DID WG Telco — Minutes
See also the Agenda and the IRC Log
Present: Ivan Herman, Daniel Burnett, Phil Archer, Jonathan Holt, Justin Richer, Markus Sabadello, Manu Sporny, Orie Steele, Brent Zundel, Michael Jones, Chris Winczewski, oliver terbu, Drummond Reed, Dave Longley, David Ezell, Eugeniu Rusu, Yancy Ribbens, Kaliya Young, Amy Guy, Ganesh Annan, Dmitri Zagidulin
Regrets: Ivan Herman (partially)
Chair: Daniel Burnett, Brent Zundel
Scribe(s): David Ezell, Brent Zundel
- 1. Agenda Review
- 2. Reintroductions
- 3. Next Topic Call
- 4. Extended call in June
- 5. registries document status
- 6. Editors’ issues
- 7. Core issues’ status checks
1. Agenda Review
David Ezell: No requests.
David Ezell: I’m David Ezell, work for a trade association called Conexxus, and work closely with National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS). I’m not a cryptography expert, but care very much about availability of these technologies and application to our work. I’ve been at W3C for 23 years.
3. Next Topic Call
Brent Zundel: 6PM today eastern. DID core properties and metadata.
4. Extended call in June
Brent Zundel: Seems like the week of June 29 - July 3 works well for being able to have some additional meetings.
… watch for a doodle poll.
… each block will be about 90 minutes, with a break of 90 minutes, over the course of 3 or so days.
… we hope people will give these meetings precedence.
Daniel Burnett: In other words, it’s not a face-to-face but should be given the same priority
Brent Zundel: it will be hard to replicate a face to face, but we’ll do our best.
Drummond Reed: just trying to get a feel…
Brent Zundel: June 29 is only 4 weeks away.
… doodle poll should be out this week.
5. registries document status
Brent Zundel: expecting to publish a FPWD note soon. [scribe missed the antecedent]
Manu Sporny: +1 to publish FPWD of DID Specification Registries document!
Manu Sporny: DID Specification Registries FPWD NOTE
Manu Sporny: https://w3c.github.io/did-spec-registries/
Drummond Reed: Many thanks to both Orie and Amy for their work on this (and Manu too, but Manu’s everywhere ;-)
6. Editors’ issues
Manu Sporny: a couple of PRs - especially CBOR.
… there’s a question about what to do with the PR… pull into spec?
… if we do that I’d like a huge warning (experimental).
… we’re in a weird place - trying to finish with new things coming in.
… there is some misalignment with what to do with that section.
… So, editors’ intention is to pull in the section with a big warning, and we’d like to know how the group feels about that.
… we’d also like Jonathan to know that the section >may< come out of the spec if it meets with disagreement from review.
Jonathan Holt: would appreciate more eyes on this part of the spec.
… what’s in the PR, it’s moving toward “DAG” CBOR (IPID).
David Ezell: [scribe not familiar with terminology]
Jonathan Holt: CBOR allows integers, be we constrained to strings.
… this offering is NOT CBOR-LD.
… the core data model is not quite mature, and we’ll have a better idea of what can be extended with experience.
Ivan Herman: normally we could call this a “feature at risk” signaling that it might be removed.
… while this kind of thing is good in a near-final publication, ie, CR, it feels out of place in a WD.
Justin Richer: it feels like “fear mongering” to be too strong with our worries about the section.
… I think the section belongs without the warning.
Daniel Burnett: we don’t need to out that label on today. There is plenty of time (before end of candidate recommendation) when we need implementation reports from two implementors.
mike: I agree it should go in, with no warning.
Manu Sporny: I will then merge it in with no warning. I have a worry that I don’t know of any implementor planning to use CBOR.
Orie Steele: I’ve also not seen a single company this committed to “Pure JSON”, so…. same thing applies to that.
Manu Sporny: we could spend a lot of time working on a feature with no second implementer.
… there are a few change suggestions. Jonathan, please review, and let us know.
Jonathan Holt: will do.
Daniel Burnett: Good point Orie
Manu Sporny: Amy put in editorial PRs that deserve review.
… since Jonathan won’t be able to make the special call today, we’ll put that discussion on hold.
… we have other requests we’ll talk about on the special call later today.
Daniel Burnett: any other editors’ issues?
7. Core issues’ status checks
Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc
Drummond Reed: I’m working on the terminology section - please send me notes.
Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/176
Daniel Burnett: last comment was Mike said he would reread and comment. Any update.
mike: please skip.
Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/205
Daniel Burnett: from Justin. Any update?
Justin Richer: sorry I haven’t been keeping up. We need to pick something. Consistent across representations.
… We need to define “if you see a property you don’t understand, what should you do?”
… JSON systems tend to ignore such properties.
mike: I thought there was already a statement saying unknown properties MUST be ignored.
Justin Richer: I put in text, but it’s only one possible solution.
Daniel Burnett: this is a status check only, don’t want to go to deeply.
… those interested please go put your opinions in the issue and then we can decide whether to schedule more discussion.
mike: don’t we already have text that says unrecognized members should be ignored. What’s the issue?
Justin Richer: I want to be sure that is the will of the group.
Daniel Burnett: we’re still working on it. Text that has been discussed thoroughly has a higher bar for change.
Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/176
mike: I need to create a PR - I haven’t worked on it yet.
Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/199
Brent Zundel: status started with a question that turned into a broad discussion. A lot of suggestions, including [scribe missed] changes to the document. PR needs to be created.
Drummond Reed: I will work with Brent on this PR.
Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/154
Oliver Terbu: I think Orie should give the comments.
Orie Steele: we went over the did registry property definitions, and have made changes that should be reviewed.
… we’re ready to make progress so review should happen soon.
Daniel Burnett: you had said progress was blocked by the registries discussion, so what is the exact status?
Jonathan Holt: I struggled to use the “proof” section of the document in the CBOR section.
Amy Guy: jonathan_holt - there’s a PR to remove proof.. if that helps?
Jonathan Holt: this is where I need some guidance.
Daniel Burnett: is that a question for this issue, or is it a broader question for the group?
Jonathan Holt: I think LD proof need not to be the only proof mechanism, and I’ll work on that.
Amy Guy: jonathan_holt, see https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/305
Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/198
marcus: several iterations of PRs, see 295-300 (PRs).
… function definition for resolution, my opinion is that we should merge one (296?)
Justin Richer: In order: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/295 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/296 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/297 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/298 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/300 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/299
Daniel Burnett: please add the other references.
Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/236
Orie Steele: https://w3c.github.io/did-spec-registries/#publickeyhex
Manu Sporny: the registries discussion is leading to more work. Public Key hacks will go into the document. Orie, where will we point from the registry?
Orie Steele: we may end up with a big bucket in git.
Manu Sporny: we’ll put that in the issue.
Orie Steele: yes :)
mike: we’re not just defining terms, we’re describing the semantics of the identifier and how it’s used.
Orie Steele: I agree
Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/118
Amy Guy: burn, I put in a comment for current status
Daniel Burnett: Amy, we need to conform to Accessibility guidelines, but we need an initial review request.
Amy Guy: burn, I don’t know anything about asking for review, I’m just working through the self checklist
Daniel Burnett: I’m asking about the self-review beginning horizontal review.
Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/260
Drummond Reed: I think the issue of “more than one controller” is related to “DIDs being identified.” Therefore I’ll put my name on this issue.
Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/178
Yancy Ribbens: I haven’t started considering this issue.
Daniel Burnett: do you understand what needs to happen?
Yancy Ribbens: I have in mind the needed wording, but haven’t done anything yet.
Daniel Burnett: could you just put a quick idea of what you intend in the issue.
Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/195
Manu Sporny: there is on-going discussion about whether or not what verification methods are authorized to do updates, and should that be in did-core or did methods.
… IMO did methods will have to specify what verification methods can operate on a DID document.
Daniel Burnett: yes, we still have to establish the rules.
Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/8
Daniel Burnett: my name is on here, along with Brent and Mike.
… anyone like to offer an opinion?
Orie Steele: verification methods are often a function of the upper level type attribute.
… I’m not in favor of adding any language.
mike: public key JWK should be a self-contained description - that was the issue.
Daniel Burnett: doesn’t seem there’s agreement - so we need a call.
… “needs special call”. I’ll remove “discuss”. Needs to be flagged as needing more than just comments in the issue.
… removing myself and brent, since we were only there because we needed a call, and we have a method for that
Justin Richer: That is what the last comment says, though – just fwiw
Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/85
Daniel Burnett: we haven’t had a comment for a month. Marcus please add.
Justin Richer: says it’s addressed in PR 253. Marcus please add that, too.
Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/14
Daniel Burnett: Christopher, Daniel, Oliver assigned…
… looking for someone to give a status.
Orie Steele: is joe here?
Orie Steele: this is mostly blocked by his comments afaik…
Orie Steele: mike has a PR request not to allow revoked keys, and I’ll follow up.
Daniel Burnett: time to bring this one to a close.
mike: what’s the status of merging the PR to address?
Manu Sporny: it’s merged, but people are saying it didn’t address the issue.
… Joe didn’t respond, so I merged, but now it seems insufficient.
Dave Longley: there was a simple suggestion that was not pulled in.
Daniel Burnett: Dave and Mike please address in the issue.