DID WG Telco — Minutes

Date: 2021-08-17

See also the Agenda and the IRC Log

Attendees

Present: Ivan Herman, Brent Zundel, Joe Andrieu, Shigeya Suzuki, Orie Steele, Justin Richer, Drummond Reed, Ted Thibodeau Jr., Manu Sporny, Markus Sabadello, Dave Longley, Charles Lehner, Kaliya Young, Geun-Hyung, Adrian Gropper, Juan Caballero, bumblefudge

Regrets:

Guests:

Chair: Brent Zundel

Scribe(s): Markus Sabadello

Content:

Brent Zundel: We begin with an agenda review.
… We’ll talk about press release, next charter, DID Rubric, Implementation Guide, then covering issues+PRs for DID Spec Registries.
… Anything else folks want to talk about?

Manu Sporny: One announcement about historical PR, want to get some ideas on it.

Brent Zundel: We’ll get to that.
… Any introductions from the group?

1. DID Press release

Brent Zundel: We are working with W3C public relations to work on press release, which will be about DID specification announcement, plus next steps.
… We will be reaching out directly to you and some companies regarding contributions, when we have a draft press release (probably end of this week)

Manu Sporny: I’m working on coordinating some testimonials from groups outside of W3C. We should speak holistically on DIDs + VCs, rather than separately. Speak about concrete deployments rather than just how great it is.

Ivan Herman: +1 to manu about deployment

Brent Zundel: I second all of that.

2. Charter of the next DID WG.

Ivan Herman: See new charter proposal

Brent Zundel: This has been sent to the W3C strategy group.

Ivan Herman: There have been a number of reviews that the charter has to go through. I think I got all of them signing off on the charter.
… I’ve also sent a note to the strategy team on issuing an advanced notice to the AC, 3 or 4 hours ago. I presume they will look at it and it will go to AC today or tomorrow.
… I don’t expect the vote to officially start before mid-September, which means we will have to formally extend this WG after September.
… So far, everything is going as it should.
… There is one small addition for the charter that Brent and Joe and I are discussing, but otherwise the charter text seems stable.

Brent Zundel: Any questions about the draft charter?

Drummond Reed: Nope, great job on it Ivan.

Manu Sporny: We are discussing relations with other groups.

3. historical PR

See github pull request #790.

Brent Zundel: Anything else on this topic?
… Manu has written a PR about the historical context of the DID spec
… It’s to acknowledge past work, people, and efforts.
… Please review if you want to tweak this and add suggestions

Manu Sporny: It’s currently written as the editors writing this, I’d like to upgrade it to the WG writing it.

Joe Andrieu: +1 for speaking “from the WG”

Manu Sporny: I don’t think there is anything controversial, we’d like to acknowledge the work before there was a DID WG.

bumblefudge: +1

Kaliya Young: I went back and looked up past IIW Sessions that foreshadow the group - they are there in 2015 - https://iiw.idcommons.net/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=blockchain&go=Go

Manu Sporny: We’d like to give people an understanding that this work started long ago.

Drummond Reed: +1 to that change.

Manu Sporny: Would anyone object to change this from “the editors acknowledge” to “the WG acknowledges”, or similar

Dave Longley: +1 to “The Working Group acknowledges”

Ivan Herman: It’s more appropriate if it says “the WG” rather than “the editors”

Manu Sporny: agree, Ivan – the only reason we put “Editors” is to avoid process objections…

Manu Sporny: whatever those might be

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: +1 spread the love to as many of the shoulders on which we stand as we can recall

Charles Lehner: +1

Markus Sabadello: +1

Ivan Herman: This is only editorial, so I don’t think anyone would object from a process point of view.

Manu Sporny: Should we document a WG resolution, to make absolutely sure?

Brent Zundel: Any changes to the proposal?

Proposed resolution: The WG will add editorial text to the acknowledgements section of the Proposed Recommendation that gives some historical context for the work and thanks those who were involved. (Brent Zundel)

Manu Sporny: +1

Drummond Reed: +1

Brent Zundel: +1

Shigeya Suzuki: +1

Dave Longley: +1

Adrian Gropper: +1

Joe Andrieu: +1

Ivan Herman: +1

Markus Sabadello: +1

Kaliya Young: +1

Orie Steele: +1

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: +1

Resolution #1: The WG will add editorial text to the acknowledgements section of the Proposed Recommendation that gives some historical context for the work and thanks those who were involved.

Ivan Herman: Do we say somewhere in the document that all appendices are non-normative?
… If not, then we should mark acknowledgements as being explicitly non-normative.

Manu Sporny: It doesn’t say that, I can add it. We have it for all other sections.

Drummond Reed: Yes, Appendix A says non-normative explicitly.

Manu Sporny: I’m going to raise an issue.

Brent Zundel: Anything else on this topic?

4. DID Rubric

Brent Zundel: Status update from Joe?

Joe Andrieu: https://w3c.github.io/did-rubric/

Joe Andrieu: We have a draft that is ready for publication.

Drummond Reed: Whohoo!!

Joe Andrieu: See Static version of the Note

Joe Andrieu: This is the static version
… Targeting Aug 26th, does that work?

Ivan Herman: I have to issue a Transition Request today, which I can do. That should work.

Joe Andrieu: I sent a note to the group that we will propose to transition this to a Registry.

Brent Zundel: I think it would be appropriate today that we want to publish this static copy as a note, combing the “objection week” with the “review week”, to move the process forward, if folks are not opposed to that.
… I’d love to put a proposal forward if process allows us to do that.

Manu Sporny: +1 to publish as a NOTE today

Ivan Herman: This group is usually very formal about it. If we vote today, does the vote mean that the WG instructs me to send the request for transition to the management today?
… Or is it a vote that says the WG wants to publish and finalizes next week?
… For Recommendations, usually the 1 week cooling period is better. Not sure if it’s necessary for a Note.

Brent Zundel: If anyone thinks this is necessary, let us know.

Joe Andrieu: If anyone has a concern, please speak up. This has been worked on for a while, hopefully concerns have been voiced.

Ivan Herman: The resolution should make it clear.
… Has the final document cross-checked with pubrules?

Joe Andrieu: No

Ivan Herman: Then please do it as quickly as possible.
… I usually speed up thing. I ask the webmaster to do a preliminary check so it doesn’t get done at the last minute

Joe Andrieu: I need some guidance on how to do that.

Manu Sporny: I can help, Joe just ping me.

Orie Steele: JoeAndrieu see https://github.com/w3c/did-imp-guide/issues/10

Ivan Herman: The same will be true for the other Note.

Brent Zundel: Anything needs to be added to the proposal? Manu, Ivan?

Ivan Herman: It’s fine

Proposed resolution: the WG will ask W3C to transition the DID Rubric (https://w3c.github.io/did-rubric/FPWD/2021-08-26/) to a WG Note, and set up echidna for automatically updating the Note. (Brent Zundel)

Manu Sporny: +1

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: +1

Ivan Herman: +1

Orie Steele: +1

Joe Andrieu: +1

Brent Zundel: +1

Markus Sabadello: +1

Adrian Gropper: +1

Charles Lehner: +1

Shigeya Suzuki: +1

Dave Longley: +1

Drummond Reed: +1

Resolution #2: the WG will ask W3C to transition the DID Rubric (https://w3c.github.io/did-rubric/FPWD/2021-08-26/) to a WG Note, and set up echidna for automatically updating the Note.

Joe Andrieu: Thanks to Daniel Hardman, he put a lot of work into this.

Drummond Reed: Joe, you and Daniel both rock for completing this.

Brent Zundel: Anything else on this topic?

5. Implementation Guide

Orie Steele: See https://w3c.github.io/did-imp-guide/FPWD/2021-08-26/

Brent Zundel: Orie can you give us a status update?

Orie Steele: There has been an Implementation Guide for some time. Recently, there have been some contributions.
… We have run pubrules on a static version, there are still some pubrules errors.
… I thought Respec was supposed to deal with those, I’m now working on fixing them.
… It’s ready for review, still being contributed to do on the editorial side, and pubrules side.

Brent Zundel: Sounds like similar cleanup as the DID Rubric work, getting ready for publication.
… Any comments or questions?

Drummond Reed: Sounds great

Brent Zundel: Any recommendations for changes to the proposal?

Proposed resolution: the WG will ask W3C to transition the DID Implementation Guide (https://w3c.github.io/did-imp-guide/FPWD/2021-08-26/) to a WG Note, and set up echidna for automatically updating the Note. (Brent Zundel)

Markus Sabadello: +1

Orie Steele: +1

Shigeya Suzuki: +1

Ivan Herman: +1

Charles Lehner: +1

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: +1

Manu Sporny: +1

Joe Andrieu: +1

Adrian Gropper: +1

Drummond Reed: +1

Dave Longley: +1

Brent Zundel: +1

Resolution #3: the WG will ask W3C to transition the DID Implementation Guide (https://w3c.github.io/did-imp-guide/FPWD/2021-08-26/) to a WG Note, and set up echidna for automatically updating the Note.

Orie Steele: thanks for all the folks to contributed to it

Brent Zundel: I believe that there is more work that could be done in the Implementation Guide.
… This also helps to set up the next WG, so that they can maintain the Notes.

Joe Andrieu: We ran pubrules, there were no errors, only warnings.

Brent Zundel: Anything else on these topics?

6. DID Spec Registries

Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc+-label%3Aneeds-contact-info+

Brent Zundel: We’ll spend the remaining time going through issues

Manu Sporny: I think I requested that we close all the issues that say “needs contact information”, because we have a solution to that.

Manu Sporny: Can we close all “needs-contact-info” issues – https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Aug/0013.html

Joe Andrieu: Yes let’s close them all. They were created by Daniel and I to solicit input for the Rubric. I think it served its purpose.

Orie Steele: There’s language about an email address that is a recommendation, not a requirement.
… I created a PR for label mechanisms.
… If we will have a label “needs contact info”, then it would be helpful to keep the issues open.

6.1. Add labels (pr did-spec-registries#329)

See github pull request did-spec-registries#329.

Orie Steele: I was absent from the call when we discussed labels, but my understanding is we want to support labels in registry entries.

Brent Zundel: Any opinions on this?
… No opposition to this plan.

Orie Steele: I will open a PR to apply these labels to all the DID methods.

Joe Andrieu: great. Thanks, Orie

6.2. DID Spec Registries needs terminological criteria (issue did-spec-registries#156)

See github issue did-spec-registries#156.

Brent Zundel: Anyone on the call can let us know what needs to be done to address this issue?
… I believe some work was done for this, but I may be mistaken.

Manu Sporny: I believe we did add unacceptable things as examples in the registration criteria.
… E.g. no racist language, etc.
… I’ll cite the exact text that addresses it.

Manu Sporny: We added it in step 3 here – https://w3c.github.io/did-spec-registries/#the-registration-process

Joe Andrieu: I think this language is great. This was originally an issue I raised because we didn’t have any process, so we were open to abuses. I think this addresses my concerns.

Drummond Reed: I agree with Joe.

Ivan Herman: I think we discussed this in staff, and we were fine with it.

Joe Andrieu: +1 to close it

6.3. should add language about future changes (issue did-spec-registries#267)

See github issue did-spec-registries#267.

Brent Zundel: I raised this issue, regarding future changes
… If people think this is a good idea, I can create a PR to address this. It means a maintenance group can make changes to the registration process.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: I think the general idea is good, but I’d prefer to have something about ratification by the larger group.

Ivan Herman: The maintenance group is a WG. Any change we propose to do must go through the same process as any other WG.

Manu Sporny: This is the new proposed Registries process – https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/#registries

Ivan Herman: If any process changes, in the future it will be more stringent in the sense that the registry maintenance policy must have some vote through AC.

Joe Andrieu: Does the maintenance WG charter address this, is the WG empowered to change the rules?

Brent Zundel: I do not believe that the wording would enable the editors to unilaterally change the registration process.

Drummond Reed: IMHO the maintenance WG should be the ones to make any changes to the registration process.

Joe Andrieu: So I think this would be covered by the language in the charter. The WG can change the registration process.

Ivan Herman: correct

Ivan Herman: q

Brent Zundel: Part of my concern was that.. We’ve been treating the registration process as fundamentally normative. In order to normatively add something to the specification, we would have to explicitly add language to the specification. The WG voted against that.

Joe Andrieu: Since this is a Note, I’m not sure if the distinction normative/non-normative applies here;

Ivan Herman: Yes, but exactly the point that Brent was taking is the reason why the new process establishes a new type of document (Registry Document). It’s somewhere in between.
… I think it is exactly what Brent is looking for. The registry process is as stable as if it was a Recommendation, but the registry contents of course change.

Brent Zundel: If we can make necessary changes, then I’m good and I will close this. Thanks for feedback.

6.4. DID Method Registration Resolution #3 on 2021-03-16 (issue did-spec-registries#272)

See github issue did-spec-registries#272.

Brent Zundel: I think this is just to track work, Orie what can you tell us?

Orie Steele: We had some resolutions a while ago on how we want to label older DID methods. My understanding of this issue is that we had a resolution to create a new table after the spec is published.
… Subsequently I saw comments that tables are hard to use, and labels are preferable. Therefore the resolution is no longer to be implemented in its current wording.

Brent Zundel: Should we have another resolution that labels are preferred?

Ivan Herman: Shouldn’t matter so much

Drummond Reed: Editor’s choice

6.5. DID Method Registration Resolution #2 on 2021-03-16 (issue did-spec-registries#271)

See github issue did-spec-registries#271.

Orie Steele: Similar scenario, this was about status and dates
… We can do status with labels, not sure what to do about dates
… Either we need new proposals for handling dates, or decide that we will not implement the resolution

Manu Sporny: We have a resolution for first registered date, and last reviewed date

Brent Zundel: Seemed like a good idea at that time

Manu Sporny: Not sure if this is very useful

Drummond Reed: I still think “first registered” is a good idea, but “last reviewed” doesn’t seem to make sense

Markus Sabadello: This can be reconstructed from Git history?

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: This is also overtaken by events.
… We registered DID methods before we had even finalized the requirements for DID methods.

Orie Steele: We should just use Git, and resolve to not implement this resolution

Joe Andrieu: The link that people click on may not be the one that was reviewed (unless we use hashlinks)

Brent Zundel: There was a lot of conversation on liveness, and how up-to-date DID methods are.

Proposed resolution: We are not going to add dates in a table to the DID Registry (Brent Zundel)

Ivan Herman: +1

Manu Sporny: +1

Brent Zundel: +1

Drummond Reed: +1

Orie Steele: +1

Charles Lehner: +1

Dave Longley: +1

Shigeya Suzuki: +1

Markus Sabadello: +1

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: +1

Resolution #4: We are not going to add dates in a table to the DID Registry

Drummond Reed: Thanks Brent. Big high five to Joe and Daniel and also Orie.

Brent Zundel: Thanks everyone, we got through a lot of items. Cu next time.

7. Resolutions