DID Working Group Telco — Minutes

Date: 2020-03-24

See also the Agenda and the IRC Log


Present: Daniel Burnett, Amy Guy, Markus Sabadello, Brent Zundel, Thomas Schwarz, Chris Winczewski, Orie Steele, Jonathan Holt, Manu Sporny, Kyle Den Hartog, Tobias Looker, Daniel Buchner, Michael Jones, Drummond Reed, Joel Hartshorn, Paul Madsen, Pamela Dingle, Brett McDowell, Kaliya Young



Chair: Brent Zundel

Scribe(s): Orie Steele, Manu Sporny


1. DID Working Group Telco — 2020-03-24

Daniel Buchner: I have a question about control of keys

Brent Zundel: Reminder to “present+”
… q+ to discuss things
… that way you can remember what you wanted to talk about…
… last week, we discussed labeling… editors should be the only ones putting labels on PRs…. so we want to clarify…
… others will be involved in labeling, as requests and assigned, contact the editors

Manu Sporny: chairs and editors discussed… editors need all the help they can get… there are time when its valuable to delegate as long as there is agreement
… if you want to help triage issues, ask, and if there is agreement, editors will delegate
… anybody can raise an issue, or PR… just leave labeling to the a chosen few.
… with unanimous consent.
… if any of the editors feel like someone is overstepping with labeling, at first we will discuss, if inability to do job continues, all it takes is one objection to remove the role

2. introductions

Daniel Burnett: Welcome Brett!

Daniel Burnett: and Paul!

Brett McDowell: here from hashgraph / hedera

Drummond Reed: And federation architecture extraordinaire

Tobias Looker: i’m tobias representing mattr down in NZ

Kyle Den Hartog: can you hear me? …. if we wanted to sign up, how should we proceed?

Daniel Buchner: In bitcoin, of course

Daniel Burnett: editors appreciate help they can get, understand that labeling is an editors job, you are helping the editors

Daniel Buchner: Paddy’s Dollars?

Daniel Burnett: we just wanted to be clear, no money needed.

Daniel Buchner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAKOWcs8w54

3. Special Topic Call (zoom not webex)

Drummond Reed: Hooray!

Drummond Reed: +1000 for using Zoom

Brent Zundel: W3C got zoom from MIT… we will try it… if it goes well, likely we will keep using it.
… does anyone use callout feature of webex?

bent: let us know if you have issues with zoom

Michael Jones: special all on Thursday?

Brent Zundel: Thursday noon Eastern time.

Daniel Burnett: email last week, announcing

Orie Steele: (confusion over calendar links intensifies)

Daniel Burnett: please, don’t assume there will be a calendar invite.
… please look at the emails, and schedule yourself if you need to.

4. What times work for calls?

Brent Zundel: 2 most popular times are both times that don’t work well for Asia Pacific
… goal of this topic, is to find a time that might work well.

Kyle Den Hartog: timezones … are sad… 2 hour window for europe / us. / nz… around 1PM mountain time
… europe is 9PM, NZ 9AM

Manu Sporny: In favor of times that are better for asia pacific… there are a number of people who would like to be able to participate
… polls lead to majority europe / us… and the cycle repeats
… can we weight by technical contribution? maybe people who are complaining are not contributing?
… these are special calls, not regular ones…. these topics are really important…
… we should make sure people who are doing work are on the calls.

Daniel Burnett: chairs take this into account… we are asking about this today, to resolve this.

Brent Zundel: 3PM eastern a day of the week?

Michael Jones: Not Wednesday - this conflicts with WebAuthn

Daniel Burnett: No for Thursdays at 3 pm - double booked already

Drummond Reed: Not Mondays

Kyle Den Hartog: Thursdays not the greatest

Brett McDowell: Tuesdays at 3pm ET will not work for me. Other times all work.

Orie Steele: monday would work

Brett McDowell: I just checked and I can move my recurring conflict at 3pm on Tuesdays.

Kyle Den Hartog: Monday through Thursdays are better based on days… Saturday is not a work day… kyle cannot drink responsibly

Manu Sporny: any companies from Australia?
… does 6pm work?
… pain is universal

Kyle Den Hartog: Markus would be the one not able to attend

Brent Zundel: proposal for 6PM (what timezone?)

Kyle Den Hartog: He’s been active in the params discussion

Brent Zundel: proposal for 6pm eastern

Kyle Den Hartog: +1

Orie Steele: generally works for me

Brett McDowell: Why not rotate the times? Is that uncommon at W3C?

Orie Steele: +1

Brent Zundel: we would rotate for special calls
… one will be Thursday at noon eastern time

Daniel Burnett: Not Mondays. FYI we will conflict on 4th Tuesday with the DID call, but that’s easily avoidable

Brent Zundel: this would be time for a second one.
… thanks for your feedback.

Michael Jones: 6pm Eastern is OK except on the Tuesdays that it conflicts with this call

Tobias Looker: Thanks all appreciate the accomodation of us :)

Kyle Den Hartog: +1 Definitely appreciate your willingness to accomodate our time zone

5. Issues

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

Brent Zundel: in order of least recently updated… please open ^
… if you see yourself assigned, be prepared to give an update.

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/57

Brent Zundel: kim, dave, anyone?

Manu Sporny: i may be able to….

Kyle Den Hartog: given the discussion about ethereumAddress…. how we consider it not a key representation… maybe method specific registries…
… is anyone thinking this applies to other stuff?

Daniel Burnett: Oliver cares a lot about Eth address; thank you Kyle for helping to make this happen

Manu Sporny: partially addressed, we need to create registry contents that outline verification methods… and examples for ethereum… things that are not public keys…. but we are making progress..

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/25

Drummond Reed: I have it on my list…

Amy Guy: I have a PR linked to the issue

Drummond Reed: I will review, and see if it addresses

Brent Zundel: 105 + 104 are horizontal …

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/105

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/104

Daniel Burnett: ivan’s last comment was that the F2F meeting requires us to do a major change on the document; editors need to let us know when the document can be reviewed.
… help make the document readable.

Manu Sporny: we are missing frontmatter
… i hesitate to say… 1 more month…. after that… a review.

Daniel Burnett: +1 to waiting on front matter

Manu Sporny: we need a full top to bottom re-read.
… did registries, documents, resolvers… section 6 is still empty

Brett McDowell: thanks, meta questions, if there is anything substantive, that a new member might want to address… how do we participate?

Brent Zundel: we do most of our work in github… raising issues, PRs, commenting…
… anyone who wants changes, should raise an issue…. if that person is a member of the WG, they will be assigned.
… the assignee needs to make the issue move forward, either by PR, or asking for help… etc…
… we need to come to consensus as a group… generally before opening a PR.

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/158

Orie Steele: I am going to close this issue, no longer needed thanks to changes made to sidetree protocol from Microsoft.

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/94

Daniel Burnett: same category as horizontal review… once we have a readable doc, we could put together a did explainer… definitely not ready for this

Brent Zundel: required by TAG

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/200

Tobias Looker: partially addressed by a PR made, 325… which makes id mandatory, for public keys
… i am updating… may be safe to close soon.

Brent Zundel: cross link to the PR

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/164

Michael Jones: can we write down, would and would not use json pointers?… statements need to be actionable by developers.
… I will wait for Ivan.

Drummond Reed: sam smith raised this, he wanted to make sure that nobody would block the use of json pointer….

Manu Sporny: yeah, he super wanted that sentence in the spec :)

Drummond Reed: he just wants that text…. maybe he does not care anymore, after we added 3 representations for did docs…

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/207

Orie Steele: I think we’ve moved some of this interop discussions to the registries repo
… Don’t know how this issue is actionable.
… We may want to cross-link stuff, maybe this belongs in the other repo?

Daniel Burnett: this is about frontmatter
… we need to define the use of the registries… 2 specific implementations can decide to do whatever they want….

Drummond Reed: I will add a comment.

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/204

Brent Zundel: anyone?

Kyle Den Hartog: reading the spec, there are still issues listed in the spec, so it sounds like there is still text that needs to be added…. to the representation section… I could be assigned…

Manu Sporny: +1 to assigning kyle… we need to name…. the key, value part of this thing….
… we need to be able to name the property, name, value, etc…
… we need a PR for every place where we say property, make sure we are using the name and value consistently
… also asked for linking… thats a septate issue, maybe at the end…

Kyle Den Hartog: do we need to bikeshed the names….

Manu Sporny: bikeshed in the issue

Kyle Den Hartog: thanks

Brent Zundel: kyle you are assigned

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/153

Orie Steele: This is blocked by did-core-registries - probably isn’t going to get any property definitions until we get that resolved.

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/23

Michael Jones: I believe this is blocked by the registries issue

Orie Steele: This is blocked by the current PR

Orie Steele: which has changes requested

Orie Steele: by manu

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/53

Brent Zundel: quietly 53 assigned to amy

Manu Sporny: still blocked… needs PR

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/152

Brent Zundel: do we need a did method type feature?

Drummond Reed: blocked by matrix parameters… discussion
… pending matrix parameters discussion

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/75

Orie Steele: I opened a PR for this, thought we had consensus, we didn’t based on conversation that ensued during PR. We need to decide whether we should not define this, or not allow revoked keys in DID Document.

Daniel Buchner: Seems like there are two issues - revoked keys, how you would do revocation lists - should we just combine these?

Manu Sporny: -1 to combining :)

Manu Sporny: we have a hard enough time w/ each issue by itself.

Daniel Buchner: should revoked keys and revocation lists be combined?

Brent Zundel: hard to make that call…

Jonathan Holt: there was a PR for this, its hard… its a tricky thing… did resolution of previous versions… maybe related to older versions… related discussion regarding why things are revoked…

Manu Sporny: to get to dbuc’s point. we should not merge these, we are having a hard enough time with one at a time.

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/58

Manu Sporny: try to focus the conversation on “should a did document have revoked keys”

Kyle Den Hartog: Can we get #131 done as well quick? I think it can be closed

Orie Steele: This is fairly related to did core registries repo - lots of vocabulary definition that has relied on CCG repos, imported that into DID Core Registries - need to focus on definitions, support for those, do we want to keep CCG as vocab definition place in DID Core, and LD Suites - all related to DID Core Registries.

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/131

Kyle Den Hartog: should we be closing this? or was it addressed?

Manu Sporny: the id for the verification method looks like: “did:example:123#kid”

Kyle Den Hartog: Thank you Manu for that nuance, I didn’t catch that

Jonathan Holt: fragment identifier, that uses …