Harrison_Tang: So thanks for attending everyone will start this week's w3c ccg meeting today are we are pleased to invite the Jack and rebel from tomomi Foundation to lead and present on the topic of multi signature verifiable credentials and conditional proofs but before we get to the main agenda just want to remind everyone to couple. ✪
<john_kuo> Could Rebal mute please?
Harrison_Tang: It's tough so the first thing is the code of ethics of professional conduct just want to make sure that we hold a respectful conversation and we pay respect respectful to each other quick IP note anyone can participate in these calls however all substantive contributions to any CG work items must be members of the ccg with for IP our agreement signed make sure you have a copy 3C account and if you encounter. ✪
Harrison_Tang: any issues feel free to contact me or any of the colors. ✪
Harrison_Tang: I will send you the link and the links are also included in the email agendas I said every week. ✪
Harrison_Tang: Quick call notes these are meetings are being recorded and the meeting minutes are an audio recordings can be found in our GitHub link and we usually get out these transcriptions everything within the same week if you have any questions on that just let me know. ✪
Harrison_Tang: Uh GT chat to Q speakers so you have any questions just typing cute plus to add yourself to the Q where Q - to remove that and yes and you can do a Q&A question mark to see a who is in the cube. ✪
<christophera> @manu, is there any agenda on selective disclosure (in particular hash-based like SD-JWT and JSON-LD Merkle?
Harrison_Tang: Thanks Bonnie yeah look at that the VC working group agenda it's a it's a basic it's like three days of good conversation so I'm actually going to invite Oliver there's a good thread around the holder binding the topic of The polder Binding so we'll have Oliver and the authors of that paper to actually be the discussion around holder by the the topic of all the binding April and then at the end there's probably other good topics in those agenda. ✪
Harrison_Tang: that we might want to invite them to. ✪
Harrison_Tang: Those discussions and actually educate some some of the folks here including myself on those issues cool any other agenda any other announcement or reminders. ✪
Harrison_Tang: So in the email I sent out there is a link to the w3c calendar so we have the agenda actually schedule the topic schedule until the mid April so if you have any other topics that people want want us to kind of put into the schedule please feel free to email any of the cultures. ✪
Harrison_Tang: All right any questions on the work items or any comments or things that people want to bring up in regards to the work items. ✪
Harrison_Tang: All right let's get to the main agenda so today we are very pleased to have Jack and Gribble Fontenot Me Foundation to present and lead a discussion on both highs signature verifiable credentials and conditional proofs I think there was a very interesting thread couple months ago in regards to this topic and there are also other you know threats in regards to what multi signature verifiable credentials and. ✪
Harrison_Tang: these kind of topics so I think it's. ✪
Harrison_Tang: It to actually have a meeting and live discussion on this topic so I'll kind of hint the end of floors to Jack and rebel and let them kind of lead these these discussions thank you Jeff. ✪
Harrison_Tang: Sorry Christopher has acquired question Christopher. ✪
Harrison_Tang: Sorry I have a quick question so earlier you mentioned is a nest is signature and I'm wondering can you actually check and verify one of the nest of signatures or you have to do it all check and verify all signatures out at once. ✪
Harrison_Tang: Yes but then you stash the case then the sequence of the signatures quite important right you can actually get to the bottom of the stack basically at first basically right. ✪
Harrison_Tang: Got it and by the way I think still you have a very on the in the speaker cue. ✪
Phil_L_(P1): Right yeah can you hear me okay thankfully I had two questions you just answered this the second one which is order is not being checked and doesn't matter in this particular instance but the first question is just practical question can you give any sense as to how much additional size is a crude when you start having four five six embedded signatures as part of the process how much how much boat are you adding to the credential. ✪
Phil_L_(P1): Renee right right great thank you that helps. ✪
Harrison_Tang: Mommy in your in the queue like I think you have a comment. ✪
<orie> base64url No pad ; )
Harrison_Tang: Thank you Mom you Bob I think you're in the queue. ✪
Harrison_Tang: Christopher you're next in queue. ✪
Harrison_Tang: Christopher do you have any comments or questions. ✪
Harrison_Tang: And Bob I think you are next in queue. ✪
<christophera> There are a lot of good lessons on "partial signatures" in bitcoin's PSBT standard, which has evolved. We (Blockchain Commons) have discovered a number of policy (pre-signature) problems as well.
Harrison_Tang: Right well thank you thank you Jack thank you for both thank you for by actually Christopher you have a question. ✪
Harrison_Tang: You Christopher Keith yeah before. ✪
Harrison_Tang: Cool I have a question for Christopher so what's the trade-off between the like the complexity flexibility of the business logic versus like performance payload and things like that like for example earlier you mentioned about thresholds signatures I think it sounds it sounds cool but what's the how much complexity like payload and performance trade-offs are there. ✪
<orie> How big is too big?... Are there any limits on document size of inputs?
Harrison_Tang: Well thank you thank you Christopher we're we have two more minutes so we'll take two last comments or questions and then if you have to drop just want to give a quick note for next Tuesday we'll have Korea to talk about the ca California vital records all right pop you're next. ✪
<christophera> …And, some of these prelim metadata will need to be signed, but not included in final conditional.
Harrison_Tang: Thanks and Jack I think you can close the today's that discussion and presentation thanks. ✪
<christophera> If there are those interested in the pre/partial signing policy use cases & requirements, contact me.
Harrison_Tang: Yes so I think first of all in regards to getting more people involved like if you could send send me the links then I can or you can just reply back to the the the agenda that I sent out where I can stand on no set up for you to the ccg mailing list in regards to the question about how to represent conditional proof PID method I think Corey earlier made a comment that you. ✪
Harrison_Tang: might not need to create a new method you. ✪
Harrison_Tang: You can just use the web GID method and then lastly in regards to update the name and merge the pull request I can know talk to Mike unfortunately he cannot make it today I can talk to Mike and then maybe manyu and then we can if there's no objections I don't think so there's no objections we can actually just do it. ✪
Harrison_Tang: Actually I think Bumble fudgy I think you have a comment to make during the Q. ✪
<orie> I can merge PRs at DIF.
<orie> Yes, those libraries are v1.1 "compliant"
<orie> but with notable problems regarding JSON-LD.
<orie> "instead of... vs in addition to... for example"
<christophera> BTW, if SD-JWT comes along, this will also have a huge effect on this, as signers may need raw details that are not available as they selectively disclosed in the VC they sign.
<orie> probably you want to an IETF RFC for this kind of "JWT extension".
<orie> seems like an IETF thing to extend JWTs, similar to how SD-JWT is at IETF.
<orie> and DPOP is at IETF.
<christophera> (We've been thinking various issues of signing/not-signing elided data in Gordian Envelopes)
<orie> I don't think DIF is going to do an item for that, its currently a work item of the OAuth WG at IETF.
<orie> (re SD-JWT)
<orie> JOSE WG at IETF was recently re-chartered, and they have asked for I-Ds to be submitted for IETF 116.
<orie> seems like exactly the kind of thing that belongs in JOSE WG at IETF.
Harrison_Tang: Jack does that answer your question. ✪
Harrison_Tang: I think we might have lost Jack Jack. ✪
Harrison_Tang: Yes it does that answer your question earlier. ✪