search

w3c / transitions

W3C Transitions
https://www.w3.org/Guide/transitions/
71 stars 26 forks source link

CR Request for Bitstring Status List v1.0 - vc-bitstring-status-list #603

Closed iherman closed 2 months ago

iherman commented 3 months ago

Document title, URLs, estimated publication date

Abstract

Status

Link to group's decision to request transition

Changes

This is the first Candidate Recommendation for the first Recommendation attempt for this specification. It does not have a changelog other than the changes since FPWD, which can be found here:

https://github.com/w3c/vc-bitstring-status-list/commits/main/?until=2024-04-24

Requirements satisfied

Yes.

Dependencies met (or not)

The normative dependencies are on the VC Data Model which is in CR.

Wide Review

Issues processed:

PRs processed:

Horizontal reviews:

Additionally, Simone Onofri is gathering reviewers to do a more thorough review of the Bitstring Status list specification during the Candidate Recommendation phase.

Liaisons:

Formal Objections

None.

Implementation

Patent disclosures

None, see

cc: cc: @msporny @dlongley @mprorock @mkhraisha

plehegar commented 2 months ago

[[ In order to exit the Candidate Recommendation phase, the Working Group has set the requirement of at least two independent implementations for each mandatory feature in the specification. ]]

will there any tests /CR exit criteria for optional features?

plehegar commented 2 months ago

(checking with @npdoty on closed PING issues)

msporny commented 2 months ago

will there any tests /CR exit criteria for optional features?

Yes there will be tests for optional features containing MUST statements. The only feature that falls into that category for this specification is the "status message" feature.

The exit criteria for that optional feature is the same as other mandatory features: two independent, interoperable implementations.

iherman commented 2 months ago

Oops, I sent a reply to a wrong place... it wasn't meant for this thread. Deleting my previous comment

plehegar commented 2 months ago

will there any tests /CR exit criteria for optional features?

Yes there will be tests for optional features containing MUST statements. The only feature that falls into that category for this specification is the "status message" feature.

The exit criteria for that optional feature is the same as other mandatory features: two independent, interoperable implementations.

The Status of the Document will need an update then.

msporny commented 2 months ago

The Status of the Document will need an update then.

Fixed in https://github.com/w3c/vc-bitstring-status-list/pull/170.

I believe that addresses all outstanding transition request issues, @plehegar. Let me know if we need to take any other action.

iherman commented 2 months ago

@plehegar @ylafon can we get a decision on this so that the publication date of May 14 could become realistic? We already missed the date of the 9th.

plehegar commented 2 months ago

Seems https://github.com/w3c/vc-bitstring-status-list/issues/150 needs a bit more attention

plehegar commented 2 months ago

@plehegar @ylafon can we get a decision on this so that the publication date of May 14 could become realistic? We already missed the date of the 9th.

I regret but we need to close the loop on the privacy review first.

msporny commented 2 months ago

I regret but we need to close the loop on the privacy review first.

Ok, we will work with @npdoty to do so, @plehegar.

We will assume that the transition to CR is blocked until we have addressed PINGs concerns with https://github.com/w3c/vc-bitstring-status-list/issues/150.

/cc @iherman @brentzundel

npdoty commented 2 months ago

I apologize for the delay in getting to my re-review here and the impact on the timeline: I was traveling and then ill. Happy to work closely on it now. It might be that this issue could be more fully addressed during CR, but I don't think we want to publish it with a claim that the proposed mitigation is always bad for privacy unless we're sure about that.

msporny commented 2 months ago

I apologize for the delay in getting to my re-review here and the impact on the timeline

No need to apologize, @npdoty -- we want to get this right. We are targetting a publication date of May 30th, so still have time to address your concern to the degree that it might allow us to keep the original schedule.

We have made an attempt at a "temporary fix" to address PING's concern. Please let us know if a merge of that PR will address your concerns enough to enter CR, where we can more thoroughly address your concerns with concrete text.

npdoty commented 2 months ago

I think that fix correctly describes the status and the open question to address during the CR period. (I'll mention the open issue to PING this Thursday and try to get some additional heads thinking about the mitigation question.)

plehegar commented 2 months ago

Assuming the PR will get merged (modulo WG approval and editorial fixes if needed), this transition is approved.

iherman commented 2 months ago

PR merged; publication request went out for the 21st of May

iherman commented 2 months ago

Document published, see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2024AprJun/0024.html.

Closing the issue as completed.