DID WG Telco — Minutes

Date: 2020-12-22

See also the Agenda and the IRC Log

Attendees

Present: Daniel Burnett, Brent Zundel, Ted Thibodeau Jr., Shigeya Suzuki, Justin Richer, Markus Sabadello, Drummond Reed, Jonathan Holt, Kyle Den Hartog, Daniel Buchner

Regrets:

Guests:

Chair: Daniel Burnett

Scribe(s): Brent Zundel, Drummond Reed

Content:

1. Agenda Review, Introductions, Re-introductions.

Daniel Burnett: quick reminder to rejoin the WG.
… followed by priority issues.
… rejoin the working group. We have 45 days from the announcement (around the beginning of December)..
… any questions please ask us. Your access will expire after 45 days..

2. Give feedback on PR 480

See github pull request #480.

Daniel Burnett: many have done that, so thank you..

Brent Zundel: PR 480 is an attempt to meet the use case of DIDs identifying information resources.
… it introduces a new DID parameter called “resource” that can be added to a DID URL to request the information resource to be returned.

Kyle Den Hartog: Wonders about the questions about resolution vs. dereferencing?.

Brent Zundel: Manu’s concern was mostly that others might be concerned.
… the spec has always differentiated about resolution vs. dereferencing, so that distinction is clear.
… this parameter takes advantage of that.
… this parameter can be implemented by any DID method.

Kyle Den Hartog: I’ll comment via github.

Drummond Reed: I wanted to say that they way in which this parameter takes advantage of the distinction between resolution and dereferencing is very elegant..

3. Topic call resolution.

Daniel Burnett: https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-12-17-did-topic#resolution1.

Daniel Burnett: there was a resolution taken during our last topic call.

Daniel Burnett: “The DID Working Group will maintain the DID Spec Registries until the end of its charter. The DID Working Group plans to request the management of W3C to submit a charter for a maintenance DID Working Group to the W3C Advisory Committee as a successor to this Working Group. Per the planned charter of that Working Group, that group would officially manage the registry, and would do that in cooperation with the W3C Credentials Community Group.”.

Daniel Burnett: normally there are 7 days for folks to object to a resolution, but since this was during a topic call we wanted to ask here. Does anyone object?.

Kyle Den Hartog: I wasn’t on the call but am +1 for them.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: I’m not objecting, but have questions about the process. Are we chopping time off the objection time?.

Daniel Burnett: no, the full time is there..

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: I think there should be an email sent out just about this, there are many who may be on holiday already..

Daniel Burnett: I’ll make sure the minutes today state there were no objections raised, but the full seven days remain..

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: I’m suggesting the immediate process is problematic..

Daniel Burnett: Anyone who objects within 7 days, we will raise and discuss it..

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: I object to that process and the way these resolutions are being handled right now..

Daniel Burnett: you are asking for more time to review beyond the 7 days?.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: no, but I was not aware that these decisions were going to be made and others are not now participating..

Daniel Burnett: Those who have been participating regularly know that the 7 days has applied even to the special topic calls..
… I think it is perhaps that you are unfamiliar with the process..
… the only requirement is to let us know that more review time is desired for any particular topic..

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: This is not a pattern I would like to maintain..

Daniel Burnett: you are the first to object to this process. If you have objections to these resolutions, let us know. If you would like to review this process with the group, we can raise that in January..

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: I’m familiar with the 7 days for the regular calls, but not the special calls..

Daniel Burnett: Yes, we started that a few months ago. Is this a topic you want to bring up in January?.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: no, because my concerns are around this particular when a lot of folks are offline..

Daniel Burnett: We have already explained in the past that if there is a time coming up where a participant will be unavailable, they can let the chairs know..
… you say this is a whole group issue, but the rest of the group has already accepted this process..

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: I’m not seeing advance notice of these resolutions..

Justin Richer: revisiting as needed is the important part here.

Daniel Burnett: there was advance notice that we were talking about the Registry, so they had opportunity to let us know that they wouldn’t be available..
… If someone comes in January and objects, we will let them speak. We’re not trying to ram anything through..
… we are particularly not scheduling things after today’s call for the reason of the holidays..
… if someone didn’t know they were going to be gone and missed the opportunity, they will have that chance..

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: I don’t have an agenda for that call..

Daniel Burnett: It may have just been the topic..
… I believe an announcement was sent, but what I’m concerned with is if this is an issue for you..

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: this was not an issue for me, but I’m concerned about it being an issue for others..
… I don’t have objections to these resolutions as they stand. I didn’t see an email with an agenda for that call..

Shigeya Suzuki: See Brent Zundel: next special topic registry handling, on Thursday the 12/17 12pm EST.

Daniel Burnett: let me look and see if I can find that..
… we are going to take the time to work this out because it is a process question..
… sent on December 11th announcing the call..
… this is the pattern in which they have been sent..

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: I ask Brent to revise the template..

Daniel Burnett: reading email.
… please send a request to us that you’d like that changed..

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: problematic ones will happen and following the procedure we’ve laid out should work for us..

Daniel Burnett: an email was sent announcing the meeting, with notice that a minutes email would also be sent about the resolutions.
… I’d like to move on at this point..
… if you still feel we’ve violated the process we’ve laid out, let the chairs know and we will adress it..

Jonathan Holt: I think process was followed, but share Ted’s frustration that we’re moving so fast..
… it is hard to stay on top of it all..
… I wasn’t able to attend in Amsterdam, then didn’t have time to process and that was hard..
… I think we need to take the time to make sure we’re building this standard up properly..

Daniel Burnett: We’ve built this process to let us move as quickly as we can and anyone can let us know they need to take more time..
… anyone who wants more time can ask for it..
… if you’re asking for it we can stop..

Drummond Reed: I agree with DanB that we have been following process and did so here. There were 15+ people on the special topic call that produced these proposals..

Justin Richer: the important thing here is the process has enough safety valves that we can always come back to things later..
… it doesn’t help us to dwell on a hypothetical problems not shared by the original raiser..
… the escape valves have provided a good way to move fast and address things..

Jonathan Holt: +1, yes thank your justin_r.

Justin Richer: jonathan_holt: the important point is that “I need more time” is meaningful, but “someone else might need more time” is not.

Daniel Burnett: we will allow until the first meeting in January for objections to these resolutions even through process has been followed..

4. Priority 1 Issues.

Daniel Burnett: moving on to priority 1 issues.
… github is very slow today, is there an editor who can walk through these..

Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Apre-cr-p1+sort%3Aupdated-asc.

Justin Richer: I can share my screen if that’s useful.

Daniel Burnett: starting with issue 506.
… Daniel Buchner, what’s the status?.

Daniel Buchner: the spec was originally polymorphic for this property and we needed an array..
… so we’re transitioning this to an array of strings in this PR.
… this will be a breaking change if folks have used objects..

Justin Richer: an observation: objects are still allowed..
… all of the things in the PR are allowed..

Daniel Buchner: I support this PR being pulled in.

Daniel Burnett: can you review PR 510?.
… next one is issue 499.
… assigned to Manu. It says ready for PR,..

Justin Richer: the issue 361 was related. we didn’t have type definitions, and we need that for the metadata properties as well.

Daniel Burnett: and this is now a P1 issue, it was P2. Looks like it still needs a PR..

Daniel Buchner: Reviewed #510, good to merge.

Markus Sabadello: I also agree we need a PR to clarify the data types of metadata properties..

Daniel Burnett: so it is just waiting on some work, it is in progress..
… issue 498.
… waiting on PR 509..

Justin Richer: looks relatively straightforward. makes the time string more precise for JSON and CBOR.
… apparently I was supposed to review this..

Daniel Burnett: go back to 498..

Justin Richer: it will be closed once PR 509 is merged.

Justin Richer: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/509.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: we need links.

Kyle Den Hartog: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/495.

Daniel Burnett: moving on to the next one: issue 495.
… assigned to markus, shigeya will make a PR.

Justin Richer: next is issue 384.

Kyle Den Hartog: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/384.

Justin Richer: current status way down here.

Kyle Den Hartog: this is tracking the normative statements so far..
… there’s a large comment with all of the current ones..
… then Mike Jones pointed out that statements even without RFC 2119 language are normative.
… I said maybe we should specify that only RFC2119 statements are normative.

Justin Richer: there’s a RFC2119 update that we should adopt.
… it has “if and only if” language.

Daniel Burnett: .
… issue 291, what is the status?.

Kyle Den Hartog: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/291.

Brent Zundel: PING got an email and said they would assign a reviewer.

Daniel Burnett: issue 199.

Kyle Den Hartog: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/199.

Justin Richer: there is a link to the PR we discussed earlier (480).

Brent Zundel: PR 480 is the answer to this issue. Which is why we are asking the group for review now..

Kyle Den Hartog: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/170.

Brent Zundel: just waiting on review, it will be pulled in soon if no objections.

Justin Richer: issue 170 is tagged pending closed.

Kyle Den Hartog: Mike objected to closing it, saying it hadn’t been resolved, but he never proposed specific text..
… so Manu said we would close it unless concrete text is provided..

Justin Richer: knowing some of what Mike is dealing with, I recommend that the chairs reach out to him specifically so it get on his radar..

Daniel Burnett: thank you, we will reach out..

Jonathan Holt: I would also add that Mike has considerable expertise and his input is valuable..

Daniel Burnett: no argument there, but we have been waiting for concrete text for quite awhile..
… issue 119.

Kyle Den Hartog: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/119.

Brent Zundel: still waiting to hear back from TAG.

Justin Richer: issue 118.

Kyle Den Hartog: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/118.

Daniel Burnett: we will get this done right before CR.

Justin Richer: issue 58.

Kyle Den Hartog: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/58.

Justin Richer: this is the topic of the resolution we looked at earlier.

Daniel Burnett: could someone put in there that the deadline for objecting to the resolutions is January 5, 2021.

Justin Richer: done.

Daniel Burnett: I think that’s all the P1 issues.

5. Priority 2 Issues.

Daniel Burnett: now priority 2 issues.

Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Apre-cr-p2+sort%3Aupdated-asc.

Daniel Burnett: P1 issues are deemed by the editors to need to be done before CR. the P2 are important,.
… issue 483.

Kyle Den Hartog: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/483.

Kyle Den Hartog: this issue raiser is at 3Box or ceramic..

Daniel Burnett: assigned to Markus.

Kyle Den Hartog: Ceramic, I don’t believe he’s a member of the WG.

Markus Sabadello: there is a PR to add additional metadata properties to add security to some cases of the resolution process..
… two process questions: is this blocked by feature freeze? and the author is not a W3C member.
… not sure what to do..

Daniel Burnett: with respect to feature freeze, if this is fixing a bug, it can qualify under our existing process..
… the question about IPR needs to be discussed by editors and chairs.
… since this has been proposed, we would appreciate comments from the group in the PR.

Kyle Den Hartog: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/479.

Justin Richer: better example, issue 479.

Daniel Burnett: linked to a PR in the registries (PR 168).
… if there are no objections in general, because examples are non normative, they’ll go in.

Kyle Den Hartog: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/468.

Daniel Burnett: let’s look at issue 468.

Markus Sabadello: I can talk about this one. what should be the result of a resolution process if a DID has been deactivated. we just need a PR..

Daniel Burnett: looked like there was some disagreement, but I may be reading it wrong..

Markus Sabadello: there has been some discussion..

Daniel Burnett: we are at the point where we need a PR to discuss.
… there will come a time where items that are ready for a PR, but there isn’t a PR, they may not make it in the spec..
… issue 463.

Kyle Den Hartog: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/463.

Markus Sabadello: this is following the long abstract data model discussions..
… we said we would still figure out the exact terminology for naming the different buckets..
… there is a diagram in the issue which is my understanding of where we ended up..
… we need a PR to make the terms consistent.

Daniel Burnett: I think this is in progress..
… thanks Markus.
… thanks to all..

Markus Sabadello: Thanks to Dan for being a wonderful chair!.

Daniel Burnett: this group has progressed so well.
… making good progress., see you in January.