Meeting minutes
Phil Archer: presenting agenda overview
Task Force updates
Phil Archera: any introductions?
DPP and DW
carolyn: DPP vocab work working on an example
wants to push to recognized entities
Phil Archer: lots of discussions in RE TF
Rec Ents Task Force
Dave Longley: lots of discussions in RE. support existing registries use case. also enable machine redable claims. different use cases to express simple type or add a rule to what is allowed exactly. currently looking for commonalities
VCALM
Kayode Ezike: good amount of work on VCALM test suit has been done
Kayode Ezike: PRs and Issues being processed. draft for thread model is coming up
render methods
dimitri: render method task force: we got the skeleton worked out. 3 render suits. basic. cards and detailed html
… discussion on exact naming, fileds and similar details is ongoing.
… discussion about localization of values. what about labels and other things based on language
Phil Archer: need i18n grp help?
dimitri: later
Barcodes and DI TF
Elaine Wooton: we are making good progress
… working on multiple specs
… last week mostly data integrity
Phil Archera: all TFs covered
TPAC
<Antony Mott> @Phil Archer Probably not worth airtime, but if anyone’s interested in quantum-resistant cryptosuite niche, the NIST-round 3 SQISign algorithm was updated. I’m busy updating our testbeds, API endpoints and will update them in vc-data-integrity in an upcoming PR.
<Antony Mott> @Dmitri Zagidulin yes! It's the biggest change since 2024-5: TLDR; public key got bigger, signature got bigger, secret key got smaller
<Antony Mott> @Wesley Smith: yes, this is the authoritative link (source) https://
<Antony Mott> @Wesley Smith: still smallest of any PQC in size but definitely a jump that we'll factor in: 148 bytes to 200 bytes is the one users will focus on. I'm also updating the table the group refers to on the IETF draft in v09, and will ping the group (if you want) when it's live
Phil Archera: 1h in the TPAC agenda is reserved for<missed that> rest spend on different task forces
Phil Archera: planning TF time slots to fit to remote participants time zones
… please check if that time zone specific slots fit
Carolynn Bernier: wasnt aware that we are expected to atend
Phil Archera: expected is too strong
… you are invited
Carolynn Bernier: What is expected?
Phil Archera: its going to be like in brusseles in June
… the hope is (beyond reality) the we will get a lot towards candidate recomendation
Carolynn Bernier: I thought TPAC is a big W3C thing, less task force specific
Phil Archera: mea culpa
… tu-fr a lot of groups will meet in different rooms. we is a lot of breakout sessions
… many wgs meeting in the same building at the same time
… so yes it is the big annual meeting, but the working groups do actually meet
Carolynn Bernier: when?
Phil Archera: last week of this month
… this group meeting mostly on thursday/friday 29/30
both: clarified that this is a hybrid meeting
https://
Phil Archera: next year is December https://
TPAC time zone is GMT
DST
Ivan Herman: people have to realize daylight saving time switching ;)
some discussion about general facts about time zones and DST
Phil Archera: TPAC is in the most confusing time zone phase ;)
Phil Archera: Press release
Press release
Wesley Smith: a lot of people involved. W3C is planning to send it out today. content: VC barcodes, driverslicense breach. VC barcodes would have helped. should draw positive attention to our work
Phil Archera: thanks to all contributors
Jose-Cose
Phil Archera: tiny amendment to Jose-Cose spec. at Ivan Herman: waht to do now?
<Phil Archera> The PR is at w3c/
Ivan Herman: we have to republish recommendation -> Brent Zundel is editor
Ivan Herman: maybe the safest to postpone after TPAC
<Brent Zundel> Relevant section of the Process: https://
Brent Zundel: formal decision will happen after the pr merge
Phil Archera: decision now?
people: yes
<Phil Archera> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: That the JOSE-COSE Recommendation (https://
Phil Archera: Ivan Herman - is that waht is required?
<Phil Archera> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: That the JOSE-COSE Recommendation (https://
Ivan Herman: point to pr
<Brent Zundel> +1
<Ivan Herman> +1
<Dave Longley> +1
<Antony Mott> +1
<Ted Thibodeau Jr.> +1
<Jennie Meier> +1
<Sebastian Schmittner> +1
<Phil Archera> +1
<Hiroyuki Sano> +1
RESOLUTION: That the JOSE-COSE Recommendation (https://
Ivan Herman: i can take care of the editorial thing to be done
Threat Model publications
<Antony Mott> @Phil Archera when there's a lull in the agenda, to all the people who authored and diagrammed the threat models: HUGE congrats all round, countless hours...so much thought!...and to Ivan Herman (and undoubtedly many others and powers at W3C we don’t see) for shipping them to the world! Yay all! 🎉
Phil Archera: thxs
Phil Archera: huge amount of work in thread models! this group is blazing a trail!
Ivan Herman: current status: VCDM thread model is published. batch of 5 docs is going to be published tomorrow if everything goes well. thats where we are
… from that point on handling those models becomes easy
… not clear how many docs to come
… 2-3 to come? majority done
Phil Archera: thxs
Wesley Smith: I agree. a couple of the mentioned docs are not expected to have stand alone thread models
… bit string status list and forgery defence e.g.
Ivan Herman: what about confidence method? likely the last one pending
Phil Archera: ironic, but not funny! ;)
VCDM 2.1
Phil Archera: there are open issues and prs
… editors are manu and Ted Thibodeau Jr. and Ivan Herman
… quite a lot to do
… would some one elses be able to lend a hand as an editor
… no criticism. but more capacity needed
… think about it
<Antony Mott> @Phil Archera I'm fielding some issues already and did the PR #41, so happy offer myself if it helps...
<James Richards> I would be happy to help in anyway I can
Phil Archera: lets go through some of the current open pull requests
PR 1652 w3c/vc-data-model#1652
Phil Archera: about vocabulary stuff
Ivan Herman: we had a vocab in previous round. I developed a tool.
… minor changes necessary. vocab is significantly increasing in size since it is to include terms from other specs
… PR is WIP
… biggest ongoing change: current context file manually changed
… better if my tool auto generates the context file automatically
… some ongoing discussion (on the pr?)
… I started similar work for RE TF but that is seperate
… any review apreciated. thank Ted Thibodeau Jr.
Phil Archera: for clarity: we are taking voc terms from TF driven specs and adding it to main VCDM, right?
Ivan Herman: partly
… only from certain specs
… bitstring has its own vocab
… forgery defence is tbd
… tbd at tpac
Phil Archera: we need to plan for that if we want to discuss on tpac
… skeleton agenda has only 1h per TF
… maybe we have to make time
… there is not a lot of time at TPAC! needs planing
Kayode Ezike: VCALM did not have terms originally
<Kayode Ezike> w3c/
Ivan Herman: lets wait until the current round is done before considering new terms from VCALM
Ivan Herman explains workins of current vocab jsonld generation
… adding new terms later should be easy
Issue 1640 w3c/vc-data-model#1640
Phil Archera: can anyone speak about this?
… raised by manu
… can anyone talk about this?
… all issues have been triaged. class 4 future is not going to be touched
Issue 1632 w3c/vc-data-model#1632
Phil Archera: talking about several issues from out of scope to just do this
… 1632 would be "just do it"
Phil Archera: James Richards want to try and look at this?
James Richards: happy to
<Ted Thibodeau Jr.> cleaner list to look at -- https://
Phil Archera: take a look at "editorial" stuff please
James Richards: affirmative
Phil Archera: thxs
Ivan Herman: in 1632 -> there where 2 reserved terms. with normative definitions for both in current version
Ivan Herman: now there is a new TF working on this
… proposal: remove definitions for these 2 and rather refer to the now "owning" specs
Phil Archera: this is about confidence / render method terms?
… you are proposing to take them out of VCDM because they are defined in other docs?
Ivan Herman: yes
Phil Archera: leaving them in, defs might diverge
… downside taking them out?
Ivan Herman: dont think so
<Dave Longley> +1 to taking them out and just linking to them
<Phillip Long> +1 to taking them out, as well
Phil Archera: any objections to taking them out?
<Dave Longley> (but keeping it all in the same vocab for backwards compatibility, etc.)
<Dmitri Zagidulin> I'd vote for having them stay there
Ted Thibodeau Jr.: manus presence required
<Kayode Ezike> If we keep them, we should probably link to the specs instead of defining the terms inline.
Phil Archera: mixture of views
… parked until manu is back
<Dave Longley> +1 to Ivan Herman
I would like to mention that we are running out of the planned call time window. ;)
<Phil Archera> thank you to Sebastian Schmittner
hope i did not ruine the protocol ;)