WG Meeting: 2023-08-08

# WG Meeting: 2023-08-08 ## Agenda - (atul) Backwards compatibility - (smiel) Why do we have a `format` field in the Stream Configuration? [PR 87 discussion](https://github.com/openid/sharedsignals/pull/87#discussion_r1276951345) - (Apoorva) Metadata key changes [PR 96](https://github.com/openid/sharedsignals/pull/96) - (Apoorva) CAEP usecases [PR 92](https://github.com/openid/sharedsignals/pull/92) (2/7 meeting notes refer to [this doc](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tmMqiXNB-lW9HXIzrivOvaFSts23zAzKLWPcSD740kE/edit#heading=h.fsduc31pruxn) any update on this?) - (Apoorva) is receiver allowed to set empty events requested in a PUT? Should this be 400? ## Attendees - Atul Tulshibagwale (SGNL) - Steve Venema (ForgeRock) - Phil Hunt (Independent ID) - Eric Karlinsky (Okta) - Tim Cappalli (Microsoft) - Yair Sarig (VMWare) - Apoorva Deshpande (Okta) ## Notes ### Backwards Compatibility - (Tim) Are the 100s of thousands of Google partners just those that use the Firebase SDK - (Tim) So Google could just update the SDK - (Phil) Revving an SDK is not hard, so Google could do that - (Yair) Many will take a long time to make the change - (Atul) We can add a "version" or some such field in the Transmitter Configuration Metadata. Presence of this field will indicate that it is the new version of the spec, if the field is absent then it is the current RISC spec. - (Apoorva) Can we enumerate the breaking changes - (Tim) We should not codify the version numbers in implementer's drafts - (Phil) We could do major / minor versions. Right now we are at "0.x" - (Phil) We could make the major version change change the numeral before the dot - (Tim) Three questions: - What does the version represent? - When do we rev the version? - What's the field called? - (Phil) Most companies don't like to say they are implementing a standard - (Steve) We're talking about interop between companies - (Phil) "I support" versus "I guarantee" (a lot don't although they should) - (Phil) It's the certification, not the language - (Atul) Can we say that if the "version" field is not present, then it is a specific older version of the draft - (Tim) We can say that anything that doesn't have the version field, then we could say generically it is a pre-standard implementation - (Yair) You do not want local progression so that each implementation has some different version that was published in the past - (Steve) What is a backward compatible change and what isn't? - (Phil) Backward incompatible changes should rev the spec version, others should not - (Phil) Schema number should be distinct from the approval process - so that when a draft that is currently implemented doesn't get a new number without anything changing in the spec - (Phil) There are three numbers that matter: Formal document version number. There's the protocol version number, and there's the schema changes. - (Steve) Doesn't the protocol change mean that the schema has changed? - (Phil) Only change the number if it matters to an implementer - (Atul) Proposal: We add a field in the metadata and assign a verison number "1" to it, even though the current draft is not ratified by the OpenID foundation as a standard. If we need to make a backward compatible change that is published as an implementer's draft, then we update the number to the right of the decimal (i.e. 1.1, 1.2, etc.) This way, when a spec goes from an implementer's draft to a final draft, we do not have to change the version number. - (?) How do we revision events in CAEP / RISC? - (Steve) Someone should write a concrete proposal - (Tim) There's core-framework versions and there's event versions - (Tim) Phil - on the event Identifier, would it be better to use URNs instead of URIs, since they have version numbering in them - (Phil) When we register with the IETF (IANA?) they're always URNs. - (Phil) We could establish a new IANA registry in this working group with an apporpriate naming convention and process - (Phil) Anyone can register their own namespace. - ## Action Items - Atul to provide a proposal for core-framework versioning as a Google Doc - Tim to provide a proposal for event versions as a GitHub issue