The W3C Credentials Community Group

Meeting Transcriptions and Audio Recordings (2014-today)

Go Back

VC API Task Force

Transcript for 2022-10-11

Our Robot Overlords are scribing.
Manu Sporny: All right welcome everyone to the October 11th 2020 to verify verifiable credentials API call our agenda is here go ahead and share my screen might as well.
Manu Sporny: Today on the agenda is just our regular introductions agenda review introductions relevant Community updates and we have a lot of issues here I wanted to add at least two things on it one of them is just a review of the VC API snapshot that we had agreed to publish last week just make sure that we have agreement on.
Manu Sporny: On that since we have.
Manu Sporny: A different set of people on the call this week a conversation about VC API exchange Dimitri I don't know if you are interested in having that discussion today or next week but we can basically.
Manu Sporny: Put it put a.
Manu Sporny: Time on the agenda for that if you want to say anything about that and then the rest of the time is basically issue processing watch the response body for posting to credential status be what should we do about the internal versus external Epi language should we do a test for an issue with the default issue or provided this issue we might be able to close and then any other issues as time permits.
Manu Sporny: Are there any other changes or updates to the agenda anything else we want to discuss today.

Topic: Introductions, Relevant Community Updates

Manu Sporny: Okay if there are no other changes let's go ahead and jump into the first topic which is introductions and relevant Community updates is there anyone new on the call today that would like to introduce themselves anyone want to reintroduce themselves because of a change in position or what you're working on.
Manu Sporny: Okay if not any relevant Community updates anything happening that the group should know about I can start off with the data Integrity a stuff is moving forward we're going to do a first public working draft for the data Integrity work probably in the next month.
Manu Sporny: There is a new EDSA 2022 crypto Suite which is just a minor variation on the the 2021 so we expect that stuff might start impacting this group if we decide to change like some of the default crypto Suites that are used for some of the tests actually let me let me rephrase that.
Manu Sporny: If your parent.
<dmitri_zagidulin> link to the crypto suite?
Manu Sporny: Have sweets today you'll continue to pass the test Suites there will just be new test Suites for the new crypto sweets Dimitri this is the EDSA one EDSA 2022 let me know where is it so let me put in a link to the updated data Integrity spec.
<manu_sporny> New data integrity spec:
Manu Sporny: So a lot of a lot of the Core Concepts are getting walk down here and then there is the need to add the website here let me try what is it Edie.
Manu Sporny: This one URL EDSA 2022.
<manu_sporny> New 'eddsa-2022' cryptosuite test suite:
Manu Sporny: About the accident yes that's right okay so here's the link new meat EDSA 2022 Crisco sweet test Suite this one this test Suite here it's just us in it right now but it's effectively almost the exact same thing as the Ed to 5519 signature 2021 there but they're byte for byte compatible on the signature.
Manu Sporny: It's just you specify.
Manu Sporny: Type and you specify a crypto sweet value so so the type has to be data Integrity proof in the crypto sweet value must be EDSA 2022 other than that it's the exact same thing as the as this crypto sweet the the Ed to 5519 signature 2021 and again like nobody needs to implement it.
Manu Sporny: Anytime soon it's just a demonstration.
Manu Sporny: The new data Integrity spec is implementable as is there is a just so folks have it let me see data integrity.
Manu Sporny: Let's see there it actually it's BC data.
Manu Sporny: PC data model this is also somewhat important in that there is this new data Integrity proof thing so I'll go ahead and link to hear this shit.
<manu_sporny> Discussion about how DI works:
Manu Sporny: There's a discussion on streamlining the data Integrity stuff and so anyway there's a there's a new crypto sweet conformance test Suite explanation of how it works in an implementation to just demonstrate that all this work so so anyway this this stuff's going you know happening in the verifiable credentials working group the data Integrity spec seems to be settling down which means that we're going to start specifying a bunch of new crypto sweets like he's.
Manu Sporny: GSA EDSA and BBs.
Manu Sporny: We're going to have test Suites that are driven by the BC API to test the functionality and all these specifications so it's just a heads up for people more than likely you're not going to have to think about doing implementations for you know three to six months maybe even nine months from now but that's of importance in going on right now.
Manu Sporny: I think that's it for that.
Manu Sporny: Of update the other thing that's going on right now is the jmf plugfest is going on in there's stuff happening with VC API there specifically their number of issuers using the issue endpoint issue verifiable credentials and then there's some work that's going on in the VC API Exchange.
Manu Sporny: A tree I don't know if your audio is working now and you can say something about that or if you're still on mute.
Dmitri Zagidulin: What was it what was the question again this was.
Manu Sporny: So earlier today in the jff plugfest you said that you wanted to kind of talk about something with the VC API Group around the exchange stuff do you want to do that today or do you want to do that some of the point.
Dmitri Zagidulin: Right so the question that.
Dmitri Zagidulin: So let's say at another call I'm not sure I have exact question formulated.
Manu Sporny: Okay alright that's fine.
Dmitri Zagidulin: We wait having said that I see James is on on the call James did we have anything to ask to the VC API Group.
Dmitri Zagidulin: From our previous conversation about exchange endpoint and Nation put.
Manu Sporny: No audio from you James if you're saying anything.
Manu Sporny: You could type it in if your audio is not working for some reason.
Dmitri Zagidulin: Okay I think I'm not sure if James is reconnecting anyways Mana thank you for for giving us a chance to ask the question.
Manu Sporny: Okay alright we can we can cover it at some other point so all that to say that they're they're they're definitely usages of e c API number of companies using the C API to do issuance in the jmf plugfest in there are a few that are looking at using the exchanges stuff to do full-blown issuing so.
Manu Sporny: Due to do effectively.
Manu Sporny: Station and then do an issuance so we may want to talk about that prioritize talking about that if any questions come up around that later on okay any other anything else happening in the ecosystem that we should talk about anything else impacting VC API.

Topic: Pull Requests

<james_chartrand> Sorry, connection troubles. Yes, best for another call dmitri.
Manu Sporny: All right if not we can jump into our first agenda topic and that is 0 actually before we do that almost forgot all requests we have a couple of PRS interestingly enough from people that don't attend these calls they're finding things in the spec spec and fixing them which is good many of them are just obvious editorial issues.
Manu Sporny: There's a PR in.
Manu Sporny: Rename apt coordinator which is a decision we made a long time ago and so that PR is in we still have these PRS hanging out from the days where we were just wrapped around the axle talking about authorization my suggestion is that we close both of these PRS they've just been hanging out literally for over a year at this point in.
Manu Sporny: And it doesn't look like.
Manu Sporny: To be able to be merged in so would there be any objections for us closing PRS these PR is that are over a year old.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: +1 To closing
Patrick_(IDLab): How relevant today I'm not familiar with these P ever.
Manu Sporny: They're not relevant anymore I mean this this was I think it was it was a big fight over like are we going to Define authorization to include you know everything like good nap or oauth2 or nothing or in so there was a big fight over which ones we would mandate and they just didn't go anywhere and then the thing on authorization delegation was a you know we are going to.
Manu Sporny: Wow delegated on.
Manu Sporny: But even that you know came with like people saying we have to Define exactly how we do it and so.
Manu Sporny: My suggestion is there not.
Manu Sporny: They're not relevant to the current discussion.
Manu Sporny: Did that answer your question Patrick.
Patrick_(IDLab): But yeah sure because I remember you were talking about the what to would see weeks ago that seemed to be the decided the authorization mechanism.
Manu Sporny: At least that yeah we're basically that's what everyone has a lamented and so like this spec would be you know a work of fiction if it didn't actually talk about what the implementers have implemented yeah yeah and that was a totally separate thing that's a different PR that hasn't been raised yet but it will be okay well then we can close both of these I'll do that after citing the discussion around them.
Manu Sporny: Not much else in the way of PRS the other thing I wanted to raise really quickly is publication publication of my own company will see GR.

Topic: Publication of VC API FCGR for VCWG

Manu Sporny: API for basically G so publication of verifiable credential API final community group report for verifiable credential working group we had raised an issue a while ago around snapshotting the VC H or verifier API for reccwg during last week's call which interestingly enough had a very different set of people.
Manu Sporny: Ending same time.
Manu Sporny: We asked if we could go ahead and publish the note with the fault with the caveats that have been discussed in here and there were no objections for it so let me ask again since we have a different set of people on the call this week let me try and get this little larger so people can see the proposal is to basically publish.
Manu Sporny: The VC API.
Manu Sporny: In a group report that covers generating a VC generating a verifiable presentation verifying both and checking the status it specifically does not include the exchanges stuff is that was viewed as too controversial to put in would there be any objections to doing that on the call today Patrick you're on the cube go ahead please.
Patrick_(IDLab): Forget if I was that bid last week but so it says Snapchat VC issuer verifier as holder been left out deliberately or it includes the holder as well it's just not.
Manu Sporny: No we didn't use the term holder because certainly like a transmute wanted the ability to create presentations and P you could call that the holder API so instead of instead of calling out the roles we're going to include all three roles but cut out the parts around exchanges.
Patrick_(IDLab): Yeah I think it makes sense to include everything as long.
Patrick_(IDLab): So you just / like credentials and presentations and.
Patrick_(IDLab): Because the VC API is suspect there's like the issuer verify your holder then which are three they each have their own sort of subsections of the.
Patrick_(IDLab): The the paths that are available in my head that I don't know if it was decided to do it like this or if it's just the way that it came out but there should be one Speck with all the paths and.
Patrick_(IDLab): The solution implements the ones that it supports.
Manu Sporny: We may be miscommunicating a bit so the current spec has issuing verifying and presenting right and so we moved away from doing it by roll to doing it by a kind of action right in the only part that people are disagreeing with is this exchanges sections three four six seven and eight like these three are the things that people are like do not include those.
Patrick_(IDLab): Okay so presenting would be the holder basically.
Manu Sporny: Yes but but generating a presentation not presenting.
Manu Sporny: We would get objections if we put presentation in there that doesn't mean we can't do it later but for this round we've gotten at least multiple people saying that they would object to it if we included the exchanges stuff now to be clear we can continue to work on exchanges in this group they just don't want to put exchanges in front of the verifiable credentials working group yet.
Patrick_(IDLab): Yeah I'm not too sure exactly what the exchange is about so the exchange as I understand it it's got to do with anything that.
Patrick_(IDLab): Transfers information from one to the other.
Manu Sporny: No it's it is so in the spec I can understand why that's the general definition of exchange but in the spec it means something very specific it means these sets of API endpoints the / exchanges in points.
Manu Sporny: If that makes sense so you see like this thing.
Manu Sporny: Thing that starts with / exchanges that's the thing that people said they'd object-- to if we tried to include it in the thing that we sent to the VC w g.
Manu Sporny: Yeah so the suggestion was like we would not include 3463 48 but would include everything else which is issuing a credential arguably get credentials getting an updating status verifying driving proving exchange Discovery we would probably take out and then.
Manu Sporny: Continue exchange and exchange examples.
Manu Sporny: Okay so so let me let me just make sure and ask again are there any objections to prepping that to go to the be cwg.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Up do you want to process the queue manager or.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: It's meanest I can.
Manu Sporny: Oh yeah I'm sorry and what's not looking at it go ahead moment.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: So I had a question about how this how does this actually work when how does work occur if this is accepted in the VC working group do not two separate yeah I think about this before but I'm blanking.
Manu Sporny: Yes no I don't think that we were like we will figure it out but I don't think anything was proposed so let me try and proposed put myself on the cube something go ahead Joe.
Joe Andrieu: Yeah I think I think we still need to annotate the endpoints as to what component there in I think if we don't do that first I think we're going to be causing more confusion than enlightenment.
Joe Andrieu: And I hope you know flag me for it and I'm happy to engage with you to help iterate that.
<manu_sporny> joe mah
Manu Sporny: Okay point taken and I will try to put in a PR to do that Joe because we have agreement okay that's great yeah and we have agreement to do that already like in an issue so that should just be a mechanical thing that we can work through rather than something the group has to sign off on yep good good point so I'm going to answer your question or attempt to answer your question.
Manu Sporny: Well I think we've never had to do this before that I can think of usually when you hand a document over to a group you just hand it over and it just totally goes over to them and in the community group stops working on it and the working group takes it over right in this case it's a little different where we want to continue refining the document but we also want to publish a snapshot there are two ways to do that one of them is to just cut a release and just make that the snapshot and make that the know.
Manu Sporny: I don't that's going to it I tried to figure out a month bunch of ways to do that that's not disruptive and I can't think of an easy way to do that other than just them point to the ccg and say we're going to snapshot you know that specific document that looks like a note in the VC w g so 11 approach here is just create a static copy just the document itself with nothing else in publish it the other thing that we can do.
Manu Sporny: Do is we can.
Manu Sporny: One of two things either the VC WG would Fork our repo the thing that we're working on here and then they would create a branch which would then publish a note so that's one thing that could be done we're basically this group continues to retain ownership over the repository and continues to work on it I expect members of the VC.
Manu Sporny: Ewg to object to that.
Manu Sporny: Like they're probably going to say if we are publishing a note we need to be in control of the source where the note comes from and the repository and it needs to be clear that yada yada yada right so that's one argument against that the other thing that we can do is we can transfer our repository over to the verifiable credentials working group so it will be in there and then we can re for Kit meaning that the note will be.
Manu Sporny: Wished from VC w.
Manu Sporny: And they'll have ownership over the repo and all that kind of stuff but we will have a fork that we work on that does you know newer and better and it just does new things right and then every now and then if the VC w g wants to publish a new note or new iteration of it they can pull the changes from us into their repository in that should continue to work so.
Manu Sporny: My suggestion is we do that thing.
Manu Sporny: We say we give our repository over to the verifiable credentials working group we for Kit we continue to do our work here and then they will pull in new versions of it as things as things occur so let me stop there Mahmood you're on the Queue go ahead.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: That makes a ton of sense the last thing you said which is they take ownership Leaf work that resonates quite a bit with me the question that I have is we expect them to do changes right I mean that's the point of giving them the note in the first place that they would weigh in and provide some sort of input and make some sort of adjustments in some way right how does this normally I mean because this is I was going to say it is normal.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: But I think you just said this hasn't happened before to your knowledge.
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: It basically how do you envision we reconcile differences would it be a case of their note is authoritative note and everything we do is an extension to it so any changes they implement we would have to implement to or where are we okay with them diverging in some way does that sorry if my question was not Salient but geometer phrase or is.
Manu Sporny: Yeah no I mean oh it makes perfect sense so the question is if they make changes what do we do right meaning the as the as a community group what do we do if they make changes so my suggestion is that you know whoever is going to edit this document and I'm raising my hand I'm totally happy to you know try and make sure that things stay the same between the ccwg in this group we should be let me let me.
Manu Sporny: Try and figure out a way.
<mahmoud> /s/ geometer phase/ happy to rephrase/
Manu Sporny: Correctly we should keep them in sync right because if the verifiable credentials working group is saying you're doing something then we do have a say because a number of us are in that group as well we have a say over what what happens I think notes are different right so so this thing is not a quote unquote authoritative anything a note is just like a here's a bunch of ideas we were thinking about and we're just publishing.
Manu Sporny: Get out there and notes are kind of like snapshots.
Manu Sporny: Right and so and Publishing a note is like publishing a snapshot of current thinking at that point of time at that point in time the note the note in the verifiable credentials working group can actually point to our work as the editors draft so people would go and look at the note as published by the verifiable credentials working group but if they wanted to see the latest copy of it they would be redirected over to the credentials community group VC API Group us right so I think.
Manu Sporny: There's a way.
Manu Sporny: There's a way to keep everything in sync and aligned no problem and if it looks like things are going to diverge greatly than we can have a discussion about that at that point but they will be us a number of us in that group that will probably object-- very strenuously for there being any kind of Divergence right because like what's the upside so in practice I don't expect it to be a problem but you know we should all be very much aware that.
Manu Sporny: At this is a not you.
Manu Sporny: This happen did that help my mood.
Manu Sporny: So I mean I think you know if we will just try it and if it blows up in our face then we can figure out a way to you know some other way to work but I'm pretty I'm pretty confident that this mode of operation should be okay because I don't think we're expecting we're going to prompt we're going to tell the verifiable credential working group like hey this stuff's actively being worked on every single week in the ccg v CW G is just taking a snapshot you know and agreed to snap.
Manu Sporny: A lot of that work and work will continue in the ccg so at no point.
Manu Sporny: Did somebody say.
Manu Sporny: Like oh now the works going to happen in the be cwg go ahead and log Logan.
Logan Porter: I am a missed it in a bit just so the VC wa would be or Thera to over the note and the VCI working group would still be authority over the VC API is that right and they just okay to do it.
Manu Sporny: He kind of let me try and re-explain it after Dimitri guys go ahead.
Dmitri Zagidulin: I think my question was can you can you explain again why the VC working group wants a snapshot especially after the emphasis that the that it's data model and that the API is not a speck.
Manu Sporny: Tree there is an entry in the charter saying that we're going to publish some kind of API as a note.
Manu Sporny: So that's the let me yeah the ccwg charter I don't know if I can let me let me try and find that while other people go ahead Logan.
Logan Porter: I'm in the system would publish like guidance on API it's rather than an API itself I might be wrong.
Manu Sporny: They're so if we look at the charter let me see what's the this latest one yes so in the charter.
Manu Sporny: We have a section on one or more HTTP protocol definitions for verifiable credential exchange that is the VC API as a another deliverable that we can publish in there are multiple people saying that they want to they want to work towards publishing that thing.
Manu Sporny: Go ahead Patrick let me try and answer Logan Logan's question so the the you asked you know is the note of Thor is the VC WG authoritative on the note and are we at or tentative on the API they're the same document so I think the answer to that is both yes and no there is.
Manu Sporny: Only one document that we're talking.
Manu Sporny: And that's this document.
Manu Sporny: What the VC WG can do is they can take a snapshot and publish this document so they can publish a snapshot of this document while we the VC API in to be clear this is a community group Logan not a working group so we're not an official we're not an official working group we are a community group meaning that the work that we're doing here we do in is pre standards work it is not a part of an officially ratified working group at the w3c that has.
Manu Sporny: Have a different standing right so we're kind of like the incubation.
Manu Sporny: Group in we are we want the working group to take a snapshot of this document if that makes sense so there's only one document it's just the V CW G is going to publish a snapshot of it effectively did that answer your first question.
Logan Porter: Yeah yeah I think so so so this community group would keep be the one that's still working on the VC API document and the VC working group would just take pick up a copy copy it and what put it in no not necessarily in that way but they're like take a static version and publish it as a note in the PC.
Manu Sporny: That's correct yes.
Logan Porter: And this group would stay or authoritative over this document.
Manu Sporny: That's right yeah we'd continue to work on it in here.
Logan Porter: Yeah it's efficient thanks.
Manu Sporny: Okay no problem Patrick you had a question.
Patrick_(IDLab): Two things quickly first of all if you could share that link with the charger like to have a link I will be in this.
Patrick_(IDLab): And my second question was like so historically the from what I understand there used to be some sort of this API part of the.
Patrick_(IDLab): And so community group and then it got rejected is that what I understood.
Patrick_(IDLab): Sorry if I maybe is the wrong term but because I remember the it was a very formal credential API test Suites that was part of the w3c GitHub repo and it's sort of got moved to this credential community group.
Manu Sporny: I don't remember that happening the the VC test Suite the VC API test Suite was has always been in the CG it's never been promoted to into the working group.
Patrick_(IDLab): Okay so once you will publish this note after this there's going to be like periodic updates made or how it's going to go from then on that's going to be.
Manu Sporny: Up to us in the VC w g to decide so if we feel like we want to publish an update every month we could do it if we wanted the updates to happen every week or every day we could agree to that every quarter it's up to us and the ccwg to determine at what rate we publish new.
Manu Sporny: Yeah all options are available to us and we'll just have to talk about that in the VC w g and then we'll of course communicate that back to this group and so on so forth so yeah the frequencies to be determined I guess is what I'm trying to say.
Manu Sporny: Alright okay I'm not hearing any objections to creating a snapshot with the things that we just discussed in there.
Manu Sporny: This again on the 2022 1011 with a different.
Manu Sporny: Additional items discussed or by transferring the repository to V CW G but and then for kicking it here to continue working you working on the BC API here.
Manu Sporny: The ccg you're working on the BC API it's to the notes will be published on a periodic basis depending on.
Manu Sporny: Um agreements between you see GG and 60g that's that for that item anything else on this topic before we move on.
Manu Sporny: All right next up.
Manu Sporny: Is issue 141.

Topic: Response body for POST /credentials/status

Manu Sporny: So 141 is about is Ori asking the question what should be the response body for posting to credential status.
Manu Sporny: So this was a time where we felt revocation was poorly understood now there's a desire to have a credential status mechanism here so the question is what when you post a status update to the endpoint what should the return value be.
Manu Sporny: Let me stop and.
Manu Sporny: Thoughts on that go ahead Dave.
Dave Longley: So in our implementation today I'm just I'll just speak to that if there was an error that occurred we return a for HTTP status code with 4X or 5x X depending on client or server and if it's successful we just return back a 200 and I don't think we send any response body today and that's just saying we've accepted whatever status thing you've requested I think it would be possible for our.
Manu Sporny: Sorry sorry oh that's good the transcriber got you and what was the or the return values sorry I missed.
Dave Longley: There are no return values right now it's just a status code with an empty body for 200 and then for errors well I guess their return values for errors some going to Json error format similar to what we do for any of the other apis.
Dave Longley: And I was saying that our implementation I think at least for status list 2021 could return back the updated credential but it might be advantageous to not have to do that it might be that people want to have implementations that will update that in in the in a background process or something like that so it doesn't have to be done immediately in the response so I think we would want.
Dave Longley: To hear whether or not people thought the clients needed to have that updated value or you know what whether or not that was in the necessary and it wasn't necessary maybe we just don't have a response value for that trying to think if there was anything else I had on that subject but I guess not for now.
<brian_richter> just wanted to suggest 202 accepted if response body is blank but really shouldn't matter
<dmitri_zagidulin> oh, I remember what James and I wanted to ask! about Challenge management
Manu Sporny: All right thanks Dave Bryan go ahead.
Manu Sporny: Okay so so.
Brian Richter: I just wanted to mention 20 to accept it if there's no response body might be the correct obviously.
Manu Sporny: Sorry go ahead Brian.
Brian Richter: I just think really matter too much sorry I didn't mean to be mean to be pedantic.
Manu Sporny: Okay well it's so what about the general does anyone believe that we should be returning anything in the body.
Manu Sporny: Or is a status code enough like an HTTP status code enough.
Brian Richter: +1
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: If it's a positive or negative it would be 200 or 400 I mean I would say if it's a negative it should include the error if possible but that's the only thing I would add.
Dave Longley: Yep plus one for me as well.
Manu Sporny: Okay Brian's doing a plus one okay Dave's plus one okay so so the pull request should update the post credentials status in point such that positive modification provides pay 200.
Manu Sporny: Status code.
Manu Sporny: And a failure returns a 400 with well I think it's go ahead Dave.
Manu Sporny: Sorry what was that to what for content.
Dave Longley: Yeah failure could be a 4X x or a 5 x X depending on whether it's client or server error and the other thing we could to pay it is whether we want to send a 2004 no content status message since we're not sending a body that would be the more pedantic thing to do 204 no content status code.
Manu Sporny: Code Brian you were suggesting 202.
Brian Richter: Yeah really either I think but like honestly 200 is probably fine as well.
Brian Richter: Khamenei obviously so.
Manu Sporny: Okay we need to make a call here cuz we need to write spec text so what do we want 200 or to hope for.
Dave Longley: So the difference in between 2002 and 2004 so 2 of 2 means that your request has been accepted and there might be additional processing and you might need to check back later to afford just says success but I don't have any response for you so I would.
Dave Longley: I would say.
Dave Longley: We could make it so you can send either one of these but I don't know that we need to signal that your request has been accepted that there might be additional processing that's really an implementation detail but maybe the spec could say you return a to XX Response Code either this one or that one depending on weather.
Dave Longley: Is the next.
Dave Longley: Request to check the status would be up-to-date or not but all of that seems really hard to for people to predict and eventually consistent systems and so on so I my personal feeling is that we should just do 2004 and have people expect that these are partitioned a synchronous systems anyway.
Brian Richter: +1 204
Manu Sporny: Okay thoughts Brian.
Brian Richter: Yeah I think I agree with that like there might be some some processing required for some.
Brian Richter: And potential status type but I think 2.0 content makes the most sense really.
Manu Sporny: Okay alright so we're going to say the pull request should update post credential status in points such that the positive data positive modification provides a.
Manu Sporny: 204 No content status code and a failure returns of 4X x or 5x X should we just say to xx and say any one of these is okay.
Manu Sporny: Do we have to.
Manu Sporny: I don't know.
Dave Longley: I would be comfortable with just saying to XX for now and a lot of clients can just look for the two and not care about the content.
Patrick_(IDLab): I agree and I believe that it can be reviewed later at there's more.
Manu Sporny: Okay um I don't know if the if OAS allows you to.
Manu Sporny: I think you have to specify each one like very clearly but I can I'll look at I look at it I mean at the here's the worst case the worst case is we have multiple 200 codes and multiple 400 codes in multiple 500 codes and we let people pick among any one of them.
Dave Longley: That's how most hdb apis kind of work today anyway.
Manu Sporny: Okay so this one is ready for PR are there any objections to this kind of pull requests being raised.
Manu Sporny: Okay so let's do that and then labels is PR.
Manu Sporny: And we should remove the revocation should be removed thing since I think we're past that at this point.

Topic: Internal vs. External API language

Manu Sporny: Okay that's that item next up is this topic of internal versus external API language quite a while ago we had let me put the link in here.
Manu Sporny: So quite a while ago we had thought about this API as a is this an internal call or is this an external call in it it's so like for example issuing or verifying were quote unquote internal calls whereas the exchanges apis were external calls in I think in the meantime.
Manu Sporny: We've talked about you know where these endpoints can be exposed and some of them can be exposed as internal API some of them as external apis and some of them is both right and so there's a question around us deciding that instead of calling something an internal API or an external API we do what You Know Joe has been suggesting we had this discussion a while ago.
Manu Sporny: Go to basically say.
Manu Sporny: Components and API could be exposed on so is this a is this an API that's Exposed on a coordinator or is this an API that's Exposed on a service or is is this an API that could be exposed on both of them.
Manu Sporny: Let me stop there and see what folks thoughts are on this should we try to use internal external API language or should we instead just say which components in API can be exposed on go ahead Patrick.
Patrick_(IDLab): Well I was under the impression that all these API path were part of this coordinator that we defined and it was not meant to be exposed publicly but meant to be controlled by another application like a web web application or whatever the implementation requires.
Manu Sporny: Um kind of speak to that directly here's our system diagram right in this app stuff is being renamed coordinator but once that's done there's a question around is the API you know which one of these blocks is the API Exposed on or can it be exposed on multiple of them and I think the reality today is that some of the apis can be exposed on multiple of these blocks.
Manu Sporny: While some of them are not really intended to be exposed you know externally.
Manu Sporny: No sorry the internal versus external language is bad but it's the the idea is that we would be able to say oh the issuer endpoint that's Exposed on the issue or service or the exchanges and point well that can be exposed on the issuer coordinator or the holder coordinator of the verifier coordinator the status service is something you know the status get service is exposed on.
Manu Sporny: The status service.
Manu Sporny: I think that's the that was a joke correct me if I'm wrong but I think Joe that's your suggestion is to do that and I think we had consensus to do that which would then mean that the internal versus external nomenclature is not needed anymore.
Manu Sporny: Let me.
Manu Sporny: Let's see if people lots of them.
Patrick_(IDLab): Because I'd feel like it would sort of add another layer of complexity to have this external internal distinction.
Manu Sporny: Agreed go ahead Joe you're on the queue.
Joe Andrieu: Yeah I just want to Echo I think that internal external have we've moved past their usefulness and that's you know we really don't have a perimeter model for security in this system especially with three parter he's like who's inside whose outside what's internal or external those were parts of the semantic confusion as we were debating this before I think when we identify who's calling what endpoint on what component then it will pull into.
Joe Andrieu: Focus the information we thought we were getting with internal and external.
Joe Andrieu: Tell General an endorsement for your approach there, Manu.
Manu Sporny: Oops sorry I was speaking so does that mean that we basically close this issue noting that our plan is to.
Manu Sporny: Use internal versus external language instead what we're going to do is just note which apis are Exposed on what components and talk about it that way.
Dave Longley: +1 To eliminating "internal / external" language and using components instead
Joe Andrieu: With OneNote and I think we I know we're still trying to pull in some of the changes in language from the coordinator and you know so that the components are anchored on so I'm sorry so endpoints are anchored on a component I think we also need to start folding in who's calling it or who is expected to call it a someone calling an issuer coordinator on behalf of the holder would.
Joe Andrieu: Be a very different.
Joe Andrieu: I'm privacy and security problem then if a verifier we're contacting that same issuer on that same endpoint but in their role as a verifier instead of their role is a holder and I think those nuances were still just getting some awareness of how do we how do we talk about them.
Manu Sporny: The great go ahead Patrick and then we've got to close up the call.
Patrick_(IDLab): Yeah so like for example I know we were discussed like you mentioned like there's a reservation mechanism in place my question sort of goes like does that a translation mechanism apply to every endpoint or is there any point that are designed to be sort of unanimously queried like the discovery and point for example or that's not the case.
Manu Sporny: Status status would be one example of that that's supposed to be quote unquote anonymously hit and like the status list in then the other one would be an exchange like starting exchange could be started anonymously.
Manu Sporny: Did that answer your question Patrick.
Patrick_(IDLab): Yeah so that case those two endpoints should be public.
Manu Sporny: Yeah and we're going to have to we'll have to struggle through some of that language.
Manu Sporny: And it's not clear if it's public right because you could do that in an intranet which is technically not public right okay so any objections to basically closing this issue and not using the internal external language and focusing instead on specifying suffice eyeing that pinpoints are anchored to specific ecosystem.
Manu Sporny: Come come.
Manu Sporny: A service is coordinators and we all focus on who all's each endpoint.
Manu Sporny: Any objections I don't want to rush this if people have a concern about it we can leave this to the next call.
Patrick_(IDLab): Open probably leave it.
Manu Sporny: Okay all right we will cover this again I'll call okay all right that's it for the call today apologies for going four minutes over thank you everyone for the great discussion in we will see everyone again next week thanks all bye.