Nis Jespersen : Not inlined, how we like to inline docs. Based on iata's very elaborate reqs, aligns very well to iata paper template. That part's solid ✪
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: So some work on internal structure we're using, but pretty in line with reqs of paper doc ✪
Nis Jespersen : 506, Mike, to orie. Orie, anything you need? ✪
Orie Steele: No, blocked by VC 2.0 work I think. Ik want to support, some crypto algs want to rec, know what they are, could put text around this now... could address without adding examples, "sig base securing mechanisms rec'd to use base [?] or stronger" ✪
Nis Jespersen : 552, Me, adding interop test for gs1 credentials. Pinging myself, also ready for PR ✪
Chris Abernethy: Placeholder for us to update openapi spec, have some examples where content of signed items mmodified for reasons but sigs not regenerated, so examples not internally consistent so should be updated ✪
Nis Jespersen : We don't sign examples anymore, on vocab ✪
Chris Abernethy: Possible things have changed since opened, if have could investigate and close ✪
Orie Steele: So, duplicating testing across interop & vocab? ✪
Chris Abernethy: Not to do with testing, it's bc including examples in openapi texts for requests. If someone actually tries examples and it doesn't do what wants ✪
Orie Steele: Still on 479, says soemthing on schemas, if any req on proof for yaml files that needs to be addressed, cause that'll block 2.0 - what comment from 1 month ago says ✪
Chris Abernethy: Agree but not sure it applies here ✪
Chris Abernethy: These aren't examples in specs, they're in openapi ✪
Orie Steele: Would recommend not having examples in openapi with proofs ✪
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: How test creds verify if no proof ✪
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Still testing v1. I understand v2 we remove, but for now we keep? ✪
Orie Steele: My understanding, not try and support v1 + v2, at some pt we make decision to switch all ✪
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: But today supporting v1. I think until that day should stay in examples ✪
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: So chris no action item there if all on same page ✪
Chris Abernethy: So we leave as-is with incorrect? ✪
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Suggest we regen proofs, but no action item on removing proofs today ✪
Mahmoud Alkhraishi: Were testing for msg content, thought we resolved this? did resolution we shouldn't care what message is, just structure? & I think tests currently don't care. Ping me to search? ✪
Nis Jespersen : Poking you, let's move on to 468, chris? ✪
Chris Abernethy: Method for referencing stored VCs, assigned to me, I'll get to it ASAP ✪
Orie Steele: Should be alignment. When you have status list should be able to store, if secure other than data integrity proofs status list must be able to return in correct media type, there aren't tests yet for that. & we wanted to reduce number of media types to just be sd-jwt ✪
Nis Jespersen : Chris unsure if your pevious comment still applies but, can we conclude we're not doing that? ✪
Chris Abernethy: Old, should just confirm we did what we were going to do in initial suggestion ✪
Orie Steele: Agree, at a certain point close because stale, too much to read and no longer actionability ✪
Chris Abernethy: Add pending close, give me another week to confirm what want to confirm? ✪
Orie Steele: Good to provide respec guidance encouraging client to request format. but also good guidance to let server respond with whatever they'd like ✪
Nis Jespersen : So close this one? as it doesn't have to do with server implementation? ✪
Nis Jespersen : 589 From manu, align workflows in vc api and trace, anyone familiar? ✪
Orie Steele: If we moved to more compact formats or other security mechanisms, how much vc-api still relevant. ✪
Nis Jespersen : Isn't it more for them to align with us? If it isn't, are we just using same term to describe two different things? ✪
Orie Steele: Some historical context arnd work item. Original vc-api didn't support any of our interop APIs. Interop work item created to work on these APIs. Then they made incompatible version of same APIs. Good to have diversity, but when you get to standardization that's when you should aim at alignment. ✪
Nis Jespersen : Made comment, "discussed, no significant interest" ✪