernethy: All right all right.