DID WG Telco — Minutes
See also the Agenda and the IRC Log
Present: Ivan Herman, Justin Richer, Shigeya Suzuki, Drummond Reed, Brent Zundel, Dave Longley, Amy Guy, Dmitri Zagidulin, Manu Sporny, Ted Thibodeau Jr., Adrian Gropper, Charles Lehner
Regrets: Daniel Burnett
Chair: Brent Zundel
Scribe(s): Amy Guy
- 1. special topic call
- 2. CR snapshot
- 3. Implementations
- 4. verification method IDs MUST contain a fragment (issue did-core#708)
- 5. DID Core issues and PRs
- 5.1. FAQ Question: Can the DID Subject of a DID Document be updated/changed after the DID Document has been registered?
- 5.2. All appendix sections needs to be cleaned up
- 5.3. When is the DID URI getting constructed
- 5.4. Diagrams need SVG and detailed description
- 5.5. FAQ Question: Can the DID Controller of a DID Document be updated/changed after the DID Document has been registered?
- 5.6. Update Verification Method Rotation section
- 6. CBOR?
- 7. a lighter note
- 8. Resolutions
1. special topic call
Brent Zundel: no special topic call this week
… and meetings for june 22nd and july 6th are cancelled
… because of no chairs and independence day respectively
2. CR snapshot
Manu Sporny: here is the snapshot
Manu Sporny: Here’s the latest 2nd Candidate Recommendation time stamped document: https://w3c.github.io/did-core/CR/2021-06-15/
Manu Sporny: more than a week ago we put out a document for review, a CR2, second candidate rec snapshot
… that has got some review, discussion on calls and on the list
… we added a couple of at risk markers, specifically for service and relative-ref
… and a few others to be used
… that got review
… no objections
… no modifications
… so the latest snapshot for that is here:
… a frozen version of what was reviewed
… publication 15th june
… needs to be voted on, then ivan can start the w3c process for publication
… the minimum number of days needed for a CR is 28 days
… july 13th is when the second CR period will end
… that’s the soonest we’d be able to transition to PR
… we have 18 implementations
… that number is going up
… two features we’re looking for other implementations of
… everything else that was at risk either we’ve already got two independent implementations of, or continues to be at risk until we do
… did I miss anything?
Ivan Herman: no
Brent Zundel: no
Proposed resolution: Publish https://w3c.github.io/did-core/CR/2021-06-15/ as a Candidate Recommendation Snapshot (Brent Zundel)
Manu Sporny: do we have to include the date?
Ivan Herman: no
… the 15th is what we want but will not necessarily be the one, it’s fine
… length of time is per process
Ivan Herman: +1
Manu Sporny: +1
Amy Guy: +1
Shigeya Suzuki: +1
Adrian Gropper: +1
Drummond Reed: +1
Ted Thibodeau Jr.: +1
Brent Zundel: +1
Dave Longley: +1
Dmitri Zagidulin: +1
Resolution #1: Publish https://w3c.github.io/did-core/CR/2021-06-15/ as a Candidate Recommendation Snapshot
Brent Zundel: seeing no opposition
… this represents a lot of hard work from a lot of people
… i’d specifically like to call out shigeya’s work on test report generation
Manu Sporny: yes, +1000 to shigeya – super, super, helpful work done!
Brent Zundel: would have been far more difficult without that, thank you
Manu Sporny: Thank you for many improvements to the test suite and reporting!
Manu Sporny: mattr’s implementation went in this morning so I haven’t had chance to regenerate that yet
… latest one I have is from a while ago
… the biggest improvements to the suite is that we now have a summary of conformance by statement
… and the number of implementations that support it
… eg. service and relative ref we only had the example implementation. We’ve updated it so those ar eno longer counted
… anyone should be able to go through and look at how we’re doing for every statement
… a couple still not implemented. a number for resolution and dereferencing, hopefully that changed with mattr’s submission
… the biggest things we’re looking for feedback on are the did parameters
… and a number of resolution and dereferencing functions
… we don’t have examples of
alsoKnownAs being used
… we’re looking for implementation feedback on that
… the super awkward situation we’re in with that is the AP community was expecting the DID spec to define it, and it refers to DID, but if we don’t get enough implementations we will remove it to the DID spec and the AP thing will point to a nonexistant entry
… I believe that’s problematic
… it’d be better for implementers that want it to implement it
… so we don’t have to take that out
Ivan Herman: for
alsoKnownAs: not ideal but we can also keep it in non normatively or something
… so we don’t create a 404
Manu Sporny: +1, I’m looking at our at risk marker on it, we say if there’s not enough interest we will remove it from the spec
… I don’t now if that creates an issue or if we can later decide
Ivan Herman: we have a good reason, I think it’s not an issue
4. verification method IDs MUST contain a fragment (issue did-core#708)
See github issue #708.
See github pull request #764.
Brent Zundel: there has been a long discussion in the issue
… Mike indicated to me he’d be on the meeting today
… but perhaps someone can speak on his behalf?
Justin Richer: your friendly local deputy here to speak. Mike couldn’t make it
… he told me that having looked over where things landed, secure key is happy with it being a note to implementers
… Markus made a good point that the details of this kind of thing belong in resolution
… the details of resolution
… and kyle’s proposed text does seem to put things in the right framing
… by the way you can expect something like this to happen but dont’ count on it, is what i might personally add
… but that’s implied
… mike said that as far as secure key is concerned the issue can be closed with or without that PR, though my recommendation is we take kyle’s PR
Brent Zundel: thanks
… sounds like that PR will resolve that issue
5. DID Core issues and PRs
Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc+-label%3Adefer-v2
Brent Zundel: first 718
5.1. FAQ Question: Can the DID Subject of a DID Document be updated/changed after the DID Document has been registered?
See github issue #718.
Brent Zundel: I believe there is a PR for this
Manu Sporny: there’s a PR, ready to go, but merge conflicts that we’re waiting on drummond to fix
Drummond Reed: okay
5.2. All appendix sections needs to be cleaned up
See github issue #728.
Brent Zundel: next 728
Manu Sporny: there are 4 remaining PRs, once those are merged all of the appendices will have had all the editorial changes
… means we’re done with editorial work
… modulo small adjustments
Brent Zundel: good news
… next is 729
5.3. When is the DID URI getting constructed
See github issue #729.
Manu Sporny: still waiting on me, easy one I just havne’t done it
Brent Zundel: next 625
5.4. Diagrams need SVG and detailed description
See github issue #625.
Brent Zundel: the diagrams need descriptions
Shigeya Suzuki: markus asked me to help find a way to do the convert to svg
… the tool he’s using can be used to export to svg, should be no problem
… once he has time to do that then done
Brent Zundel: we’ll have the svg
Shigeya Suzuki: I think he will work on that
Brent Zundel: we’ll leave that to markus
5.5. FAQ Question: Can the DID Controller of a DID Document be updated/changed after the DID Document has been registered?
See github issue #719.
Brent Zundel: assigned to drummond
Drummond Reed: I’ve accepted all the suggestions and that’s ready to merge
Manu Sporny: it’s been merged, waiting on michael to confirm we addressed the issue and we can close it with explicit confirmation
Brent Zundel: that’s all of the issues
… six PRs
Manu Sporny: we should discuss one
5.6. Update Verification Method Rotation section
See github pull request #741.
Manu Sporny: might need more people to look
… not sure if that would help
… biggest issue is that it as editorial update and when it was made people are now re discussing the entirety of the text
… daniel hardman has concerns
… orie needs to respond
… it’s their text
… but now there’s disagreement over the text that they had initially put in there by daniel
… the default is the PR won’t go in and the thing will be editorially messy
… I don’t know if anyone can chat with daniel hardman and say we need him to propose concrete text and we need orie to talk with him to get there
… I don’t have any strong preference one way or the other
… largely editorial stuff
… misunderstanding around text
… need orie and daniel to talk
… that’s what will resolve it, floating for 23 days
… neither of them are here
… can anyone take an action to talk with daniel and/or orie to get them to resolve?
Brent Zundel: i can reach out to daniel
… we have completed the agenda in record time
Ivan Herman: https://w3c.github.io/did-cbor-note/
Manu Sporny: sorry to bring this up
… the chairs had a question around if we’re publishing the CBOR thing as a note
… we don’t have to talk about it today, but we could kick it off?
Brent Zundel: we have time
… it is an appropriate topic
… We did not have enough support for the CBOR section in the spec to get tests written
… Which was unfortunate
… and that resulted in us needing to resolve to move to the CBOR text into its own note
… Link to note?
… with minor editorial framing, this is the text of the CBOR section as is
… any more that needs to happen here before it’s ready to publish?
Manu Sporny: the question is would we make another pass or revisions to the doc or do we think we’re done?
… definitely done enough for a first version
… the document stands on its own
… there are two minor editorial fixes I need to make
… that have to do with broken refs
… ivan wanted a different title
… minor things
… there are some decisions to make on that document
… a lot of people want this there so there’s an example of a representation extension and put it in the registry
… that’s a good thing, not controversial
… we need to understand if jonathan wants to remain an editor on the document
… he’s an author of a lot of the content
Drummond Reed: +1 to having an example of how to do a representation extension
Manu Sporny: we need to reach out and ask
… if not I’m happy to do it
… even though I don’t believe in how this format was put together, but I do believe it is what jonathan wanted and is aligned with the ADM in the spec. it is implementable
… Given we haven’t seen any implementations for it today I’m wondering if we want to put in a warning that it’s an example without good implementation feedback on it yet
… the reason is because there is disagreement on this being an appropriate way to encode the cbor
… that there are no implementations and nobody has said they will
… it may serve better as an example instead of a ‘real’ representation
… that’s the only controversial thing to discuss
… if all we’re doing s a first published note on this we can decide that later
… one thing we could do today is say modulo those editorial changes, publish it as a note
… and start that process
… and later raise an issue about no implementations
Ivan Herman: first, as you said, we must have an agreement from jonathan to keep his name
… the status section is very short in terms of history of the document
… as a reader who doesn’t know the background I might be asking question why the text is having very normative feeling statements
… capital MUST etc
… there is even one single normative reference
… I think it’s okay if it still there but maybe it’s worth adding a few sentences in the status saying that it uses this language because if it gets implemented a future version of the WG might make it normative
… explains why it sounds like a recommendation
… I think it’s cleaner or better that we as a WG vote on moving this document as a note when it’s ready
… even these small editorial changes I’d prefer to have them done and then vote rather than the other way around
Manu Sporny: I’m happy to add that text ivan
… and +1 for not considering it until we’re completely done with the edits
Brent Zundel: I will take the action to reach out to jonathan
… it’s appropriate to keep his name as an author
… I’ll check to see if he wishes to remain as a listed editor
… anybody else have anything to discuss on this topic?
7. a lighter note
Justin Richer: I’m in the middle of putting together presentations for other stuff, so I was digging through old presentations for slides
… this is from a talk I gave 5 years ago about standards groups
… “in the end you don’t really run out of time, of money..”
… “what you run out of is patience”
… congratulations for finally running out of patience and hopefully finishing this spec!
Drummond Reed: I love it!
Drummond Reed: Patience out!
Brent Zundel: ending early, thanks all!