Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Had a couple of pairs on all of the stuff that was really nice so it could be a good thing to start with. ✪
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Ted had a bunch of I think to really good PR is to update the reading and it might be a good dry run to test those up right because I think they also have instructions on what to say as a host. ✪
ben_(transmute) is scribing.
<chris_abernethy> having audio issues, fyi
Nis Jespersen : Thanks for joining the last trace call of 2022 ✪
Nis Jespersen : Let's make this meeting count, this is interop day ✪
Nis Jespersen : Remember to sign the contributor agreement to make contributors ✪
Nis Jespersen : It looks like Chris is having technical issues, let's go over Chirs' pull requests on interop ✪
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Because trace-interop has a test in it that says the context must have trace-vocab context, this checks to see if the context url is in the array ✪
Nis Jespersen : That's it for trace-interop, let's switch over to vocab ✪
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: This is a little of a meta question, what are we looking to get out of trace-interop? I think we might care less about an exact error response. As much as focusing on getting the right error codes. ✪
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: To me, I think companies should have more freedom with how they show their errors, and we focus more on having the right error codes. And wanted to check what the general feel of the group is ✪
Orie Steele: I agree, when there is an error we look at the shape of the error, and then ignore the strings. And we don't care about the strings. As long as we ignore the strings and still understand the output. ✪
Orie Steele: I agree, I think we should ignore the strings if we can use codes as all of the information that's required ✪
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Yes, that and when I was doing the tests, our error responses were more detailed, but we failed the tests. ✪
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: In the case of issuing a credential, we want to tell them what exactly they are missing, and that information should be up to the provider. ✪
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: With respect to trace-interop, all we want to know is there is a code and that means it's failing and that's what we're looking for. ✪
ACTION: Mahmoud to create issue to relax text requirements for error responses
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: A specific example was missing the credential subject, and the test was saying that we were failing. I'll make an issue so that we can address it. ✪
Nis Jespersen : I think there are a few minor issues on this. I think we can merge it and then make an issue to address any CI errors that might arrise from this out of call. ✪
<mahmoud> Thanks all, need to drop now.
Nis Jespersen : We can come back to trace-interop issues ✪
Chris Abernethy: This is to enable branch protection so that we can't merge without two approvals ✪
Nis Jespersen : I completely agree with that. I enabled branch protection on trace-vocab, but we have a commit to update the version. So that might cause issues. ✪
Chris Abernethy: Okay, i'll look into it and if there are errors I'll see about addressing that. ✪
Nis Jespersen : I think I wrote this when I hosted it last, I don't think there is any action to take on it now. ✪
Nis Jespersen : In this issue we are suggesting did:web and nothing else. ✪
Nis Jespersen : I think we might want to consider did:jwk as it might be a requirement for CBP later. ✪
Nis Jespersen : Do we want to continue with requiring did:web? ✪
Chris Abernethy: I don't think I understand the context. ✪
Nis Jespersen : To take this to an extreme, say we required something like did:elem or did:ion. It would require everyone in the cohort to implement those did methods. ✪
Nis Jespersen : The question being posed here is do we want to add did:jwk as a required method in the profile? ✪
Nis Jespersen : I think that this might depend on the requirements from CBP. ✪
Nis Jespersen : I made a comment, we can formalize once we get to it. ✪
Chris Abernethy: I'm blocked on this issue, as we are blocked by 468 to be able to identity credentials by a specific id. ✪
Nis Jespersen : Switching over to 468, this is how to identify a credential ✪
Chris Abernethy: The first is who is responsible for creating an id for a credential, and how is this signaled to the server ✪
Chris Abernethy: There are a number of proposals I made, I'm personally leaning towards suggestions from David Longley that it is up to the issuer to provide a unique id every time. ✪
Chris Abernethy: And the use-case here is that if there is a network error and the client does not get a response, they can send a request with the same id, and then see an error to know if the credential was issued ✪
Chirs: The other part is that it doesn't make sense for the server and client to keep track of id's for two different purposes ✪
Chris Abernethy: The server will need to do a query to make sure it's unique, but otherwise it looks good to me. ✪
Nis Jespersen : I"m thinking of the trade-off here it makes it harder to be a client. I'm worried if it makes it harder for our clients. ✪
Chris Abernethy: I think it makes it harder to be a client. But compared to doing nothing at all, and I don't thank that's an option. ✪
Chris Abernethy: If the client cares about doing status list, then they need to keep track of these id's anyways. ✪
Nis Jespersen : What happened to the reference id, but also issue a credential id on the server-side ✪
Chris Abernethy: That's possible, but it increases complexity as you have an id issued by the client and on the server, and you also lose the ability to check for issuing again to get an error. ✪
Nis Jespersen : To quickly jump in, I think that having two id's adds complexity, so either if the server provides the id, or the client provides the id. We should have only one id. ✪
Chris Abernethy: Where the client is always responsible is proposal 6. And the server responsible is proposal 1. I am in favor of proposal 6. ✪
Nis Jespersen : Which is where the client is always responsible. ✪
Nis Jespersen : Is it okay to say we are generally agreeing on proposal 6? ✪
Nis Jespersen : Is this a case where we expect opposition to this? ✪
Chris Abernethy: We had a response back from David Chadwick where a University wanted to re-issue a credential with the same id. ✪
Chris Abernethy: Otherwise I don't think there was anything specific. And if we want to make this ready for PR. I'm happy to jump on this as it unblocks a lot for me. ✪
Nis Jespersen : What tangible actions to we want to take? ✪
Chris Abernethy: I think that the PR we just merged markes id required, I think this paves the way for conformance testing. Otherwise I think a lot of this might already be in place. ✪