Meeting minutes
Recap the discussion from TPAC and outline the plans for further developing the new charter.
<Phil Archer> https://
Phil Archer: When we were in Kobe, we spent a good chunk of our F2F looking at our draft charter, talking about the various pieces of work we wanted included and categorized them.
… It was that discussion at TPAC that put down names for editor, test suites, etc., assessing what the level of interest in each of the six work items was.
… We assigned them as "yes, definitely" and "yes, if we can".
<Ivan Herman> https://
<Phil Archer> draft charter doc https://
Phil Archer: Based on that discussion, we ended up with the current version of the charter.
… That, as far as I'm aware, is the draft charter to push to the next stage if that's what the group wants to happen.
Ivan Herman: For the time being, it's a private copy in my private GitHub area.
… We need to put it into W3C. I can transfer the repository to W3C.
Ivan Herman: once this group approves the move we can move it through process
… in ~6 weeks we could then move to AC review, maybe in February
… Be good to start ASAP
Phil Archer: the result of PR #9 is what we are discussing
… starting in April 2026 and running 2 years
… There's a list of deliverables
… many are already in flight: renderMethod is at FPWD
… same is true for confidence method document
… For the stuff we discussed at TPAC, the VCALM spec
… is already well advanced
… We would be chartered to create that as a W3C Recommendation
… Similar for VC Barcodes
… and the Verifiable Issuers and Verifiers Work, which may not be as advanced as others in the list
… However, we did discuss that work in Kobe.
… We had a workshop the day before. Kevin presented some of his work at GS1
… and Steve [Kappel] and [ivan Merrin?] also presented
… A VP can present multiple credentials.
… There's a desire to link credentials independent of a VP
<Ivan Herman> s/\[Kappel\]/Capell/
Phil Archer: As well as accompanying credentials that establish an issuers authority wrt to issuing accompanying credentials
… So that's the current plan.
… Any comment regarding what might be missing?
Ivan Herman: it's not on there, but there were discussions in Chinese community to bring in cryptosuite based on SM2?
… at this moment, we should decide if we are fine with taking that on, assuming we hit the rest of requirements
Phil Archer: if we're going to here about it, that would be during refinement.
Ivan Herman: the AC review is too late.
Phil Archer: so let's reach out to those folks
Ivan Herman: I'll talk with the Chinese tomorrow
Manu Sporny: yes, let's include this work. Is there a draft?
<Dave Longley> +1 to put it under tentative deliverables
Ivan Herman: I have nothing I can put there. I need a dorcument reference, title, etc. Which I don't have.
… If it comes, I'll put it in the list depending on how mature the document is.
Manu Sporny: I'm just voicing that we should figure out how to put that in scope
<Dave Longley> (assuming their draft will be provided by the potential editors)
Ivan Herman: do you have references? But even then, we can't add it without explicit agreement
Manu Sporny: I recall seeing something
Ivan Herman: we have a global team meeting tomorrow. I'll talk about the FPWD and expand to new charter.
… I'll bring this to them
Manu Sporny: I did do a top-to-bottom read of the charter and it reflects what I thought we'd agreed to in TPAC. No suggested changes yet
… We do list the threat model in other deliverables. That is significant work that needs to be done.
… I'm currently talking with another external body that isn't on the list. Do we need to add that? I'm trying to get them to join as W3C members.
Ivan Herman: the problem is if we significantly change charter during AC review, then we have to make another review cycle.
… I'd prefer to get all of these things done by end of Jan/Feb before we go to AC
Manu Sporny: Ok. I have a meeting with them today and I'll get an answer
Phil Archer: Sounds like Ivan is going to talk to our Chinese candidate and if they are on board, we'll include it. Anyone opposed to that?
[crickets]
Phil Archer: Hearing no opposition, we are good with including the SM2 work in the charter on those terms
… Reviewing more in the charter. We will maintain the existing recommendation.
Joe Andrieu: I thought that at TPAC we had accepted that we were making class 4 changes.
… In particular, there are class 4 changes I've been arguing for in GitHub. I don't know if there's a misunderstanding.
Phil Archer: There are notes I will put in the chat.
<Phil Archer> From the charter "No new normative features will be introduced for the following specifications, except as needed to address any serious privacy or security issues that arise, or to support the new Recommendations produced by the group."
Phil Archer: ... The charter at the moment does not allow Class 4 change
… That doesn't allow us to say, "I've got a good idea, I would like to see VCDM adjusted thus...".
… Is that a problem, Joe?
Joe Andrieu: Yes, there's a phone home problem we need to address. This is a privacy problem.
Ivan Herman: I added to the potential privacy problems a few weeks ago. There are changes in the PRs we're looking at that should address these issues.
… I thought these would cover your concerns.
<Dave Longley> +1 that the "privacy" clause in the charter covers phone home considerations
Ivan Herman: More generally, I had an issue and a problem with explaining what had happened. The text previously referred to the class 4 changes in the process document, but the whole class 4 change is about changing an existing recommendation.
<Manu Sporny> My understanding of the new text is the same as Ivan and Dave Longley's -- which is that Joe's concern is addressed by it being a "serious privacy issue".
Ivan Herman: I added a list of all documents to be changed in the new version. In the latest PR, I removed the reference to the process document regarding class 4 changes.
… The question is, is it really what we want, or do we want to have all seven recommendations going through the working draft? Or do we do it only for the documents we change?
… It is not clear to me from the VC meetings at TPAC and unfortunately I wasn't there.
Ivan Herman: Is it OK as it stands today or not?
Joe Andrieu: I think you're right, Ivan Herman, I had heard something different at TPAC but I'm OK with what's there now with the notes about privacy.
… You raised a separate issue, do we want all seven recommendations going through the working draft. I'm not clear on what that means.
Phil Archer: If we make any changes to a recommendation, we have a high bar to get through.
Manu Sporny: The whole reason that we wanted to limit the working group from doing massive changes was because we had people in the group who would participate in, say, 2.0, but not later, and they didn't want people coming in later to undo everything.
Manu Sporny: The current language captures that as well. If there is a serious issue we can act on it, but we can prevent folks from radical breaking changes
<Dave Longley> +1 to Manu Sporny, current language captures that the specs are stable, only serious privacy or security issues need to be addressed
Manu Sporny: unless they can convince us its a serious issue (privacy/security)
… So, yes, we have to go through the whole process.
… +1 for going through the entire process again.
… My only concern there is that since we are doing a point release, we really don't need to go through the massive amount of work that goes into a horizontal review. Let's focus on the changes during review
Ivan Herman: here's a specific Q. Let's say that during the 2 years we only do minor editorial changes to ECDSA suite. Do we still go through a republishing process? Or we don't do it.
Ivan Herman: In other words, there are 7 recommendations, will we go from FPWD to REC regardless of the level of change
Manu Sporny: I think the answer is yes, as much as I don't want to say that.
… Let's talk about control identifier
Manu Sporny: unfortunately, we will likely need to republish everything
Ivan Herman: Ok. then we'll start with FPWD for each. That makes the charter good as it stands.
Phil Archer: be careful what you wish for.
… The stability of diligence is why people build on our standards.
Phil Archer: Anything else about the issue of expecting to make changes only if security/privacy concerns come to the fore?
Phillip Long: what about advancing quantum-safe work?
Ivan Herman: next section
Phil Archer: at TPAC there were other documents we discussed and there wasn't the same level of participation (editors, implementations, etc.)
… that does not mean that quantum, wireless, or refresh work can't be done. These are listed as tentative deliverables.
… So should we have capacity and willingness, then we can.
… Apart from the SM2 work mentioned earlier, anything else the group wants?
[crickets]
Phil Archer: That's the right answer.
… Threat Model for VCs
Joe Andrieu: We're going to need a threat model whether it's a separate deliverable or not.
<Phillip Long> Thanks - I was concerned in the current discussion as to whether that uncertainty impacts the recharter but you've addressed this.
Joe Andrieu: The security considerations that Simone is leading requires one.
… It may be a single threat model for all threats or it might be a shared diagram if the threats are different for each document.
… For each of those specs, we have identify the threats specific to each, which is a lot of work.
… We'll have a draft of the threat modeling guide from the SING that we can use for this.
… I don't think there's any impact on the charter.
Phil Archer: we have plenty of agency if we have the capacity
Manu Sporny: +1 to that. I'll note the implementation interoperability dashboard exists as CanIVC.com?
… we talking with W3C about donating that
… probably not a change to the charter
Joe Andrieu: This is giving CanIVC to W3C. If the working group were running that site, that's the working group doing something I haven't seen it do before.
Manu Sporny: the web platform test is similar to this
… but it shouldn't be a major focus of the WG. We don't have firmer answers about how we run it.
Benjamin Young: I think the governance model questions are still being sorted out with W3C. Code is not something they've done a tone of. But there is interest in continuing this work.
… Having it on the charter is a signal of support to handle it here. Otherwise, we could take it to CCG.
… Worth considering.
Phil Archer: These are things the group may do. Not required. Good work. Good will to date.
… on to Render Method and Confidence Method
… Before that, we do have collaborators (formerly liasons) do we need to reach out to any of these?
Ivan Herman: i think that list is fairly mature.
Ivan Herman: we can reach out once the group is chartered.
Phil Archer: Formally, we HAVE to contact each of these groups.
… Do we need to reach out to ALL of them? Are these all here for a reason?
Manu Sporny: Yes. They are there for a reason.
… we reach out to them via updates from github.
… They are getting the feed of what issues we are dealing with, with links.
… We don't have a direct liason, but we have an automated mechanism that reduces the burden.
… if what we did with 2.0 is good enough, we're ready on this score
<Phil Archer> Proposed Resolution: The VCWG would like the current draft charter at https://
Ivan Herman: can I merge the PR and use a proper URL (instead of Preview)
Phil Archer: Anyone not want to merge?
Ivan Herman: [crickets] MERGED
… new URL pending
<Phil Archer> Proposed Resolution: The VCWG would like the current draft charter at https://
Manu Sporny: I'm trying to propose a rewording
<Phil Archer> Proposed Resolution: The VCWG would like the current draft charter at https://
Manu Sporny: The VCWG approves for review
ack
<Phil Archer> Proposed Resolution: The VCWG approves the current draft charter at https://
<Phil Archer> Proposed Resolution: The VCWG approves the current draft charter at https://
Ivan Herman: not yet clear to me
<Dave Longley> +1 to Ivan's proposal
Ivan Herman: can I put the document NOW or do I have to wait for SM2. I propose we put it in right away.
<Phil Archer> Proposed Resolution: The VCWG approves the current draft charter at https://
<Phillip Long> +1 to Ivan's proposal as well
Phil Archer: Ok.
<Phil Archer> +1
<Ivan Herman> +1
<Denken Chen> +1
<Phillip Long> +1
<Manu Sporny> +1
<Dave Longley> +1
<Joe Andrieu> +1
<Benjamin Young> +1
<Jennie Meier> +1
<Kevin Dean> +1
<Hiroyuki Sano> +1
RESOLUTION: The VCWG approves the current draft charter at https://
Phil Archer: thank you. That's a great milestone to get to.
… last minute for renderMethod and confidenceMethod
Render and Confidence methods
<Manu Sporny> Joe Andrieu: I need access to the Spec Refinement meeting infrastructure to start meetings.
<Manu Sporny> Manu: I can fix that for you, Joe.
<Manu Sporny> Joe Andrieu: We are making progress on Confidence Method... and also Render Method, no blockers.
<Ted Thibodeau Jr.> i/what i usually see /<TallTed> +1
Phil Archer: we've reach the next phase with Charter.
… next meeting Jan 14.
… Leave it to editors of rendermethod and confidence method next week
… Dmitri and Joe, is one of you meeting this time next week
next wednesday we'll do confidenceMethod. Then renderMethod in January.
Ivan Herman: please try to annunciate subclass and superclass well.
Phil Archer: thanks everyone