DID WG Telco — Minutes

Date: 2021-06-15

See also the Agenda and the IRC Log


Present: Daniel Burnett, Ivan Herman, Justin Richer, Kaliya Young, Markus Sabadello, Juan Caballero, Manu Sporny, Charles Lehner, Drummond Reed, Ted Thibodeau Jr., Adrian Gropper, Brent Zundel, Daniel Buchner, Dmitri Zagidulin, Geun-Hyung, Chris Winczewski



Chair: Brent Zundel

Scribe(s): Kaliya Young


Brent Zundel: starting with agenda review

Daniel Burnett: And congrats on publication of CR2!

Brent Zundel: agenda modifications?
… 2nd CR for DID core has been published - no more changes - confetti in other chat from Juan.

Daniel Buchner: Did the service param get dropped?

Brent Zundel: until further notice no special topic calls
… upcoming meetings - canceled next week. Neither chairs nor staff content is available.
… July 6th canceled - near to American 4th of July.

1. status of implementations

Brent Zundel: status of implementation by Manu

Manu Sporny: implementation report was just run
… we have marked almost everything - marked many of things at risk that are at risk - changes
… all of a sudden - reporting mechanism is broken - now counting example implementations working with Shigeya on fixing that.
… if we see relative ref, service, and HL might be removed because not implemented
… had a regression of some kind in test suite - two things not showing up - equivalent ID and canonical ID
… still remain a number of things in resolution and de-referencing and no one seems to be implementing so can’t test everything in the syntax
… but other things insufficient implementations we will see things like the deactivated property doesn’t have enough implementations.
… a couple of other ones - an invalid DID - not enough implementations.

Drummond Reed: Aren’t those essentially error messages?

Drummond Reed: Don’t we want to keep them?

Markus Sabadello: talking about some of the missing things that we have implemented.

Manu Sporny: timeline?

Markus Sabadello: if we have the next call then probably have them anything further then that will be problematic.

Manu Sporny: counting on universal resolver to provide those implementations

Brent Zundel: anyone else providing resolution and dereferencing features - will it be sufficient. Ceramic submitted own resolver implementation.

Manu Sporny: are you using ceramic implementation?

Markus Sabadello: no

Manu Sporny: not sure how many other implementations exist outside of ceramic.

2. Publishing CBOR Note

Brent Zundel: about publishing a note

Manu Sporny: an e-mail went out to the mailing list on saturday - saying there was a date stamped CBOR representation.
… publication date is 29th of June
… intro - words on conformance, IANA consideration rules, short and sweet. Good example for the length of what a representation spec could look like. We still need to register this as a note.

Drummond Reed: Manu has done a huge amount of work to turn this into stand alone document

Kaliya Young: seconded

Ivan Herman: administrative, short name must be part of resolution

Proposed resolution: We will publish The Plain CBOR Representation v1.0 as a WG Note with the shortname did-cbor-representation, use echidna to publish updates automatically, and register the CBOR representation in the DID Spec Registries. (Brent Zundel)

Manu Sporny: +1

Drummond Reed: +1

Daniel Burnett: +1

Ivan Herman: +1

Brent Zundel: +1

Charles Lehner: +1

Markus Sabadello: +1

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: +1

Resolution #1: We will publish The Plain CBOR Representation v1.0 as a WG Note with the shortname did-cbor-representation, use echidna to publish updates automatically, and register the CBOR representation in the DID Spec Registries.

Ivan Herman: resolutions become final after a week. Is that the understanding?

Brent Zundel: yes this is my understanding.

Ivan Herman: will submit official publication request a week from now.

Drummond Reed: Totally agree – Jonathan did a huge amount of work on this.

3. Publishing Rubric Note

Manu Sporny: https://w3c.github.io/did-rubric/

Brent Zundel: next topic trying to do similar thing for rubric - none of the editors are on the call at this point.

Ivan Herman: from my POV we can take the resolution if we feel the content is there. But while Manu has gone through trouble to get document publication ready
… uneasy to submit request to director this document without being similarly sure

Kaliya Young: Brent and manu share unease

Manu Sporny: have not had chance to review latest rubric - weary of publishing without the editors.

Drummond Reed: We should see if the editors can attend a call and give us an assessment.

Daniel Burnett: I agree. The editors did not prepare this before today, and have not prepped the group for a vote today.

Manu Sporny: two respec errors can be seen.

Brent Zundel: continue working with the editors

Manu Sporny: … and for the record, I think it’s a really good document in concept, and probably close to in execution, it would be a real shame to not publish it.

4. Next Steps for DID WG

Brent Zundel: next steps for DID working group - 20 min timebox conversation to explore options for continuing DID spec dev work developed. When this group ends in Sept of this year .
… Q is open

Manu Sporny: I would like to not do did work until this is done - 6 months to a year.

Kaliya Young: Manu maybe extra work in VC credentials work - so we don’t have capacity to run all the stuff in parallel.

Manu Sporny: Secure data store work in DIF.
… natural for us to work on something like DID Key - potential standard we could all get behind.
… could get behind DID:Web - methods that are non-controversial.

Ivan Herman: something that didn’t exist when VC spec went to Rec - could be defined as “living standard”. We must decide when we submit a Proposed Recommendation whether we want to empower the new working group to add substantive new features to the spec without going down path of working draft. If we want that we have to declare when we move to Proposed Recommendation. Might be a good thing to have in this case.
… Doesn’t mean we must jump to do this right away, we could say working group is dormant for a year.
… fait of rubric document - publish a note. We know that joe plans to do some other things - more complicated things which we don’t have the time for in this working group - put something in charter further development on rubric is in-scope.
… have it part of a new charter
… question for manu - did:key and did:web that you would plan to publish these as recommendations or as separate notes?

Manu Sporny: we would publish them as separate recommendations.
… as the DID working group we need some example DID methods as a review and did methods.
… something many different companies can get behind.

Brent Zundel: option of doing nothing
… maintainable of registry
… full new working group defining resolution and DID methods
… I’m not sure would it work to add DID methods to a maintainable type charter.

Ivan Herman: to answer your question - maintainable working group is not a specific thing - the only thing the group does is maintain the recommendation
… how we do the timeline - these are the things we develop - for first year we don’t do anything we let things rest.
… we crate one liner charter - last for a year - then after that make a more complex charter.
… that is answer to question.
… yet another work item is possible. Process 2021 - more formal notion of registry. Take up registry document as we have and turn it into a technical registry.
… way we extend registry might be considered

Markus Sabadello: I want to mention did resolution specification in CCG right now it is out of date and needs more work - and gaps in DID Core - define service - don’t define did parameters and how to implement those.
… somethings that are in did resolution that would help in long run.

Drummond Reed: +1 for resolution spec

Manu Sporny: +1 for did resolution needs to be moved forward sooner rather then later - did key vs did web methods and resolution. could move forward in parallel.
… living standard option that is good - if we move right to living standard would put feature pressure on did standard - I don’t think that is good.
… would like like to take breather for a year. Did key and core forward - people are spread thin.

Ivan Herman: better to have a group that exists that “does nothing” then nothing and start again.
… work maintained at CCG - group maintains IPR

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

Manu Sporny: not need to do PRs first - was waiting for CR publication - need review 764
… everything else is ready to go in.

5.1. Diagrams need SVG and detailed description

See github issue #625.

Brent Zundel: issue 625

Markus Sabadello: recommendation didn’t work

Brent Zundel: other aspect of this issue - anyone can jump in and contribute.

Manu Sporny: If it were me, I’d just recreate everything in Google Draw :)

Ivan Herman: might be able to import from open office into google doc

Charles Lehner: also open to helping

Drummond Reed: Fantastic

5.2. other issues

Manu Sporny: to make job easier - all of the other issues already have PRs waiting - or have gone in.

Brent Zundel: PRs need reviews.

5.3. Add link to DID use cases document

See github issue #766.

Brent Zundel: 766 add link to DID use-cases document

Manu Sporny: Phil reminded me this morning - I have failed to put a link into it. will do it.

5.4. docs: add notes to nudge implementors towards common DID URL patterns

See github pull request #764.

Brent Zundel: look at PR 764

Ted: review: simple changed a bunch of shoulds - non-normative texts

ted: he you DID implementor you should look at this thing to understand how resolution is going to happen so design DID to go along with it.

Markus Sabadello: has non-normative pointer to did resolution
… kyle wanted to add some of that to the language -
… I think it is fine the way it is.

Brent Zundel: Thanks - see you all in two weeks - next week’s meeting is canceled.

Drummond Reed: thanks to Kaliya!

Juan Caballero: thanks all! and kaliya extra

6. Resolutions