15:46:34 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
15:46:34 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/11/12-did-irc
15:46:35 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
15:46:35 <ivan> Meeting: DID Working Group Telco
15:46:35 <ivan> Chair: burn
15:46:35 <ivan> Date: 2019-11-12
15:46:35 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2019Nov/0015.html
15:46:35 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2019-11-12: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2019Nov/0015.html
15:52:31 <burn> present+
15:54:28 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #did
15:58:18 <ivan> present+
15:58:33 <rhiaro> present+
15:58:36 <rhiaro> scribe+ rhiaro
15:59:18 <rhiaro> scribe+ yancy
15:59:55 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
15:59:59 <chriswinc> present+
16:00:26 <brent> brent has joined #did
16:00:30 <brent> present+
16:00:50 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #did
16:01:11 <mike-lodder> mike-lodder has joined #did
16:01:13 <phila> phila has joined #did
16:01:24 <Justin_R> Justin_R has joined #did
16:01:39 <TallTed> present+
16:01:42 <markus_sabadello> present+
16:01:50 <yancy> present+
16:01:54 <dlongley> present+
16:01:58 <phila> present+
16:02:12 <mike-lodder> present+
16:02:24 <Justin_R> present+
16:02:49 <ken> ken has joined #did
16:02:55 <dmitriz> present+
16:02:57 <manu> present+
16:03:05 <jonathan_holt> jonathan_holt has joined #did
16:03:06 <markus_sabadello_> markus_sabadello_ has joined #did
16:03:08 <ken> present+
16:03:09 <dmitriz> dmitriz has left #did
16:03:13 <jonathan_holt> present+ jonathan_holt
16:03:25 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #did
16:03:27 <burn> Topic: Agenda Review, Introductions, Re-introductions
16:04:24 <yancy> burn: starting process of horizontal review for the spec
16:04:29 <manu> q+
16:04:32 <yancy> .. any requests for changes
16:04:36 <burn> ack manu
16:04:54 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #did
16:04:56 <selfissued> present+
16:05:01 <yancy> manu: there's a survey that's been sent around the public key discussion.  just surrvey and spreadsheet
16:06:40 <yancy> mike-lodder:  interested in implementing DIDs
16:07:09 <burn> Announce FPWD published!! https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2019Nov/0013.html
16:07:19 <yancy> burn: the fpw of core spec has been published
16:07:55 <yancy> ... we will begin publication as soon as we get that setup.  that means autoprocess for official working draft
16:07:56 <kdenhartog> kdenhartog has joined #did
16:08:17 <yancy> ... intended to survive issues that could impact lifesspan
16:09:23 <drummond> drummond has joined #did
16:09:26 <rhiaro> Topic: F2F upcoming
16:09:28 <burn> Announce F2F January 29-31, 2020 Evert van de Beekstraat 354,1118 CZ Schiphol, Netherlands https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/F2F/2020.01.Amsterdam
16:09:29 <manu> Yes, thank you to Microsoft for the meeting location! :)
16:09:31 <drummond> present+
16:09:39 <manu> (and Mike Jones, specifically) :)
16:09:41 <yancy> brent: chairs sent an announcement about f2f meeting.  email went out about location in amsterdam.
16:09:42 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
16:10:07 <yancy> ... this is near the airport grounds in Amsterdam
16:10:36 <yancy> ... we have the meeting room everyday
16:10:43 <drummond> Thank you to Mike and Microsoft
16:10:44 <burn> Topic: Scheduled Key Format call
16:10:46 <burn> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-did-wg/2019Nov/0001.html Date:  Wednesday, 13 Nov 2019 Time:  2-3 pm ET / 11am-noon PT / 8-9 pm CET /           6 am Sydney (on the 14th) https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=DIDWG+Key+Representations&iso=20191113T14&p1=43&ah=1
16:11:06 <ChristopherA> q+
16:11:07 <yancy> brent: should have received an email about key format meeting
16:11:16 <yancy> ... time is at 10am est
16:11:25 <yancy> ... 2pm est
16:11:26 <rhiaro> s/10am/2pm
16:12:05 <yancy> ivan: has sent out an email
16:12:23 <burn> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-did-wg/2019Nov/0001.html Date:  Wednesday, 13 Nov 2019 Time:  2-3 pm ET / 11am-noon PT / 8-9 pm CET /           6 am Sydney (on the 14th) https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=DIDWG+Key+Representations&iso=20191113T14&p1=43&ah=1
16:12:24 <yancy> brent: should be sent out again
16:12:38 <yancy> ... to the member list
16:12:52 <ChristopherA> I’m in a
16:12:54 <ChristopherA> Q
16:13:06 <yancy> ... we have published the fpw for did core spec which means it's time for horizontal review
16:13:09 <brent> q?
16:13:14 <brent> ack ChristopherA
16:13:23 <yancy> ChristopherA: any other events in coordination with the DID meeting?
16:13:24 <ivan> ack ChristopherA
16:13:33 <yancy> ... someone wanted to do a meetup in Berlin
16:13:37 <manu> s/I’m in a//
16:13:46 <manu> s/Q//
16:13:47 <yancy> brent: no other meetings in europe
16:14:11 <yancy> mike: might be adjast to the fido meeting
16:14:14 <manu> But, we have enough time to set up an event around the DID WG meeting...
16:14:32 <ivan> q+
16:14:41 <brent> ack ivan
16:14:46 <yancy> brent: ping has already mobilized
16:15:12 <yancy> ... al we're looking for is the groups are informated
16:15:24 <yancy> s/al/all/
16:15:36 <yancy> s/adjast/adjacent
16:16:00 <ivan> q+
16:16:08 <brent> ack ivan
16:16:12 <burn> Manu, if you set up another event around this meeting it needs to be announced right away :)
16:16:17 <rhiaro> ivan: I'll contact the other horizontal review groups
16:16:20 <yancy> ivan: I think what we should do is reach out to the TAG
16:16:35 <manu> I don't want to set up another public event.... just sayin' if *someone* wanted to...
16:16:37 <yancy> brent: I think that's an appropriate thing to do
16:16:47 <yancy> ivan: they need to be contacted
16:16:57 <manu> burn, I think ChristopherA was thinking something like an informal meet up around DIDs in Amsterdam.
16:16:58 <yancy> brent: would you be able to do that as part of codacting other groups
16:16:58 <burn> Yes, but last time I asked the TAG if they wanted to review (in the VC group) they assumed that meant we needed their feedback, and it delayed our group.
16:17:10 <yancy> ivan: don't expect that to be a problem
16:17:16 <yancy> s/codacting/contacting
16:17:26 <manu> q+ wait wait :) -- announcements
16:17:34 <yancy> brent: moving on, I believe JoeA and Phi are both on the call
16:17:35 <brent> q?
16:18:12 <yancy> manu: just want to know when we will be talking about the public key call
16:18:17 <rhiaro> ack wait
16:18:19 <rhiaro> ack :)
16:18:21 <yancy> brent: already been talked about
16:18:22 <rhiaro> ack --
16:18:24 <rhiaro> ack announcements
16:18:25 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/67#issuecomment-552947629
16:18:41 <yancy> manu: we;re having that call and there's been some docs puts together to gather dara
16:18:42 <manu> Survey of cryptographic library implementations - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12dwUaAruKKpq3a3IfEMEMhpRhI7oM1tQnkmDbW2VGoU/edit#gid=0
16:18:51 <yancy> ... first is a surbbey of crypto
16:19:02 <selfissued> q+
16:19:05 <yancy> ... and second is survey for did implementers
16:19:08 <rhiaro> s/surbbey/survey
16:19:09 <brent> s/surbbey/survey/
16:19:10 <manu> I have started a survey here to gather data from DID Method implementers: https://forms.gle/Hovf3irBJ5KwgXLQ6
16:19:15 <yancy> ... hopefully we get something back soon
16:19:22 <yancy> ... that are the two google docs
16:19:37 <yancy> ... everyone should be able tow write to the google docs
16:19:43 <yancy> s/tow/to
16:19:47 <ivan> -> https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2019-11-06-did Minutes of the ad-hoc meeting
16:20:14 <brent> ack selfissued
16:20:36 <yancy> mike: getting data is always good but the data will just show a multiplicity of different representations
16:20:39 <dlongley> q+
16:20:45 <manu> I think this is a part of the public key discussion and we shouldn't have it here...
16:20:51 <yancy> ... do we create a standard or do we enshrine them
16:21:12 <brent> ack dlongley
16:21:16 <yancy> ... not trying to take call time, but the survey shows people doing different things doesn't help the standard
16:21:17 <gannan> gannan has joined #did
16:21:32 <yancy> longley: will help us choose
16:21:46 <burn> Question the chairs will ask every time now is "What prevents us from published FPWD Note for Use Cases and Requirements doc RIGHT NOW?"
16:21:46 <yancy> s/longley/dlongly
16:21:48 <phila> topic: UCR
16:22:02 <dlongley> s/dlongly/dlongley/
16:22:02 <burn> s/time/week/
16:22:08 <phila> https://philarcher.github.io/did-use-cases/
16:22:14 <yancy> phila: would like to say eveytings been merged, but there's confilcts that need resolving
16:22:27 <yancy> ... ghoing to hand over to Joe to look at issue tracker
16:22:36 <yancy> ... I wasn't able to do this last week
16:22:58 <yancy> ... the first thing to say is that the use case doc we started with has a really good solution
16:23:14 <yancy> ... instead of here's the problem space and ehere's what we need to solbe
16:23:26 <yancy> ... and it would be stupid to start from a blank slate
16:23:33 <yancy> ... here are the things we need to be true
16:23:34 <gannan> present+
16:23:40 <drummond> +1 to Phil's point about "a balance to be struck"
16:23:40 <burn> If editors need to restructure, do it and give us a doc in the main repo that folks can send PRs against.
16:23:45 <yancy> .. this is what nees to be done and here's how we move forward
16:24:09 <yancy> ... community is interested in solving things that's outside of scope of this group
16:24:22 <yancy> ... the bases of the doc shouldn't get in to those things
16:24:30 <yancy> ... Ill merge it after this call
16:24:39 <yancy> ... abstract begins with things from drummond
16:24:50 <yancy> ... I wrote a new introduction
16:25:00 <yancy> ... please tell me if its rubish
16:25:22 <yancy> ... new thingsI wrote from scratch and why it's different from all other identifiers
16:25:37 <yancy> ... and if you want SS whats wrong with a uuid
16:25:50 <yancy> ... we need a new identifier that does ehse four things
16:25:57 <yancy> ... any comments?
16:26:01 <yancy> ... carry on
16:26:09 <drummond> Sounds good, Phil
16:26:16 <yancy> ... short paragraph about existing work done in community
16:26:24 <yancy> ... allows us not to start from scratch
16:26:35 <yancy> ... and we don't need to invest in a network of computers
16:26:40 <yancy> ... talks about the ccg
16:26:58 <yancy> ... whicch allows us to get int e concepts which is about what can you do with a did
16:26:59 <manu> Agree with direction that Phil is outlining for the use cases document, it makes a ton of sense.
16:27:11 <yancy> ... that's a PR from Marcus about this
16:27:45 <yancy> ... how we resolve a did is out of scope for this group
16:27:59 <yancy> ... we need a section of short use cases
16:28:04 <yancy> ... one or two paragraphs
16:28:11 <yancy> ... new one from bosch
16:28:24 <yancy> ... feature benefits hasn't been changed
16:28:31 <yancy> ... use cases has minor changes
16:28:40 <yancy> ... the number of changes are alomost none
16:28:45 <brent> q?
16:28:46 <yancy> s/alomost/almost
16:28:48 <manu> q+
16:28:56 <markus_sabadello_> q+
16:29:00 <brent> ack markus_sabadello_
16:29:07 <yancy> manu: so phila this makes a ton of sense
16:29:08 <brent> q+ markus_sabadello
16:29:11 <drummond> +1
16:29:14 <brent> ack manu
16:29:17 <yancy> ... we shouldnt presuppose the solution
16:29:30 <yancy> ... the only issue that I can see is the introduction of relying party
16:29:39 <yancy> ... and we hit a snag in the VC work
16:29:52 <yancy> ... and i'm concerned it will lead to confusing
16:30:04 <yancy> phila: raise an issue in the tracker
16:30:10 <brent> ack markus_sabadello
16:30:21 <yancy> markus: about the terminology section, I opened a PR
16:30:29 <yancy> ... and copied and pasted from DID core spec
16:30:41 <manu> q+ to note that we /could/ refer to a single terminology file...
16:31:02 <yancy> ... I think it's a good idea to avoid confusion to the reader and burden to us as authors
16:31:32 <yancy> phila: what I hope is that the words you put in there, what you did has not been lost and inlied with joes comments
16:31:48 <JoeAndrieu> present+
16:31:52 <yancy> ... I hope very much that this doc will go through FPW and one or two iterations
16:31:58 <yancy> ... should be done by June
16:32:10 <yancy> ... in finalizing the core spec it should be done
16:32:20 <drummond> q+
16:32:26 <brent> ack manu
16:32:26 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that we /could/ refer to a single terminology file...
16:32:29 <yancy> ... if there's a difference between this and the core spec, the core spec is authoritative
16:32:31 <burn> I very much like making explicit that did-core wins between the two
16:32:44 <burn> s/two/two if there is a conflict/
16:33:02 <yancy> manue: with respect to terminology, it is possilbe for us to share and respec will autoclean words you didn't use in the doc
16:33:12 <burn> s/manue/manu/
16:33:22 <brent> +1 to a single terminology document that is shared
16:33:34 <yancy> ... to be clear, when we publish a static verion the dynamic glossery isn't affected
16:33:37 <markus_sabadello> +1
16:33:38 <brent> q?
16:33:42 <yancy> ... I want to use the same glossary doc
16:33:43 <brent> ack drummond
16:33:50 <yancy> drummond:  wnat to +1 to that
16:33:50 <dlongley> +1 same glossary
16:33:53 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to concur with shared vocab
16:33:58 <yancy> .. didn't know respec had that function
16:34:13 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
16:34:13 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to concur with shared vocab
16:34:16 <yancy> ... not as worried if it has the caveat that phila mentioned
16:34:35 <yancy> phila: to clarify we are talking about a glossary that can be dropped into any doc we want
16:34:45 <brent> q?
16:34:47 <yancy> JoeA: I was going to endorse that
16:34:53 <yancy> ... not sure the best way
16:35:04 <yancy> ... we just need to externalize that wone to the did core repo
16:35:11 <yancy> phila: clear
16:35:23 <yancy> JoeA: there are some wrong things but put isses over ther
16:35:38 <yancy> JoeA: wnat to go throuh PRS
16:35:44 <JoeAndrieu> https://github.com/w3c/did-use-cases/pulls
16:35:44 <yancy> ... number 36
16:35:58 <yancy> ... phila you're going to update and we can merge
16:36:13 <yancy> ... 33
16:36:31 <yancy> ... 37 not a nbig fan of names alice bob and charlie
16:36:37 <manu> +1 to unique names per use case.
16:36:42 <yancy> ... if we have unique names it helps to remember the use case
16:36:46 <yancy> ... that is ready to be merged
16:36:54 <yancy> ... this top one we should merge in
16:37:10 <yancy> ... this is what we intend to get in for FPWD
16:37:23 <yancy> ... once we get changes in that will affect the terminology
16:37:29 <JoeAndrieu> https://github.com/w3c/did-use-cases/issues
16:37:32 <yancy> ... should be ready be end ofweel
16:37:38 <manu> No objections, +1 to merge.
16:37:44 <yancy> s/ofweel/of week
16:37:44 <burn> s/ofweel/of week/
16:37:53 <yancy> JoeA: we have 16 issues
16:38:06 <rhiaro> +1 if anyone wants to offload wrangling github merge conflicts etc ping me, happy to help (phila, joeandrieu)
16:38:34 <JoeAndrieu> https://github.com/w3c/did-use-cases/issues/14
16:38:40 <brent> q?
16:38:55 <yancy> ... the issue that came up is what's a registry
16:39:20 <yancy> ... other part of our community was using the term anchor system
16:39:28 <yancy> ... some bike shedding happening here
16:39:36 <ivan> q+
16:39:38 <yancy> ... wnat to keep it open
16:39:42 <yancy> s/wnat/want
16:39:50 <brent> ack ivan
16:39:55 <yancy> phila: i'll put iss in doc
16:40:02 <yancy> s/iss/issue
16:40:19 <yancy> JoeAndrieu: thanks for jumping in
16:40:32 <yancy> ... how polished does it need to be
16:40:46 <yancy> ... we have a lot of things the refer to registry
16:40:55 <yancy> ... I think we need to address this just not now
16:41:06 <selfissued> q+
16:41:08 <yancy> ... the last one is 8 about when do we publish
16:41:12 <manu> I just raised https://github.com/w3c/did-use-cases/issues/39 to flag the "Relying Party" concern.
16:41:18 <yancy> ... which we could publish next wekek
16:41:20 <JoeAndrieu> ack selfissued
16:41:43 <Justin_R> +1 to Mike's interpretation
16:41:51 <ivan> +1 to mike, too
16:41:56 <markus_sabadello> q+
16:41:58 <drummond> q+
16:42:06 <yancy> mike: it's a really confusing repurposing of the term
16:42:07 <JoeAndrieu> ack markus_sabadello
16:42:10 <manu> q+ to say "that's a very IETF specific view"
16:42:16 <yancy> markus: we used toa call it target system
16:42:29 <yancy> ... then we change to registry
16:42:42 <jonathan_holt> q+ to clarify "anchor"
16:42:42 <JoeAndrieu> q?
16:42:45 <manu> q-
16:42:46 <drummond> Yes, agreed, I'm only on the queue to mention the past situation
16:42:46 <yancy> ... I think that registry doesn't fit
16:42:59 <yancy> drummond: this is a bike shedding opportunity
16:43:12 <yancy> s/drummond/JoA
16:43:22 <yancy> s/JoA/JoeAndrieu
16:43:35 <yancy> ... we have a range of terms we should collectively hash out
16:43:38 <JoeAndrieu> q?
16:43:56 <JoeAndrieu> ack drummond
16:44:01 <rhiaro> JoeAndrieu: the CCG already bikeshedded this term, but the WG needs to be comfortable with the language, so we should discuss more
16:44:03 <yancy> ... I want to plant that we need to do bike shedding around more terminology then this
16:44:18 <yancy> drummond: the ccg did decide on the term
16:44:26 <JoeAndrieu> q?
16:44:26 <manu> q+ to ask about DIF glossary work cross over
16:44:29 <burn> but do we need to do this before FPWD?
16:44:32 <JoeAndrieu> ack jonathan_holt
16:44:32 <Zakim> jonathan_holt, you wanted to clarify "anchor"
16:44:32 <yancy> ... if we have a glossory doc we should use them
16:45:09 <drummond> I don't think it's necessary to decide on all terms before FPWD. They can be updated later as the glossary is finalized.
16:45:10 <yancy> jonathan_holt: anchor versus registry is this idea of agnostic dlt technology that stands on its own
16:45:21 <yancy> ... like which key are you going to suppoer
16:45:29 <yancy> s/suppoer/support
16:45:34 <yancy> ... up to the method
16:45:43 <yancy> ... other people may implement different things
16:46:03 <yancy> ... I think its getting more movement about concept before we decide on term
16:46:09 <burn> selfissued, do you believe the term 'registry' needs to be confirmed/changed before FPWD?  I hope not
16:46:24 <drummond> +1 to always adequately describing the concept before finalizing the term for it. Best practice in terminology.
16:46:27 <burn> q?
16:46:30 <yancy> JoeAndrieu: so we need to clarify the naming
16:46:41 <selfissued> q+
16:47:13 <yancy> jonathan_holt: owers is agnostic to what DLT you want to use.  there needs to be more discussion on what the anchoring means.
16:47:19 <JoeAndrieu> q?
16:47:23 <burn> q?
16:47:43 <yancy> JoeAndrieu: IPLD under lib p2p public key
16:47:55 <JoeAndrieu> ack manu
16:47:55 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about DIF glossary work cross over
16:47:59 <brent> q+ to respond to the DIF glossary project question
16:48:03 <yancy> ... we could anchor under bitcoin transaction or eth smart contract
16:48:15 <JoeAndrieu> hmm... that last one about IPLD was jonathan_holt
16:48:25 <yancy> manu:  I thikn diff has a glossery project and how do we not duplicate effort
16:48:31 <kdenhartog> q+
16:48:42 <rhiaro> s/diff/DIF
16:48:42 <yancy> ... maybe some diff folks can join the group and do somebike shedding
16:48:46 <rhiaro> s/diff/DIF
16:49:02 <burn> jonathan_holt, anchor is just the generic word we have been using to mean "somehow realized using that ledger or other base technology".  In your case, IPID is the base technology.
16:49:37 <JoeAndrieu> q?
16:49:45 <JoeAndrieu> ack selfissued
16:49:46 <yancy> danielb: might encompass more than the core did stuff and they like sovrins glossory and they may say for the did core stufff they dont' want to creat there own
16:49:58 <yancy> mike: I was going to support a point made a minute ago
16:50:05 <brent> q-
16:50:06 <yancy> ... you need to understand what you're naming
16:50:20 <JoeAndrieu> q?
16:50:20 <yancy> ... and if we can agree on the description that follows the colon
16:50:21 <rhiaro> s/mike/selfissued
16:50:24 <brent> +1
16:50:26 <JoeAndrieu> ack kdenhartog
16:50:35 <jonathan_holt> yes, better said.... thank you Mike
16:50:35 <burn> Maybe we can note in the doc that the term 'registry' is under discussion
16:50:49 <yancy> kyle:  regarding the terminiology they are moving away from sovrin glossary
16:50:53 <JoeAndrieu> @burn, that's the plan right now
16:50:53 <burn> And then have the discussion, of coures
16:50:58 <rhiaro> s/kyle/kdenhartog
16:51:01 <burn> s/coures/course/
16:51:03 <yancy> ... I can talk with luke
16:51:13 <yancy> ... and to depend on did core where possible
16:51:15 <JoeAndrieu> q?
16:51:22 <burn> @JoeAndrieu, just confirming because it sounded like Mike wanted it fixed before FPWD
16:51:40 <manu> q+ to ask who has the action item to align the glossary stuff...
16:51:55 <yancy> JoeAndrieu: question for me from the chairs is should we get an editor on the terms doc
16:51:56 <manu> q-
16:52:10 <phila> q+
16:52:10 <yancy> brent: the terms fit under the did core spec
16:52:15 <manu> q+ to cry, but agree
16:52:21 <yancy> ... and so did core spec should be same as terminology
16:52:22 <JoeAndrieu> q?
16:52:27 <JoeAndrieu> ack phila
16:52:28 <yancy> ... editors feel the same\?
16:52:47 <yancy> phila:  I know the endpoint and there will be a doc that is the glossery automatically
16:53:02 <yancy> ... in the short term we want document ready for fpwd
16:53:04 <manu> q+ please don't wait
16:53:12 <yancy> ... shoiuld I use the static version I have for nwo
16:53:14 <JoeAndrieu> s/glossery/glossary
16:53:14 <manu> q- please
16:53:14 <manu> q- don't
16:53:15 <manu> q- wait
16:53:22 <manu> q+ to say please don't wait
16:53:27 <yancy> ... can I put it in with terms that markus flagged
16:53:28 <JoeAndrieu> ack manu
16:53:28 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to cry, but agree and to say please don't wait
16:53:29 <brent> q+ to agree with manu
16:53:35 <yancy> manu:  I don't think we should wait
16:53:45 <yancy> ... we should not hold the use case up on that
16:54:00 <yancy> ... lets get a static copy we can all review
16:54:12 <yancy> ... also who is charge of terms.html
16:54:28 <yancy> ... one of the editors has both feet in ccg and dif wf
16:54:31 <yancy> s/wf/wg
16:54:50 <yancy> ... he's the one that should aligning
16:54:54 <JoeAndrieu> q?
16:55:08 <JoeAndrieu> ack brent
16:55:08 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to agree with manu
16:55:18 <rhiaro> s/ccg and dif wg/WG and DIF
16:55:21 <yancy> brent: I want to +1 what manu said
16:55:22 <burn> I love it
16:55:27 <markus_sabadello> +1 to volunteering drummond
16:55:30 <yancy> ... I agree with mike jones
16:55:52 <yancy> JoeAndrieu: we've gone over status of PRs
16:56:03 <yancy> ... biggest thing is update from phil
16:56:16 <yancy> ... and we're going to tag section of termonlogy and registry as under discussion
16:56:33 <yancy> ... we need to get phil in before we do formal approval
16:56:34 <burn> Yes, we need a fairly stable doc to ask for FPWD
16:56:41 <brent> q+ to say it would be great to have an email out to the group when the doc is ready for review
16:56:50 <JoeAndrieu> q?
16:56:56 <JoeAndrieu> ack brent
16:56:56 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to say it would be great to have an email out to the group when the doc is ready for review
16:57:10 <yancy> brent: it would be awesome to have a doc to review before next call
16:57:26 <yancy> ... send out message to public mailing list and we can give it our 2 cents
16:57:40 <burn> q?
16:57:46 <yancy> phila: might happen tomorrow and it will happen before next week
16:57:55 <yancy> brent: thanks all for coming
16:57:58 <yancy> ... great call
16:58:10 <yancy> ... everyone who is interested reminder of the call tomorrow
16:58:32 <yancy> ... same time next week
16:58:42 <ken> ken has left #did
16:59:24 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:59:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/11/12-did-minutes.html ivan
16:59:24 <ivan> zakim, bye
16:59:24 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
16:59:24 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
16:59:24 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been burn, ivan, rhiaro, chriswinc, brent, TallTed, markus_sabadello, yancy, dlongley, phila, mike-lodder, Justin_R, dmitriz, manu,
16:59:24 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did