DID Working Group Telco — Minutes

Date: 2020-03-03

See also the Agenda and the IRC Log

Attendees

Present: Daniel Burnett, Ivan Herman, Sumita T. Jonak, Justin Richer, Kaliya Young, Drummond Reed, Phil Archer, Michael Jones, Markus Sabadello, Eugeniu Rusu, Amy Guy, Orie Steele, Dave Longley, Yancy Ribbens, Jonathan Holt, Chris Winczewski, Adrian Gropper, Tzviya Siegman, Dmitri Zagidulin, dpuc, Joe Andrieu, Kim Duffy

Regrets: Brent Zundel

Guests:

Chair: Daniel Burnett

Scribe(s): Phil Archer

Content:

Ivan Herman: /topic Meeting Agenda 2020-03-03: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2020Feb/0045.html

1. Agenda Review, Introductions, Re-introductions

Daniel Burnett: Already an item added - invitation to the RWOT meeting
… then scheduling a topic all
… then items we started at the F2F (lots of calls to action)
… majority of the call will be issue status checking
… Anyone here for the first time?

Phil Archer: [no]

Daniel Burnett: Anyone like to re-introduce yourself. yancy?

Yancy Ribbens: I was originally a member of the VC WG
… changed affiliation now
… now independent contractor, working on bitcoin and blockchain tech
… here to add input when possible, helping out when I can as I think the tech is interesting with lots of use cases

2. WoT meeting invite

Daniel Burnett: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_16-19_March_2020,_Online

Daniel Burnett: The WoT group will be meeting w/c 16 March
… reserved a 30 min time slot

Daniel Burnett: 30m on Wednesday from 8am-8:30am EST

Daniel Burnett: would love to have someone come and present on DIDs, looking at collaboration, especially around discovery

Manu Sporny: I’ve already volunteered, but if someone feels more strongly, please feel free to do so

Daniel Burnett: Anyone here is welcome to join.

Phil Archer: See WoT F2F wiki page

3. Schedule Topic Call

Daniel Burnett: There was a Doodle poll sent out

Phil Archer: See Doodle poll

Daniel Burnett: Seeing some good availability on Thursday
… No clear winner
… I will declare that this call will be Thursday 5 March noon EST
… That call will be on registry/registries as we determine
… There are def deff pieces of info that need to be stored
… We will have the editors of the doc be ready to lead a discussion
… Decisions will not be taken on that call, those are taken in an issue or a pull request

4. Matrix Parameters - call to action

Daniel Burnett: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttRWB2lwYSw7bZMRY6wTY9lzGaHcSvOKFYfNZaBBS_4/edit#heading=h.lcyr1j1pzkp2

Daniel Burnett: This is from the F2F meetings
… 2 parts to the assignment
… proponents were to come up with the use case that they believe can only be accomplished by MPs
… and those who are opponents, to provide concrete guidance on how those use cases can be solved in other ways

Markus Sabadello: Github issue about matrix parameters: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/159

Daniel Burnett: This is important if you are against matrix parameters. You need to show how to do it without MPs in detail
… We need to cut off this part of the assignment so we can move on.
… 17 March is the deadline

Michael Jones: The doc you’re talking about…
… Is the document you’re talking about titled the Web address portability use case?

Daniel Burnett: Yes
… That’s why I’m describing the issue, not the title
… Feel free to add your additional use cases that you feel require MPs
… There are places where you can add examples of how this can be achieved in other ways

Michael Jones: This is so simple as to not need an assignment. Just use a query parameter

Daniel Burnett: Please just write your comment in the doc

Dave Longley: please elaborate on the exact use case/example, don’t just write “Use a query parameter, it’s simple.” :)

Daniel Burnett: There are requirements on both sides (for and against MPs). Need detail both ways
… This is an information-gathering exercise

Daniel Buchner: There is going to be an issue with name-spacing query parameters, and the ordering of resolution-required params vs actual query params in a URL string

Michael Jones: Where do I put this in the doc, it’s so strangely structured

Markus Sabadello: We can probably improve the title of the doc
… I thought the assignment was to focus on one use case.
… I believe there was strong support fr the use case itself, it’s a question of whether matrix parameters are needed to solve this use case

Daniel Burnett: There’s a section in that doc I think for how to achieve the ends without MPs, I believe

Michael Jones: I’m not trying to get into to the discussion but the doc already says it can be done with query parameters, proving MPs aren’t necessary

Daniel Burnett: Repeats need for the info-gathering

Joe Andrieu: You’re shifting the homework to cover multiple use cases, not just one

Daniel Burnett: Doubles down on the definition of the homework

Justin Richer: +1 to the chairs statement; I understood it was to gather use cases and identify one killer one

Phil Archer: [Back and forth between Joe and Burn]

Daniel Burnett: This is an opportunity for anyone who believes they have a killer use case to add it
… Clearly the 2 of you have added what you think is the best shot

Jonathan Holt: there is a nice RWOT paper on the argument

Daniel Buchner: There’s a heck of a lot more to consider than positive, killer use cases

Daniel Buchner: for Matrix params/URL params

5. Metadata - call to action

Daniel Burnett: metadata is not about use cases per se

Daniel Buchner: There

Daniel Burnett: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WoHIA5MzC-kKdyS3XVp5qT-ZiNUbpqXH59g3Q9Fnk04/edit?usp=sharing

Daniel Burnett: The metadata doc … the work during the F2F was to collect a set of potential properties/pieces of info that you might think belong
… as data/metadata

Markus Sabadello: Github issue for the metadata discussion: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/65

Daniel Burnett: so we could figure out the categories of information
… Short descriptions, not a naming exercise. Talk about what it’s for and where it comes from
… e.g. provided by the generator of the DID, or otherwise
… Also a 2 week deadline on that

Daniel Buchner: I’m starting to type in this doc…
… I don’t see it as being about one use case, there are other factors that might be more compelling
… for example, if you just use query params that need to be parsed first, how do you display that in the URL bar?
… a browser would have to parse out the order-independent params and grey those out

Daniel Burnett: I’m going to stop this discussion. We’ve spent 15 mins on what was meant to be a reminder
… It’s not a decision point. We’regathering info so that we can move forward

Orie Steele: dbuc put those UI concerns in the document.

Daniel Burnett: Anyone not understand what the purpose of that exercise was?

Manu Sporny: I thought I understood, but I want to confirm
… It looks to me like… we’re onto the metadata one?
… OK… Im concerned that I don’t understand what’s going on at this point. Others are confused as well.
… There’s trepidation when we say we’re going to cut off input

Daniel Buchner: Orie: “<Orie> dbuc put those UI concerns in the document.” - I am not sure they want that in this doc

Manu Sporny: It feel like we’re done on MPs, but I don’t see people adding new arguments
… With metadata, it seems more about classification

Daniel Burnett: We’re talking about metadata and what you just said is correct

Daniel Buchner: It sounds like it’s about positive use cases that are the “killer use cases”

Daniel Burnett: It’s a classification exercise. People disagree about the different categories of data/metadata
… We want to see what people have in mind
… Trying to reduce hand waving
… Any other questions about the metadata doc?

6. Issue status check

Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc

Daniel Burnett: We’ll start at the top

6.1. Issue-119

Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/119

Daniel Burnett: Intent here is to ask the assignee what the status is and if blocked, what’s needed.
… I’m the assignee here. We’ll start this one up when the doc text is more coherent
… We just restructured the doc. It’s not easy to read right now

6.2. Issue 118

Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/118

Amy Guy: burn, sorry, haven’t looked at that

Daniel Burnett: This probably falls into the same category. Assigned to rhiaro

Amy Guy: burn, yes, can do

Daniel Burnett: Please just put a comment in along the lines I did for the other one, or when you’ll look at it

6.3. Issue-72

Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/72

Daniel Burnett: Also assigned to rhiaro

Amy Guy: burn, no, I’m not sure why that’s assigned to me

Amy Guy: burn, I can help with editorial, but not actual content

Daniel Burnett: You assigned yourself ;-)

Amy Guy: maybe I thought I could help, I’ll look again

Amy Guy: burn, yes, that seems feasible

Daniel Burnett: Comment from Markus there. Looks like he suggested a term change…

Manu Sporny: It was Drummond before, I can switch it back

Daniel Burnett: Thanks Manu

6.4. Issue-10

Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/10

Daniel Burnett: Assigned to selfissued

Michael Jones: Let me look it up

Daniel Burnett: Now that you know we’re doing this each week, you might want to look through before the call and be ready

Michael Jones: This is tightly tied to the registry decision, as well as another issue…
… we shouldn’t be referencing non-normative registries not under the control of the WG

Daniel Burnett: If you can add those 2 comments, that would be good
… The goal is to movei ssues forward

Justin Richer: +1, I think there’s a larger discussion here as well; it’s a scoping issue

Manu Sporny: We need a special call on this. There’s a larger discussion around crypto with some disagreement. Issue 10 and 8 fall into that
… Lots of discussion to be had on these topics on a special call

Dave Longley: +1 there are a lot of issues around that subject (crypto, expressing required crypto, scope, so on)

Manu Sporny: chairs currently scheduling a call for that

Daniel Burnett: You’re in a different role here, Manu, as an Editor
… If editors believe that progress can’t be made without a discussion, say so
… No reason not to put opinions into GitHub - that’s valuable
… We just talked about 8

Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/8

Daniel Burnett: I’ll put … you’re right, you have asked the chairs to schedule a call on that, which makes it assigned to me and Brent

6.5. Issue-195

Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/195

Daniel Burnett: Assigned to Tobias
… Anyone else want to comment?

Manu Sporny: This is semi-blocked by the registry discussion
… I can put that in there

6.6. Issue-185

Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/185

Manu Sporny: We continue t have a discussion about this. It feels like we came to a resolution and then the conversation shifted. I can put something to that effect in here

Daniel Burnett: You can propose to close the issue and take up a new one

6.7. Issue-65

Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/65

Daniel Burnett: Oh, metadata, never mind…
… You have next steps proposed, Markus…
… So we’re still waiting on this over the 2 week timeout

Orie Steele: should there be github tags for “2-week-timeout” ?

Orie Steele: on issues?

Daniel Burnett: Not for this occasion, unless this becomes a common theme of the group

6.8. Issue-34

Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/34

Daniel Burnett: Markus - looks like you pinged Drummond but haven’t heard back?

Markus Sabadello: Sorry I lost audio..

Markus Sabadello: Status of #34 is that I made a proposal but there hasn’t been any discussion. This is about whether empty method-specific IDs should be allowed, e.g. did:btcr:

Markus Sabadello: Please add opinions

Jonathan Holt: bad audio

6.9. Issue-198

Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/198

Daniel Burnett: Also Markus
… We’ll need an update on this one when you get a chance please

Markus Sabadello: I lost audio. regarding Issue-34
… It’s about whether empty method-specific IDs should be allowed.
… There was strong support to add ?? section to the spec
… … It’s about the relationship between DIDs, DIS documents, DID URLs etc

Daniel Burnett: Who is taking the next step

Markus Sabadello: I can add more but maybe others want to?

Daniel Burnett: It sounds like you’re waiting for others to comment. In that case can you please add a comment to that effect in the issue?
… And you’re asking for volunteers

Justin Richer: I am happy t help out with a little of that language. I can’t take the main pen but gladly give you a hand for the right kind of connection language
… I think we’re close to each other on what needs to go in there
… If you take a swing at it, and ping me, I’ll take a look

6.10. Issue-85

Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/85

Daniel Burnett: Assigned to selfissued

Michael Jones: This is related to the metadata issue - this is the metadata issue

Daniel Burnett: I believe you’re correct.
… This is not showing any kind of recent update

Michael Jones: What’s the issue number for the metadata issue? Is this it?

Phil Archer: 65 is the one you’re looking for

Jonathan Holt: really bad connection today. I just want to suggest tagging issues with “enhancement” and make a proposal for a DIP (DID Improvement Proposal) similar to Bitcoin’s BIP.

Daniel Burnett: That’s helpful - need to make sure we capture links between issues

Orie Steele: +1 to dlongley

Dave Longley: I just wanted to say I was hoping we could close 85 and reference 65 as it went in that direction

Daniel Burnett: Can you please write that as a comment in 85

Dave Longley: Yep

6.11. Issue-160

Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/160

Daniel Burnett: Submitted by selfissued
… How can we move this one forward

Michael Jones: I added a comment to this effect - we need to add to the doc the registry language and then excise the language about there being no dependence on registries

Daniel Burnett: From a status perpsective, who will do what?

Michael Jones: I can write a PR to remove the language that’s false, but I can’t write the registry language

Daniel Burnett: We have a separate doc with a separate repo for registry stuff so we can work there

6.12. Issue-161

Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/161

Daniel Burnett: Also from selfissued
… You have instructions on what to do. But again, who is going to do what next?

Michael Jones: I do not have the expertise to write about graph based and tree-based
… So those who advocate keeping those terms should write that. I can write a PR to remove the terms

Daniel Burnett: Our suggestion is - if someone in the Wg wants changes to the wording in the doc, they write the change as a PR
… If you write a PR that just deletes, that’s going to cause a problem

Orie Steele: can we just agree that trees are a special case of graphs and be done ; )

Manu Sporny: The editors will get to a definition in due course. Mike please don’t write a PR to remove those terms. It will create a conflict

Michael Jones: Its deeper than that. These terms don’t create actionable text

Daniel Burnett: So we need a PR to define those terms

Manu Sporny: Will do

Michael Jones: I’ll read it when I see it

Daniel Burnett: This is an attempt to move the discussion to GH, not to stop the discussion
… We are out of time
… I won’t try and do ‘just one more’
… Any more comments that people want to make today?
… Thanks everyone