Session Date/Time: 21 Mar 2024 03:00

vcon

Summary

The first working group meeting of the vcon WG focused primarily on reviewing the vcon draft, particularly recent updates related to contact center use cases and a gap analysis based on Jonathan Rosenberg's work. The discussion covered metadata mapping, proposed additions to the vcon schema, and unresolved questions regarding interaction types and contextual information. The group also discussed use cases and requirements, data model security, and future work, and they tentatively agreed to adopt the vcon draft as a working group document.

Key Discussion Points

Contact Center Use Cases: Dan Petrie presented updates to the vcon draft based on a gap analysis of Jonathan Rosenberg's contact center use cases, mapping existing metadata and identifying missing elements.
Metadata Additions: Discussion focused on additions to the vcon schema, including participant UUID, participant type, role parameter, PII redaction labels, and event tracking for parties joining, dropping, going on hold, etc.
Unclear Parameters: Questions were raised regarding the interaction ID (vcon or dialogue scope?) and the need for more specific labeling of interaction types (SMS, web chat, screen capture vs. conference video).
Alternative Approaches: Thomas Howe and Cody suggested using attachments to store contextual information like campaign, dialing list, and interaction type, arguing these are more "opinions" than "facts" and specific to vendor implementations.
Consent: The importance of capturing consent information within the vcon was highlighted, along with the question of whether the existing consent label is sufficient.
Interaction Type: There was significant debate about whether to standardize a field for interaction type. Some argued it was too application-specific and better handled via attachments.
Dialing List/Contact List: The term "dialing list" was considered telephony-centric; "contact list" was suggested as a more abstract and appropriate term. "Campaign" was generally accepted as a suitable term.
Use Cases and Requirements: The group discussed how to manage use cases and requirements documents, including whether to keep them separate from the core vcon definition.
Data Model Security: Concerns were raised about internalizing security components (e.g., JWS, JWE) into the vcon data model, particularly in light of existing security layers like MLS. Separating security concerns into a separate document may ease implementation.
Referential Concepts: The group acknowledged the lack of experience implementing and using referential concepts such as referencing Vecans from Vecans, and the creation of amendments or redactions of a Vcon, and will need to explore possible alternate solutions such as selective disclosure Jose.
Hackathon: The upcoming vcon hackathon focused on redaction and detection of personal information was announced.

Decisions and Action Items

Action Item: Chairs to send a call for adoption of the vcon draft to the mailing list.
Action Item: Chairs to review and potentially update the milestones in the data tracker, confirming updates on the mailing list.
Action Item: Dan Petrie to review Mimi content draft and other models (Axon B) for metadata related to text-based messaging conversations.
Action Item: Dan Petrie to investigate security concerns related to vcon referencing and explore alternatives (e.g., selective disclosure Jose).
Decision: The group tentatively agreed to adopt the current vcon draft as a working group document, pending confirmation on the mailing list.

Next Steps

Call for adoption of the vcon draft on the mailing list.
Review and update milestones in the data tracker.
Dan Petrie to continue working on to-dos in the draft, including examples.
Address the open questions regarding interaction type, campaign, and contact list.
Further exploration of the security implications of vcon referencing and potential alternatives.