18 March 2024
Attendees
-
Aditya Khurjekar, Prove
-
Andy Rosen
-
Carly Huitema, U of Guelph
-
Chris _, Verus
-
Christian Paquin, Microsoft
-
David Springgay, Microsoft
-
Edmond Cunningham, Arkeytyp
-
Eric Scouten, Adobe
-
Gavin Peacock, Adobe
-
Jesse Carter, CIRA
-
Judith Fleenor, Trust Over IP Foundation
-
Karen Kilroy, FileBaby
-
Leonard Rosenthol, Adobe
-
Lindsay Walker, Starling Labs
-
Lorie Groth, Digicert
-
Orson Weems, FileBaby
-
Paul England, Microsoft
-
Peleus Uhley, Adobe
-
Pia Blumenthal, Adobe
-
Will Kreth, HAND (Human & Digital) Identity
-
Wynne Kim, HAND (Human & Digital) Identity
Agenda
5 min: Start meeting
-
Start recording
-
Welcome and community specification license reminder
-
Agenda review and call for agenda items
Notice of meeting cancellation
🎥 4'19": Two upcoming instances of this meeting will be cancelled:
-
15 April 2024 (I will be traveling to Internet Identity Workshop, as will several other participants)
-
13 May 2024 (I will be traveling to an internal Adobe event)
5 min: Action item update
🎥 4'43": From previous meeting, most items will carry over to this week:
-
Issue #41: Privacy when verifying VCs – Eric to call subgroup meeting. CARRY OVER.
-
Issue #42: Add a Slack or Discord channel for this group – DONE.
-
Issue #43: Create an e-mail list for this group’s discussions – NEXT ON AGENDA.
-
Issue #44: Review presentation with key binding – CARRY OVER.
Remaining issues to be covered later.
5 min: Discussion: e-mail list?
🎥 5'30": Looking for simple option for e-mail list. GitHub Discussions? Or … ?
Andy Rosen suggests Mailman. No other nominations.
10 min: Approval for two assertion definitions
🎥 6'58": MOTION: As per Community Specification License process §4: Specification development process, I move to promote the following two assertion specifications from draft to approved (version 1.0 final) status:
4.2. Draft. Each Pre-Draft document of a Working Group must first be Approved to become a “Draft Specification.” Once the Working Group approves a document as a Draft Specification, the Draft Specification becomes the basis for all going forward work on that specification.
4.3. Working Group Approval. Once a Working Group believes it has achieved the objectives for its specification as described in the Scope, it will Approve that Draft Specification and progress it to “Approved Specification” status.
🎥 11'51": DECISION: Approved.
The 1.0 final versions of these two specifications are published here:
10 min: Outstanding issue for endorsement assertion
🎥 12'02": DISCUSSION: There is one open issue for the endorsement assertion:
ACTION: Eric will review with Leonard and propose a wording tweak.
45 min: Review of open issues and PRs for identity 1.0
🎥 12'38": Review work in progress and proposals.
Outcomes:
-
🎥 13'18": PR #78: Remove user experience section: DECISION: Approved. (Since merged.)
-
🎥 17'51": PR #77: Remove W3C VC concepts from terms and definitions section: DECISION: Approved. (Since merged.)
-
🎥 18'36": PR #76: Clarify usage of credential holder vs credential subject: DECISION: Approved. (Since merged.)
-
🎥 20'42": PR #75: Add top-level
tbs
map allowing more content to be signed by credential holder: ACTION: Scouten to revise based on feedback received over the weekend and in this meeting. -
🎥 32'55": PR #74: Allow additional credential mechanisms to be added in future 1.x versions: ACTION: Scouten to revise based on feedback received in this meeting.
-
🎥 40'31": PR #72: Emphasizing the use of REGISTERED spots in the advertising use case: DECISION: Defer to future meeting.
-
🎥 40'59": PR #71: Clarify wording regarding prohibition on identity assertion self-references: ACTION: Discussed but no clear outcome. Scouten to call for additional review before merging.
-
🎥 45'57": PR #70: Discourage interpretation of this assertion as conveying ownership: ACTION: Scouten to revise based on feedback received over the weekend.
-
🎥 48'03": Issue #67: Bidirectional binding of identity assertions and claims: ACTION: Paul England to propose a PR based on #75.
-
🎥 49'48": Issue #22: Define identity assertion trust model: ACTION: Scouten to propose a PR.
-
🎥 51'34": Issue #40: Review C2PA veracity scoring: DECISION: Closed. There’s no such concept as "C2PA veracity scoring."
-
🎥 52'29": PR #74: Allow additional credential mechanisms to be added in future 1.x versions (again): More discussion about how to address multiple credential types without breaking compatibility. No clear outcome; more to consider.
A new draft version of the specification including PRs 76, 77, and 78 is published here.