DID Working Group Telco — Minutes
See also the Agenda and the IRC Log
Present: Phil Archer, Brent Zundel, Benjamin Young, dmitriz1, Dudley Collinson, Ivan Herman, Markus Sabadello, David Trang, Dmitri Zagidulin, Dave Longley, James Fishback, Christopher Allen, Manu Sporny, Michael Jones, Ted Thibodeau Jr, Yancy Ribbens, Alexander Hripak, Drummond Reed, ken ebert, Kim Duffy, Samuel Smith, Joe Andrieu, David Ezell
Regrets: Amy Guy, Andrei Sambra, Daniel Burnett
Chair: Brent Zundel
Scribe(s): Manu Sporny, Phil Archer
- 1. Introductions and Reintroductions
- 2. Last week’s minutes
- 3. Unassigned issues
- 3.1. Allow DID documents to be retrieved using any URI scheme #13
- 3.2. Standardize the key revocation list #14
- 3.3. need rationale in spec for fully qualified DID references as the value of “id” fields #15
- 3.4. [PURPOSE OF THE SPECIFICATION] Is this draft specification trying to address too many topics when there should be more than 1 spec #18
- 3.5. [Design Goals] all references to identifier management etc. should be changed to DID Entity management, etc. #19
- 3.6. [Public Keys] re: referenced keys: Is multiple level recursion allowed? #20
- 3.7. [DID Operations] “all the operations required of a CKMS” are not specified on the body of this section #21
- 3.8. [Authentication] Is Authentication the correct mechanism for specifying the ownership of a Thing? #22
- 3.9. make publicKey section more explicit for understanding of DIDs reliance on public keys #24
- 3.10. Cheap DIDs and the option to migrate DIDs between ledgers using standard DID Deprecation Registries #33
- 3.11. Should DID syntax allow an empty “method-specific-id”? #34
- 3.12. Use colon separator or kebab-case for method-specific DID parameter names? #35
- 3.13. Details on the use of method-specific DID parameters #36
- 3.14. It would be useful to have
servicesas a mapping instead of an
- 3.15. Should “id” be mandatory for “service” and “publicKey”? #47
- 3.16. If an existing DID Document has a Service Endpoint fragment, what are the primary keys to be used if that Service Endpoint needs to be replaced, updated, or deleted? #49
- 3.17. [Convention] Method
0(zero) become a well-known method for retrieving properties/metadata from/about a particular DID Server #51
- 3.18. Clarification of other verification methods in authentication section missing #57
- 4. Open PRs
- 5. ccg PR-s
- 6. Resolutions
Manu Sporny: brent goes over Agenda.
Manu Sporny: 1-Agenda Review, Introductions, Re-introductions (5 min)
Manu Sporny: 2-Accept Previous Meeting’s Minutes  (2 min)
Manu Sporny: 3-Assign owners to unassigned issues  (18 min)
Manu Sporny: 4-DID WG did-spec open PR Discussion  (15 min)
Manu Sporny: 5-CCG did-spec open PR Discussion  (15 min)
Brent Zundel: That’s the Agenda for today, any recommendations for additions?
Dmitri Zagidulin: Can we talk about context hosting?
Brent Zundel: I think that’s one of the PRs
1. Introductions and Reintroductions
Brent Zundel: Anyone on the call who has not introduced themselves
Alexander Hripak: I’m VP of tech at Credly first time in the DID WG, excited to be here
James Fishback: I’m James Fishback, I’m privacy engineer at the Wikimedia Foundation
Drummond Reed: I was at IIW last week, so missed last week. I’ve been living with the DID spec since it was born
Benjamin Young: I’m Benjamin Young. I work for Wiley, and co-chair of the JSON-LD WG
… have followed along with interest as VC work has gone along
Phil Archer: introduces self from GS1
Markus Sabadello: I missed last week too, sorry because of IIW. I’m from Danube Tech from Austria
… I’ve been contributing to the DID spec for a while. Lots of travel recently on this topic
2. Last week’s minutes
Brent Zundel: Our work mode says that we should formally accept the previous week’s minutes
… Any objection?
Manu Sporny: +1 to accepting previous minutes.
rrsagent, draft minute:* rrsagent, draft minutes
Brent Zundel: no objections so…
Resolution #1: last week’s minutes accepted
Drummond Reed: If you want to fall asleep to the 2 hour webinar that Markus and I gave about the Fukuoka meeting, here’s the link: https://ssimeetup.org/did-report-1-first-official-w3c-did-working-group-meeting-japan-drummond-reed-webinar-36/
3. Unassigned issues
Manu Sporny: See All open issues
Manu Sporny: See non-assigned open issues
Ted Thibodeau Jr: See unassigned, oldest first -
Manu Sporny: If it is OK with the chairs I’m wondering if we can assign the editorial ones to the editors?
… i.e. can we auto-assign. That will save us time on the call today.
Drummond Reed: Fine by me
Manu Sporny: So we’re just going to deal with unassigned issues that are not editorial
Manu Sporny: See un-assigned, non-editorial issues
Manu Sporny: I’ll go from the oldest to the newest
3.1. Allow DID documents to be retrieved using any URI scheme #13
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/issues/13
Manu Sporny: We just need someone to volunteer to drive the conversation forward
… You don’t have to write a PR, just push the issue
Christopher Allen: Yes, I can take this on. It’s something that BTCR uses, so OK.
3.2. Standardize the key revocation list #14
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/issues/14
Manu Sporny: How do we specify that a key has been revoked in the DID document
Christopher Allen: I’m also interested in this one
Daniel Buchner: One of the ways would be, if it disappears from the DID doc.
Manu Sporny: We need someone to drive the doc
Daniel Buchner: I’m biased, so does that rule me out?
Manu Sporny: No, that’s fine
Dmitri Zagidulin: I think that’s Yancy
Christopher Allen: #96 revocation will be hard, so if another assignee is necessary I’m up for it.
Christopher Allen: (The #old 96 the new is #14)
3.3. need rationale in spec for fully qualified DID references as the value of “id” fields #15
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/issues/15
Manu Sporny: Dan Buckner - you were hoping for a clean resolution, daniel you were also concerned
Daniel Buchner: I’d be happy to take that on
Drummond Reed: I don’t see Daniel Hardman on the call.
Manu Sporny: Just because we’re assigning volunteers, doesn’t stop anyone jumping into the discussion. Anyone can comment on anything, we just need people to own the issue
3.4. [PURPOSE OF THE SPECIFICATION] Is this draft specification trying to address too many topics when there should be more than 1 spec #18
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/issues/18
Manu Sporny: This is a statement that the spec is trying to do too much (Michael Herman)
Drummond Reed: I better sign up for that
3.5. [Design Goals] all references to identifier management etc. should be changed to DID Entity management, etc. #19
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/issues/19
Manu Sporny: Again, someone needs to have a chat with Michael about that
Drummond Reed: I care about that language and I’m talking to Michael so I’ll take that
3.6. [Public Keys] re: referenced keys: Is multiple level recursion allowed? #20
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/issues/20
Manu Sporny: again it’s a Michael Herman issue. Needs to be taken by someone interested in key management
… Some folks have been assigned but someone else would be a good addition
Dmitri Zagidulin: I’ll volunteer if nobody else does, re keys
Drummond Reed: I know that Dave Huseby is interested. I don’t know if he’s joined the WG yet
Manu Sporny: We can’t assign to someone who’s not here
Brent Zundel: He’s not in the WG yet AFAIK
Michael Jones: I do plan to drive this
3.7. [DID Operations] “all the operations required of a CKMS” are not specified on the body of this section #21
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/issues/21
Manu Sporny: another Michael Herman
… need to look through the spec and match against MH’s comment
ken: offers to take that on:* ken: offers to take that one
3.8. [Authentication] Is Authentication the correct mechanism for specifying the ownership of a Thing? #22
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/issues/22
Manu Sporny: Again from Michael herman. What does authn mean in the context of this spec?
… Maybe a discussion around authn and ownership. Any takers?
Christopher Allen: I worry that we get locked into something too narrow. That’s my concern but I’m not sure I’m able to take this on
Dave Longley: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/issues/2
Dave Longley: This might be the same as spec issue 2 which I’m already assigned to
… I’ll be updating the text
… Issue 2 should say “re-write authn section”
Manu Sporny: I have assigned it to dlongley. It may also apply to 4
Drummond Reed: here is terminology in that issue too, so I’ll help with that.
Manu Sporny: Great, I’ll add you to that.
3.9. make publicKey section more explicit for understanding of DIDs reliance on public keys #24
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/issues/24
Manu Sporny: From Kyle…
Christopher Allen: isn’t this editorial?
Manu Sporny: Joe, would you mind driving this one?
Joe Andrieu: Sure
… I’m happy to take that on. It’s… a question for Kyle I think.
Markus Sabadello: I’d be happy to work on this. It resulted in the long HR-14 discussion a while back
Phil Archer: All discussions come back to HR-14
3.10. Cheap DIDs and the option to migrate DIDs between ledgers using standard DID Deprecation Registries #33
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/issues/33
Manu Sporny: This is a new discussion about cheap DIDs, migration, deprecation registries etc.
… Any volunteers
… It came from Peppo, collective1.org
Markus Sabadello: I had a few GH discussions with him on this one
Dmitri Zagidulin: I’ll volunteer
Manu Sporny: I’m hesitant to give issues to editors
… Thank you dmitriz
3.11. Should DID syntax allow an empty “method-specific-id”? #34
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/issues/34
Manu Sporny: Do we need a trailing colon?
Markus Sabadello: I’m interested in all the ones to do with syntax, matrix parameters etc.
Manu Sporny: Do you need a method-specific ID for a valid DID.
… It’s a pretty straightforward syntax question that might open a can of worms
3.12. Use colon separator or kebab-case for method-specific DID parameter names? #35
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/issues/35
Manu Sporny: Do we do foo-bar or foo:bar or something else?
Manu Sporny: This isn’t matrix params, Markus
3.13. Details on the use of method-specific DID parameters #36
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/issues/36
Drummond Reed: I was responsible for the original text that may or may not be there still. I want to make sure it’s driven to closure so, OK, I’ll take that
… Looks like you, Markus
Markus Sabadello: OK, done
3.14. It would be useful to have
services as a mapping instead of an
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/issues/46
Manu Sporny: Looks like a job for a JSON-LD person
Dave Longley: Put me on there
3.15. Should “id” be mandatory for “service” and “publicKey”? #47
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/issues/47
Manu Sporny: I think you, Markus, raised this but you have a lot already. Anyone else?
Dmitri Zagidulin: I’ll take it if nobody else does.
Christopher Allen: is this more of a JSON-LD issue
Manu Sporny: It’s an identification issue. It’s how do we identify things in the DID doc
Dmitri Zagidulin: (I think this is more a philosophical question, rather than -LD one)
Christopher Allen: So, not me, but it feels like it needs some JSON-LD knowledge. This is an area where I keep hitting a problem
Dmitri Zagidulin: has volunteered
3.16. If an existing DID Document has a Service Endpoint fragment, what are the primary keys to be used if that Service Endpoint needs to be replaced, updated, or deleted? #49
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/issues/49
Manu Sporny: So this has to do with… Someone needs to look into this
Kim Duffy: Markus suggested it was out of scope
Drummond Reed: It’s out of scope
Phil Archer: [general agreement that this is out of scope]
3.17. [Convention] Method
0 (zero) become a well-known method for retrieving properties/metadata from/about a particular DID Server #51
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/issues/51
Manu Sporny: One for you kimhd?
Kim Duffy: If anyone has any strong opinions, great, otherwise, sure
Manu Sporny: Sounds like Markus and Kim
3.18. Clarification of other verification methods in authentication section missing #57
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/issues/57
Manu Sporny: There is an undocumented thing in the spec that talks about verification methods
… we talk about these verification methods and Oliver is raising questions about whether there will be a registry or similar
Dmitri Zagidulin: i’ll volunteer (since I have some PRs pending in the proof specs)
Markus Sabadello: You mentioned authn … verification method, Isn’t that a proof?
Manu Sporny: This is what needs to be written down
Kim Duffy: I could do this
Dmitri Zagidulin: I think I’ll volunteer for this one
Kim Duffy: I’d be interested in this one
Manu Sporny: So i’m linking dlongley, kimhd and dmitriz for this one
… So good - all issues assigned.
Daniel Buchner: What is the expected way to discuss these things?
Christopher Allen: The pattern was one person per issue, by the end it was multiple people. I wanted to add my name to the revocation one from earlier on
Daniel Buchner: Does this group have some set of expected ways to communicate/discuss our issues
Manu Sporny: That’s Issue 14 I think
Daniel Buchner: ?
Christopher Allen: If anyone else hesitated because the pattern at the beginning was single issue owner.
Manu Sporny: I’m going to add Oliver to 14 as he was interested on the list
Ivan Herman: s/??/14/
Brent Zundel: There’s a question about work mode - There’s a page about this
… Once an issue is assigned, jump into GH and get involved
… Most of the discussion will be in the issue tracker and PRs
Christopher Allen: Daniel, Issue assignees don’t have to make decisions, only help drive agenda to resolve it. I think using mail list for this one is fine.
4. Open PRs
Brent Zundel: Let’s start with the ones open in our DiD spec
… Recall that dmitriz Asked about context hosting
Manu Sporny: OK, let’s take that one first
Dmitri Zagidulin: It’s an issue targeting a PR
Phil Archer: [scribe calls for a link please]
Dmitri Zagidulin: The issue asked whether we’re going to host the … [distracted]
Brent Zundel: Issue 5 - where will the context he hosted, assigned to chairs and Ivan
Dmitri Zagidulin: I’d like to say a couple of words… never mind
… Take it to the issue
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/pulls
Manu Sporny: Here are the pull requests
Christopher Allen: I was hoping to talk about 63 at some point
4.1. Minor, essentially editorial changes #54
Manu Sporny: I’ll try and pull some easier ones
Ivan Herman: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/pull/54
Manu Sporny: Ivan has gone through and made sure that references are correct.
Christopher Allen: +1
Manu Sporny: Any objections?
… No objections
… I’ll go ahead and merge
4.2. add more content to the data model section
Manu Sporny: There are 4 pull requests to add more content to the data model section on IDs, DID docs, crypto keys and on services
… All explaining things
… I don’t think we have enough review to pull these in for now
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/pull/29
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/pull/30
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/pull/31
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/pull/32
Manu Sporny: We have three reviews but they’re all people from the same organisation - needs wider review
… I think they’re editorial but we need someone else to review
Kenneth Ebert: I’ll do it
Drummond Reed: I think I should do it too - by the end of the week
Ivan Herman: Shall we add the reviewers to the issue?
… you can do that afterwards
Manu Sporny: yeah but I’ll forget
Phil Archer: [MANU REMEMBER TO DO THIS]
4.3. calling for further discussions
Manu Sporny: Everything else is under active debate
… I don’t think we can get into the meat of these today
… I’ll just point out that we need more people involved in the conversation
… There are several things that refer to things that might get changed in the DID doc
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/pull/26
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/pull/27
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/pull/28
Manu Sporny: please weigh in on those
… want to simplify the spec by removing stuff we don’t think people will implement. But some people are suggesting that they will implemente.
4.4. matrix parameters
Manu Sporny: Other important discussion that we need input on are the matrix parameter
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/pull/59
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/pull/60
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/pull/61
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/pull/62
Phil Archer: Offers/commits to look at those
Christopher Allen: I’ve commented on PR 26, but it’s not my PR
… I don’t disapprove, but I think something else has to be written
Manu Sporny: It’s helpful if you object - suggest the kind of language you would find acceptable
… then people can take their view
Christopher Allen: It’s more of a UI problem. I was trying to use the review feature
… OK, I’ll take care of it…
Brent Zundel: I should jump in and say that we plan to move pretty quickly.
… If your response to a merge is “why did that get merged” - tell us.
… Part of our working mode is to act fast but undo if needs be
4.5. public key formats
Manu Sporny: Last 2 are about publick key formats
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/pull/56
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/pull/63
Manu Sporny: Oliver said he’s like to see an Etherium address
… And I think it was Transmte that wanted a hex format
… Feedback on how we express public keys woud be helpful
Daniel Buchner: We need PEM at least
Michael Jones: We should be removing redundant stuff, not adding to it
Christopher Allen: I’d like a longer discussion about this
Ted Thibodeau Jr: Lossless translation between formats increases interop more than One Format To Rule Them All.
Markus Sabadello: +1 to longer discussion about this is still needed
Christopher Allen: Unlike schemas, you can’t do it yourself (adding a new format)
Daniel Buchner: You mean the RSA compression?
Manu Sporny: I think that’s a clear question to the chairs to schedule some time
Daniel Buchner: RSA keys are huge, so does JWK allow for the slimmer representation?
Drummond Reed: We mentioned that there were 2 sessions at IIW
… One from Mike Huseby and I spoke to Mike Jones about it too.
… def need more time
Daniel Buchner: … support RSA stuff… (lost it)
… Compressed format RSA - is that still possible?
Daniel Buchner: Does JWT allow for all of the same features of the other formats?
Daniel Buchner: Not worried about JWT’s current set of registered keys, more about if it has or would allow the slimmer RSA format
Manu Sporny: Clearly we have to have a discussion on this
5. ccg PR-s
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/pulls
Manu Sporny: There are two. I need to move them over to the spec.
… The other one is dmitriz’s explainer about context files
… Johnny Crunch (?)’s PR has been there for a very long time
… That would close the PRs on the DID spec
Christopher Allen: +1
Manu Sporny: And I suggest that we then archive the CCG DID spec
Ivan Herman: You mean archive the repo?
Manu Sporny: yes, the CCG repo should be archived
Joe Andrieu: There was an issue about signatures too
Christopher Allen: CCG meeting is starting. See you there.
Manu Sporny: I can talk that offline w/ JoeAndrieu / CCG.
Brent Zundel: I think that’s better taken offline
… Closes the meeting on time
- Resolution #1: last week’s minutes accepted