DID WG Telco — Minutes

Date: 2020-06-09

See also the Agenda and the IRC Log

Attendees

Present: Ivan Herman, Daniel Burnett, Chris Winczewski, Markus Sabadello, Jonathan Holt, Adrian Gropper, Amy Guy, Manu Sporny, Orie Steele, oliver terbu, Justin Richer, Dave Longley, Michael Jones, Yancy Ribbens, Brent Zundel, Phil Archer, Drummond Reed, dmitri, Dmitri Zagidulin, Eugeniu Rusu, David Ezell, Kaliya Young, Thomas Schwarz, Daniel Buchner

Regrets: Andrei Sambra

Guests:

Chair: Brent Zundel

Scribe(s): Justin Richer, Manu Sporny

Content:

Brent Zundel: agenda for today = next topic call, feature freeze, extended discussions, straw poll resolution about publishing first public WG note of registries, jump into core issues
… any agenda bashing?
… hearing none we move on. Introductions.

1. (Re-)introductions

Brent Zundel: re-introducing yancy

Yancy Ribbens: sorry my audio is on the fritz

Yancy Ribbens: … (maybe no audio but here in spirit)

Brent Zundel: re-introducing rhiaro who also has no audio

2. Topic call

Brent Zundel: next topic call is coming up; focused on resolution contracts; th 6/11 @ noon EDT
… please join us, we want to wrap things up

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/labels/contract

Brent Zundel: there’s momentum, see existing pull requests

Manu Sporny: is justin able to process proposed changes to merge in?

Justin Richer: maybe 🤷‍♀️

3. Feature Freeze

Brent Zundel: feature freeze ❄️. It means “no more substantive changes, no more big ideas, we have everything we want”
… we have already passed our original deadline but we’re still working towards it.
… if you have something you want to add, do it now, because we’re going to feature freeze in the next month or so
… otherwise we’ll never get this done

Daniel Burnett: “month or so” actually means “next few weeks”
… realistically this is right before fake/virtual F2F discussions
… we haven’t seen “new stuff” rolling in in general. bug fixes and repair are ok
… if you think something major is missing get it in now

Justin Richer: Point of clarity on feature freeze, is that for things that are already incorporated into the spec at that point, or are outstanding discussions about things that we may or may not want in the spec will continue?

Brent Zundel: It’s more “Let’s not bring up anything new”

4. Extended discussion time, a.k.a. “Fake F2F”

Brent Zundel: next topic is extended discussion time – “fake F2F”

Brent Zundel: https://doodle.com/poll/9gr3824w5p3qxs3e

Brent Zundel: it won’t be face to face but will be excellent™️
… please fill out the poll, it lets you indicate availability during the selected week (in 3.5h blocks). Chairs will check it Friday morning (7am mountain time US)
… please pretend that you’re actually traveling and skip your regular meetings to attend this
… going to have 2 or 3 blocks of 3.5h each over 2 or 3 days. Hoping to find times that work for all three time regions (US/EU/APAC)

5. Publishing registries document as a FPWD Note

Brent Zundel: time to put forth a proposal about DID registries document. it’s a NOTE
… proposing that we will publish our first public Working Draft. does not indicate any consensus at all. Doesn’t even mean we like it.

Manu Sporny: https://w3c.github.io/did-spec-registries/FPWD/2020-06-18/

Brent Zundel: it means “here’s a thing and it’s probably worth looking at”

Proposed resolution: The DID WG will publish a FPWD Note of the DID Specification Registries document, using the short name did-spec-reg, and use echidna to update the note as PRs are merged. (Brent Zundel)

Amy Guy: +1, but did-spec-registries better

Proposed resolution: The DID WG will publish a FPWD Note of the DID Specification Registries document, using the short name did-spec-registries, and use echidna to update the note as PRs are merged. (Brent Zundel)

Manu Sporny: what’s the reason to did-spec-reg instead of did-spec-registries?

Brent Zundel: that’s what I typed, will amend proposal

Michael Jones: for all the reasons we talked about on the special topic calls, we should just use “did registries” rather than “did spec registries”

Daniel Burnett: let’s please not rename

Drummond Reed: We had consensus on the name “DID Specification Registries”

Manu Sporny: that is not where we had consensus. we specifically put that to the group and decided not to. consensus was on “did spec registries”

Justin Richer: +1 that was the consensus

Michael Jones: why this proposal?

Daniel Burnett: brent mistyped

Michael Jones: comment withdrawn

Ivan Herman: +1

Amy Guy: +1

Orie Steele: +1

Markus Sabadello: +1

Dave Longley: +1

Eugeniu Rusu: +1

Daniel Burnett: +1

Justin Richer: +1

Manu Sporny: +1

Drummond Reed: +1

Brent Zundel: +1

Michael Jones: +1

Adrian Gropper: +1

Resolution #1: The DID WG will publish a FPWD Note of the DID Specification Registries document, using the short name did-spec-registries, and use echidna to update the note as PRs are merged.

Brent Zundel: We are resolved. that feels good.
… we got through that in record time so we have lots of time for issue status check

6. Core issues

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

Brent Zundel: these are our issues in the order that we most recently looked at them

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/85

Brent Zundel: syntactically differentiate data about the did, assigned to selfissued

Michael Jones: i think we need to have a call where we discuss this
… this is an important thing to solve before feature freeze

Amy Guy: justin_r: i don’t think it necessarily does, but this conversation is going to follow on from the functional contracts conversation because one of the big purposes of that in the core spec is to create an actual notion of what this metadata stuff is

Manu Sporny:

Amy Guy: … so we have a way to talk about it which we don’t in the core spec right now

Amy Guy: … [missed a bit] we need to define as a thing first

Amy Guy: … if you take the full set of PRs, 299, that covers that

Amy Guy: … I will add a link to the new PR as well

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

Dave Longley: This duplicates issue 14 – comment regarding a PR at the end: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/14#issuecomment-637657441

Dave Longley: I will put that into the issue

Daniel Buchner: feels like issue 14 is the bigger issue and we shouldn’t define revocation
… we should just not do this and close it
… dlongley will add comments to the issue

Michael Jones: I had written a pull request to disallow revoked keys

Manu Sporny: it was merged

Daniel Buchner: If that was merged, then we can close both

Daniel Buchner: agree

Michael Jones: I think we should close this on the basis of this PR, need PR # to make that comment in the issue

Dave Longley: this PR (https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/308) follows on from https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/279

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/261

Brent Zundel: definition of “client” in regard to SSI principles
… [?] is not on the call, kyle and drummond are working on it
… is anyone in the WG willing to accept assignment?

Markus Sabadello: will take it, it’s related to resolution

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/259

Brent Zundel: DIDs and JOSE public keys, assigned to Orie

Orie Steele: we can potentially close this issue, my understanding is that the ‘kid’ can be anything, this WG doesn’t want to add specific language
… about using ‘kid’ as the fragment
… not seeing a ton of desire to do anything with it

Manu Sporny: we have text today that it’s recommended kid values are set to public key fingerprint; we do put normative stuff on kid and how ID property is a compound key
… issue is resolved because group put normative text in
… will add that as a comment, does Orie agree for closing the issue?

Orie Steele: yes, makes sense

Oliver Terbu: to clarify, this is only about the ‘kid’ in the JWK? or is this also about external JWT/JWS and providing external ‘kid’?

Manu Sporny: yes that’s fine
… you can still point to an external key from the did document

Brent Zundel: this is not discussion time, this is status check

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/185

Brent Zundel: next issue 185, supported cyphers
… raised by tobias
… who is not on the call

Brent Zundel: acl Orie

Orie Steele: most of the use cases we discuss are about signatures and this is about encryption keys; there are a couple ways of doing this and there’s desire to have them in the DID documents; we want consensus as to how to do that

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/203

Brent Zundel: 203, define did document metadata

Justin Richer: no update until we finish the contracts.

Amy Guy: justin_r: we need a place to talk about metadata before we define any metadata

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/269

Brent Zundel: 269, good conversation, but they’re not on the call

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/151

Brent Zundel: 151, include discussion of levels of assurance

Markus Sabadello: add discussion about eidas identities and how to link DIDs to them; not discussion about specific frameworks but about linking to a framework in general

Brent Zundel: link to proposed steps: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/151#issuecomment-603932879

Brent Zundel: is it worthwhile to split this issue or keep this one open?

Markus Sabadello: still valuable to keep it there but need to see if it splits

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

Brent Zundel: 204 define terminology for properties and values

Ivan Herman: there’s a resolution to use VC terminology in our spec as well

Drummond Reed: I remember that same conclusion.

Brent Zundel: “chairs have decided this is what we’re going to do”

Amy Guy: justin_r: my understanding was that what we had decided was an augmentation of what’s in vcs to state that we have things called properties, those properties have names and values

Amy Guy: … i’ve seen that language applied to new PRs but not seen it back through the rest of the document

Amy Guy: … I don’t think we’re entirely consistent yet

Manu Sporny: agree that we’re not consistent yet, need to do PRs to ensure consistency

Amy Guy: … we had decided what to do but we need to make sure we’re doing it everywhere

Drummond Reed: Agree that we need to consistently use “properties” that have “names” and “values”.

Amy Guy: ^^

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/248

Brent Zundel: 248, new term for relying party

Drummond Reed: “verifier”

Phil Archer: this is holding up the use case document; is there a term the group is happy with for whatever this thing is that some people call “Relying Party”; if so we’ll use that

Brent Zundel: let’s go bikeshed
… rough consensus within issue is “Requesting Party”

Phil Archer: have already written a PR with “requesting party”, need to account for other views
… (PR is for use case document not core)

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/65

Brent Zundel: 65, does did document metadata belong in the document?

Markus Sabadello: current status is similar to others (203), should be addressed by resolution contract PR’s that include metadata

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/274

Brent Zundel: 274, ambiguity around necessity of top-level stuff

Daniel Buchner: should we add direction for @base in JSONLD? need to look at top-level IDs

Brent Zundel: 258, list of early implementations

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/258

Brent Zundel: anyone willing to move it forward?

Manu Sporny: will take it

Markus Sabadello: I’ll assign myself too if that’s okay

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/273

Brent Zundel: 273, invert mapping between proof purpose and verification methods

Drummond Reed: no update, daniel was the lead, need to talk to him

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/249

Brent Zundel: 249, mitigating single source of failure in universal resolver

Markus Sabadello: haven’t looked recently, have talked with carsten, definitely broader than just universal resolver; has been extensively discussed in did resolution calls
… have some of this in the resolution PR’s

Daniel Burnett: we are now in issues from less than a month ago

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/165

Brent Zundel: 165, what are entityship and start-of- authority

Michael Jones: will write the PR

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/170

Brent Zundel: 170, public key IDs
… duplicate JWK fields

Michael Jones: we agreed to have a special call

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/240

Brent Zundel: 240, should did core restrict JWKs

Manu Sporny: needs a special topic call

Brent Zundel: is this the same as the last issue, or should we have separate calls?

Manu Sporny: agreed

Michael Jones: if there’s time…

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/36

Brent Zundel: 36, details on method-specific parameters

Drummond Reed: markus_sabadello and I are in active dialogue, will talk tomorrow

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/95

Brent Zundel: 95, document structure

Daniel Burnett: we’re on track with resolution contracts

Brent Zundel: reminder, special topic call is thursday 6/11 noon EST on resolution contracts
… many issues are waiting for that … resolution …

7. Resolutions