Meeting minutes
Introductions
Antony Mott: Hello
Phil Archer: reviewing agenda, nothing one additional topic (DC-API)
Task Force Updates
Manu Sporny: DI, Barcodes, Bitsring, Forgery Defense are all making progress
… One request: BBS specification at W3C is relying on IETF Crypto forum. That spec is not progressing, not a lot of author involvement
… this is a big risk for us. Greg is in the VCWG, has good relationships with the BBS Authors. Greg has volunteered to help push things forward.
… Could we resolve to ask the IETF to add Greg as an author.
… everything else is going well
Brent Zundel: I agree that greg should be added as an author - this group passing a resolution asking the IETF to add someone as an author would be unusual, and I'm not sure that the IETF would know how to respond to such a resolution. Though not quite as decisive, it could be more effective to get the existing authors to add him as an author. Even without him added as an author, he can fill the role that he is currently filling.
Phil Archer: I was a bit surprised to hear we might make a resolution for this
Ivan Herman: I have not heard of this and of resolution, but I also have not run into this problem. What we could do is that the WG could agree that this is what needs to happen, but without passing a formal resolution, and with that we could talk to the liaisons to the IETF.
Ivan Herman: I'm not familiar, I don't know. What we could do is agree on what would be good to happen and talk to Simone and Philippe who are the liaisons
Phil Archer: The liaisons should be brought into this conversation. It would be useful to have a resolution in the minutes.
Manu Sporny: We need someone who can make changes to the specification in a timely manner. Greg is willing to do that.
… It has more weight when we as a working group make the statement. Saying we want it to move forward and we want Greg added as an author.
… Our ability to get BBS done is at risk.
Phil Archer: the motivation is clear, and we should take a resolution. That's not enough, we also need the liaisons involved.. I take the action to move it forward with Philippe.
Brent Zundel: I think we should resolve to urge the IETF to move the BBS document forward and encourage reaching out to the authors and gain additional support. I would not be able to +1 a resolution directly calling for Greg's addition - that would be an overstep.
<Ivan Herman> +1 to Brent Zundel
<Antony Mott> I'm author on an IETF draft, admittedly with zero other authors at present, so not experienced much. Perhaps a small and friendly step before a resolution or official channel, might be for Greg simply as an individual just to contact one or more of the authors and just ask if they're willing to add him as author. As Gret's already a contributor,
<Antony Mott> this low-key approach maybe will get the job done!
<Dave Longley> +1 to saying we have a WG member willing to help as an additional author.
<Brent Zundel> +1 to that proposal
<Phil Archer> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We urge the IETF to move the BBS spec (https://
<Ivan Herman> +1
<Michael Shea> +1
<Ted Thibodeau Jr.> +1
<Manu Sporny> +1
<Jennie Meier> +1
<Wesley Smith> +1
<Hiroyuki Sano> +1
<Dave Longley> +1
<Brent Zundel> +1
<Phil Archer> +1
<Antony Mott> +1
<Phillip Long> +1
<Kayode Ezike> +1
RESOLUTION: We urge the IETF to move the BBS spec (https://
<Elaine Wooton> +1
Kayode Ezike: brief update on VCALM. Two things: first we are getting some review from internationalization. Second, big threat model update is in place.
… keeping an eye out for the new Threat Model protocol, we will be moving to that.
Phil Archer: How likely you will be ready for VCALM to move forward at TPAC?
Kayode Ezike: Fairly confident, we're relying on getting timely review.
Phil Archer: We are hoping to move into CR with all specs at TPAC
Manu Sporny: It is becoming unliekly that we will get to CR with anything by TPAC.
… Threat model work and lack of reviews are both holding things up.
… still need TAG reviews
… without that we can't really move forward
… Recognized Entities is making progress. Privacy review is coming in. They are not resonating with using a threat model to develop Privcy considerations. Did get security review, lot's of work.
Manu Sporny: I think there is a bit of uncertainty on exactly what good enough is with regards to the threat model
Joe Andrieu: Simone and I are engaged productively. Between us three, we can find a reasonable place to land.
… there's a route we can get there with SING. Simone will help us talk with PING
Ivan Herman: Recognized Entities is also testing out a Vocabulary, that is available for review.
<Joe Andrieu> confidence-method has nothing significant to report. working towards starting horizontal review by TPAC.
Phil Archer: There iwll be more coming from GS1 for Recognized Entities.
Blog Post
<Phil Archer> -> Blog post
Phil Archer: Not sure who's reviewed
Wesley Smith: Hopefully folks have looked at the draft. It is fairly short, arguing VC Barcodes is uniquely positioned to address attacks such as we've seen lately with millions of drivers licenses. Digital signatures and real-time revocation mechanisms are key.
… It asserts that you should use VC-Barcodes to mitigate from attacks like this.
… we've discussed with the comms team, they will have some review. Haven't heard anything from the group requesting changes.
… can we resolve to publish modulo any changes requested by comms? This discussion is happening elsewhere so publishing soon is important.
… also talking with comms team about publicizing the blog
<Manu Sporny> I have read it and looks good to me.
Phil Archer: does anyone have comments on the blog post?
<James Richards> I have also read it and think it is good as well.
Phillip Long: I have read it. It seems a bit longer than it needs to be. I suggest an edit after the section that ends with "as Cyberattacks grow in frequency"
… the text after that has a lot of repetition
Phil Archer: does that edit sound reasonable?
Wesley Smith: can we still resolve to publish today, even with those changes?
<Elaine Wooton> go for it Wes!
Phillip Long: I will put suggested change in IRC
<Phil Archer> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The VCWG seeks publication of the text in https://
Phil Archer: any comments?
<Ivan Herman> +1
<Manu Sporny> +1
<Phil Archer> +1
<Michael Shea> +1
<Dave Longley> +1
<Wesley Smith> +1
<Jennie Meier> +1
<Hiroyuki Sano> +1
<Antony Mott> +1
<Joe Andrieu> +1
<Elaine Wooton> +1
<Kayode Ezike> +1
<Ted Thibodeau Jr.> +1
<Phillip Long> End the post text at the line "W3C Verifiable Credential Barcodes are the solution - and the technology is
<Phillip Long> open and free for all to use." What follows then is the list of links and whatever minimum explanation of them is requireds
RESOLUTION: The VCWG seeks publication of the text in https://
<Ivan Herman> thanks to Wes for spearheading this
Phil Archer: thanks everyone
Ted Thibodeau Jr.: I will be making suggested changes during the meeting
Data Integrity re-structuring overview
Manu Sporny: This is all credit to Greg Bernstein. When we published DI 1.0 and the suites there was a lot of duplicate text. Greg re-factored all of that and unified. For example, the selective disclosure mechanism is now generalized and available for use by all of the cyphersuites.
… There is also work around single individual hashing and selctive disclosure. There are a number of options to take, hashing together vs hasing individual items. The takewaya is this is good and important work that Greg has done. This will help future cryptosuite authors to re-use these common algotirhms.
… had a discussion around cryptosute identifiers and where certain parameters will go, decided to put them in the identifier string.
… also some BBS optionality stuff has been covered. It's in really good shape now.
<Phillip Long> Wes Smith While I didn't realize that was a heading (W3C Verifiable credentials are the solution..." I think that's a good closing sentence to the post. Followed by the URLs with whatever context for them is needed.
Phil Archer: all editorial?
Manu Sporny: yes
Ivan Herman: I want to emphasize something. The current documents are frightening to add new cryptosuites. With the new format, adding new crypto algorithms will be relatively easy.
… outsiders will be able to create their own cryptosuites more easily and comprehensively than before
… this was agreat thing to do
TPAC, goals etc.
https://
Phil Archer: There's a link of who has registered. We want as many as possible there. We are meeting Thursday and Friday.
… Wednesday there are a bunch of breakouts. Lot's of initial proposals.
… If anyone wants to suggest a breakout, now is the time.
… They are always exciting. Threat modeling, for example could be a good breakout.
<Phillip Long> Wesley Smith That's fine. My suggestion is just that, a suggestion, in an attempt to make it a bit more succinct (aka shorter :-)
<Phil Archer> Joint meeting detauils https://
Phil Archer: Need to report on joint meeting agenda planning meeting from yesterday. Lots of groups meeting together. There is a joint meeting Tuesday during TPAC.
… this is an important route to make sure the work we are doing is recognized and used elsewhere.
… As far as I know no one here is involved in the DC API, and no one there is involved here.
<Antony Mott> Manu Sporny, related to earlier topic of Greg's editorial refactoring the two specs - another shoutout to Greg who opened the 'linkability' discussion here w3c/
Phil Archer: this joint meeting is one way to address that.
Phil Archer: This is important to us and others need to recognize that. It is important to our companies.
Manu Sporny: To make that concrete, I think this group should raise issues on the DC-API around the fact that is doesn't support VCALM and isn't headed in that direction. In implementations, the only thing that can be passed is ISO MDoc, though supposedly supported, W3C VCs aren't supported.
… I can write up the technical concerns for interoperability to put before ths group. The goal is to raise these issues before TPAC.
Phil Archer: Do you want to draft them and discuss them here before raising them?
Manu Sporny: yes
Phil Archer: in light of your workload, do you have time to get this together by next week?
Manu Sporny: no.
Phil Archer: I can help as a chair and as GS1.
Manu Sporny: maybe in a few weeks.
those registered to Joint PTAC meeting: https://
Phil Archer: important to note that these people are not opposed to us, they just don't know us.
… hoping this can be a positive discussion. We are all W3C working groups and should work together.
… It was a very positive call yesterday.
Phil Archer: any other business?
Wesley Smith: Am I blocking on reviews from anyone here? I'm in touch with Phil, anyone else?
<Phil Archer> acl Phillip Long
Ted Thibodeau Jr.: I will email you my suggestions
Phillip Long: those changes look good to me
Phil Archer: If you are an AC rep, don't forget to get your Board votes in. Election closes tomorrow. I felt this was very important to do. The makeup of the board matters today.
<James Richards> thank you all!
Phil Archer: Thaks all, thanks Brent Zundel, see you all next week.