DID Working Group Telco — Minutes

Date: 2019-11-12

See also the Agenda and the IRC Log


Present: Daniel Burnett, Ivan Herman, Amy Guy, Chris Winczewski, Brent Zundel, Dmitri Zagidulin, Michael Lodder, Phil Archer, Justin Richer, Ted Thibodeau Jr, Markus Sabadello, Yancy Ribbens, Dave Longley, Manu Sporny, Kenneth Ebert, Jonathan Holt, Michael Jones, Drummond Reed, Ganesh Annan, Joe Andrieu



Chair: Daniel Burnett, Brent Zundel

Scribe(s): Amy Guy, Yancy Ribbens


1. Agenda Review, Introductions, Re-introductions

Daniel Burnett: starting process of horizontal review for the spec

Yancy Ribbens: .. any requests for changes

Manu Sporny: there’s a survey that’s been sent around the public key discussion. just survey and spreadsheet

Michael Lodder: interested in implementing DIDs

Daniel Burnett: Announce FPWD published!! https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2019Nov/0013.html

Daniel Burnett: the fpw of core spec has been published
… we will begin publication as soon as we get that setup. that means autoprocess for official working draft
… intended to survive issues that could impact lifespan

2. upcoming F2F

Daniel Burnett: 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

Manu Sporny: Yes, thank you to Microsoft for the meeting location! :)

Manu Sporny: (and Mike Jones, specifically) :)

Brent Zundel: chairs sent an announcement about f2f meeting. email went out about location in Amsterdam.
… this is near the airport grounds in Amsterdam
… we have the meeting room everyday

Drummond Reed: Thank you to Mike and Microsoft

3. Scheduled Key Format call

Daniel Burnett: See call details

Brent Zundel: should have received an email about key format meeting
… time is at 2pm est
… 2pm est

Ivan Herman: has sent out an email

Brent Zundel: should be sent out again
… to the member list
… we have published the fpw for did core spec which means it’s time for horizontal review

Christopher Allen: any other events in coordination with the DID meeting?
… someone wanted to do a meetup in Berlin

Brent Zundel: no other meetings in Europe

mike: might be adjacent to the fido meeting

Manu Sporny: But, we have enough time to set up an event around the DID WG meeting…

4. Horizontal reviews

Brent Zundel: ping has already mobilized
… all we’re looking for is the groups are informated

Ivan Herman: I’ll contact the other horizontal review groups
… I think what we should do is reach out to the TAG

Brent Zundel: I think that’s an appropriate thing to do

Ivan Herman: they need to be contacted

Brent Zundel: would you be able to do that as part of contacting other groups

Ivan Herman: don’t expect that to be a problem

Daniel Burnett: 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.

5. announcements

Brent Zundel: moving on, I believe JoeA and Phil are both on the call

Manu Sporny: just want to know when we will be talking about the public key call

Brent Zundel: already been talked about

Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/67#issuecomment-552947629

Manu Sporny: we’re having that call and there’s been some docs puts together to gather data

Manu Sporny: Survey of cryptographic library implementations - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12dwUaAruKKpq3a3IfEMEMhpRhI7oM1tQnkmDbW2VGoU/edit#gid=0

Manu Sporny: first is a survey of crypto
… and second is survey for did implementers

Manu Sporny: I have started a survey here to gather data from DID Method implementers: https://forms.gle/Hovf3irBJ5KwgXLQ6

Manu Sporny: hopefully we get something back soon
… that are the two google docs
… everyone should be able to write to the google docs

Ivan Herman: See Minutes of the ad-hoc meeting

mike: getting data is always good but the data will just show a multiplicity of different representations

Manu Sporny: I think this is a part of the public key discussion and we shouldn’t have it here…

mike: do we create a standard or do we enshrine them
… not trying to take call time, but the survey shows people doing different things doesn’t help the standard

Dave Longley: will help us choose

6. UCR

Daniel Burnett: Question the chairs will ask every week now is “What prevents us from published FPWD Note for Use Cases and Requirements doc RIGHT NOW?”

Phil Archer: https://philarcher.github.io/did-use-cases/

Phil Archer: would like to say everything been merged, but there’s conflicts that need resolving
… going to hand over to Joe to look at issue tracker
… I wasn’t able to do this last week
… the first thing to say is that the use case doc we started with has a really good solution
… instead of here’s the problem space and there’s what we need to solve
… and it would be stupid to start from a blank slate
… here are the things we need to be true
… this is what needs to be done and here’s how we move forward

Drummond Reed: +1 to Phil’s point about “a balance to be struck”

Daniel Burnett: If editors need to restructure, do it and give us a doc in the main repo that folks can send PRs against.

Phil Archer: community is interested in solving things that’s outside of scope of this group
… the bases of the doc shouldn’t get in to those things
… Ill merge it after this call
… abstract begins with things from drummond
… I wrote a new introduction
… please tell me if its rubbish
… new thingsI wrote from scratch and why it’s different from all other identifiers
… and if you want SS whats wrong with a uuid
… we need a new identifier that does these four things
… any comments?
… carry on

Drummond Reed: Sounds good, Phil

Phil Archer: short paragraph about existing work done in community
… allows us not to start from scratch
… and we don’t need to invest in a network of computers
… talks about the ccg
… which allows us to get int e concepts which is about what can you do with a did

Manu Sporny: Agree with direction that Phil is outlining for the use cases document, it makes a ton of sense.

Phil Archer: that’s a PR from Marcus about this
… how we resolve a did is out of scope for this group
… we need a section of short use cases
… one or two paragraphs
… new one from Bosch
… feature benefits hasn’t been changed
… use cases has minor changes
… the number of changes are almost none

Manu Sporny: so phila this makes a ton of sense

Drummond Reed: +1

Manu Sporny: we shouldn’t presuppose the solution
… the only issue that I can see is the introduction of relying party
… and we hit a snag in the VC work
… and i’m concerned it will lead to confusing

Phil Archer: raise an issue in the tracker

Markus Sabadello: about the terminology section, I opened a PR
… and copied and pasted from DID core spec
… I think it’s a good idea to avoid confusion to the reader and burden to us as authors

Phil Archer: what I hope is that the words you put in there, what you did has not been lost and in line with joe’s comments
… I hope very much that this doc will go through FPW and one or two iterations
… should be done by June
… in finalizing the core spec it should be done
… if there’s a difference between this and the core spec, the core spec is authoritative

Daniel Burnett: I very much like making explicit that did-core wins between the two if there is a conflict

Manu Sporny: with respect to terminology, it is possible for us to share and respec will autoclean words you didn’t use in the doc

Brent Zundel: +1 to a single terminology document that is shared

Manu Sporny: to be clear, when we publish a static version the dynamic glossary isn’t affected

Markus Sabadello: +1

Manu Sporny: I want to use the same glossary doc

Drummond Reed: wnat to +1 to that

Dave Longley: +1 same glossary

Yancy Ribbens: .. didn’t know respec had that function

Drummond Reed: not as worried if it has the caveat that phila mentioned

Phil Archer: to clarify we are talking about a glossary that can be dropped into any doc we want

Joe Andrieu: I was going to endorse that
… not sure the best way
… we just need to externalize that won’t to the did core repo

Phil Archer: clear

Joe Andrieu: there are some wrong things but put issues over there
… want to go through PR-s

Joe Andrieu: https://github.com/w3c/did-use-cases/pulls

Joe Andrieu: number 36
… phila you’re going to update and we can merge
… 33
… 37 not a big fan of names alice bob and charlie

Manu Sporny: +1 to unique names per use case.

Joe Andrieu: if we have unique names it helps to remember the use case
… that is ready to be merged
… this top one we should merge in
… this is what we intend to get in for FPWD
… once we get changes in that will affect the terminology

Joe Andrieu: https://github.com/w3c/did-use-cases/issues

Joe Andrieu: should be ready be end of week

Manu Sporny: No objections, +1 to merge.

Amy Guy: +1 if anyone wants to offload wrangling github merge conflicts etc ping me, happy to help (phila, joeandrieu)

6.1. UCR issues

Joe Andrieu: we have 16 issues

Joe Andrieu: https://github.com/w3c/did-use-cases/issues/14

Joe Andrieu: the issue that came up is what’s a registry
… other part of our community was using the term anchor system
… some bike shedding happening here
… want to keep it open

Phil Archer: i’ll put issue in doc

Joe Andrieu: thanks for jumping in
… how polished does it need to be
… we have a lot of things the refer to registry
… I think we need to address this just not now
… the last one is 8 about when do we publish

Manu Sporny: I just raised https://github.com/w3c/did-use-cases/issues/39 to flag the “Relying Party” concern.

Joe Andrieu: which we could publish next week

6.2. “registry” issue (#14)

Yancy Ribbens: See “registry” issue (#14)

Ivan Herman: +1 to mike, too

Michael Jones: it’s a really confusing repurposing of the term

Justin Richer: +1 to Mike’s interpretation

Markus Sabadello: we used to a call it target system
… then we change to registry

Drummond Reed: Yes, agreed, I’m only on the queue to mention the past situation

Markus Sabadello: I think that registry doesn’t fit

Joe Andrieu: this is a bike shedding opportunity
… we have a range of terms we should collectively hash out
… the CCG already bikeshedded this term, but the WG needs to be comfortable with the language, so we should discuss more
… I want to plant that we need to do bike shedding around more terminology then this

Drummond Reed: the ccg did decide on the term

Daniel Burnett: but do we need to do this before FPWD?

Drummond Reed: if we have a glossory doc we should use them

Drummond Reed: I don’t think it’s necessary to decide on all terms before FPWD. They can be updated later as the glossary is finalized.

Jonathan Holt: anchor versus registry is this idea of agnostic dlt technology that stands on its own
… like which key are you going to support
… up to the method
… other people may implement different things
… I think its getting more movement about concept before we decide on term

Daniel Burnett: selfissued, do you believe the term ‘registry’ needs to be confirmed/changed before FPWD? I hope not

Drummond Reed: +1 to always adequately describing the concept before finalizing the term for it. Best practice in terminology.

Joe Andrieu: so we need to clarify the naming

Jonathan Holt: owners is agnostic to what DLT you want to use. there needs to be more discussion on what the anchoring means.
… IPLD under lib p2p public key
… we could anchor under bitcoin transaction or eth smart contract

Manu Sporny: I think DIF has a glossary project and how do we not duplicate effort
… maybe some DIF folks can join the group and do some bike shedding

Daniel Burnett: 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.

Daniel Buchner: might encompass more than the core did stuff and they like sovrin’s glossary and they may say for the did core stuff they dont’ want to create their own

Michael Jones: I was going to support a point made a minute ago
… you need to understand what you’re naming
… and if we can agree on the description that follows the colon

Brent Zundel: +1

Jonathan Holt: yes, better said…. thank you Mike

Daniel Burnett: Maybe we can note in the doc that the term ‘registry’ is under discussion

Kyle Den Hartog: regarding the terminology they are moving away from sovrin glossary

Joe Andrieu: @burn, that’s the plan right now

Daniel Burnett: And then have the discussion, of course

Kyle Den Hartog: I can talk with luke
… and to depend on did core where possible

Daniel Burnett: @JoeAndrieu, just confirming because it sounded like Mike wanted it fixed before FPWD

Joe Andrieu: question for me from the chairs is should we get an editor on the terms doc

Brent Zundel: the terms fit under the did core spec
… and so did core spec should be same as terminology
… editors feel the same?

Phil Archer: I know the endpoint and there will be a doc that is the glossary automatically
… in the short term we want document ready for fpwd
… should I use the static version I have for now
… can I put it in with terms that markus flagged

Manu Sporny: I don’t think we should wait
… we should not hold the use case up on that
… lets get a static copy we can all review
… also who is charge of terms.html
… one of the editors has both feet in WG and DIF
… he’s the one that should aligning

Brent Zundel: I want to +1 what manu said

Daniel Burnett: I love it

Markus Sabadello: +1 to volunteering drummond

Brent Zundel: I agree with mike jones

Joe Andrieu: we’ve gone over status of PRs
… biggest thing is update from phil
… and we’re going to tag section of terminology and registry as under discussion
… we need to get phil in before we do formal approval

Daniel Burnett: Yes, we need a fairly stable doc to ask for FPWD

Brent Zundel: it would be awesome to have a doc to review before next call
… send out message to public mailing list and we can give it our 2 cents

Phil Archer: might happen tomorrow and it will happen before next week

Brent Zundel: thanks all for coming
… great call
… everyone who is interested reminder of the call tomorrow
… same time next week