DID WG Telco — Minutes

Date: 2021-09-21

See also the Agenda and the IRC Log

Attendees

Present: Daniel Burnett, Ivan Herman, Shigeya Suzuki, Brent Zundel, Orie Steele, Drummond Reed, Adrian Gropper, Ryan Grant, Manu Sporny, Rod Waltermann, Justin Richer, Geun-Hyung Kim, Charles Lehner, Ted Thibodeau Jr., Pamela Dingle, Daniel Buchner, Dmitri Zagidulin, Joe Andrieu, Michael Prorock, Juan Caballero

Regrets:

Guests:

Chair: Daniel Burnett

Scribe(s): Adrian Gropper

Content:

1. Agenda Review

Geun-Hyung Kim: Geun-Hyung has joined #did

Daniel Burnett: After rubric PRs, cover Ryan’s concerns

2. New Member Introduction

Rod Waltermann: I work for Lenovo and DID is very important for us to build a cohesive experience across multiple devices - potential to build DID into our core code - a little concerned about browser companies and privacy objections - if we publish and they don’t adopt, then what happens?

Daniel Buchner: It’s exciting to see more hardware vendors involved

Drummond Reed: Good stuff

Daniel Buchner: Great to hear this, Rod!

3. DID Registries/Rubric Editors

Daniel Burnett: No editors problem for now but we will switch to maintenance mode - need people who understand how we got to where we are and can assist process new requests - then be able to respond in a timely manner - within a few days to a week
… asking for people to be considered for maintainer of registries and or rubric

Ryan Grant: I’ll volunteer to be a registry editor

Joe Andrieu: I’ll continue with the rubric

Daniel Burnett: editors and chairs will discuss - Ryan say no preference - TY Joe for continuing with the rubric - requires not much time but regular checking

Joe Andrieu: Your comment if it becomes a registry is confusing

Daniel Burnett: I believe the registry PR has not merged yet

Joe Andrieu: It has merged last nght

Daniel Burnett: Good news - we’re good

4. DID Spec status update

Daniel Burnett: Meeting in a couple of hours to discuss objections - believe there’s nothing to block

Manu Sporny: One last PR into DID spec - editorial - to mark sections as non-normative to handle some complaints - will be merging at the end of today - please take a look

Drummond Reed: +1 to merging that PR

Ryan Grant: One of the main objections was that TAG sustainability re: global warming for POW - we have some detailed arguments for the implementation guide 27 - I’m concerned that the advocates that are best to defend that will not be present

Ryan Grant: Thanks I appreciate the scope clarification.

Daniel Burnett: This meeting is part of the standard W3C process - the issue is whether that the DID core doc can be published - if it turns out that the discussion continues we will bring in others
… the chairs don’t want to have the blocking conversation now.

Manu Sporny: +1 to what Dan said - I pushed back on the basis of inappropriate comment - but premature

Daniel Burnett: Thank you mprorock

Manu Sporny: to Rod welcome, especially nice to see a hardware vendor int he group
… WoT has asked us to discuss DIDs during TPAC in late October - there will be a focus on IoT and DID and Rod should consider attending
… the conversation in IG and Rubric is not about DID Core which has the formal objections under discussion today.

Michael Prorock: I am also a member of the WOT WG fyi

5. DID Rubric PRs

Daniel Burnett: https://github.com/w3c/did-rubric/pulls

Daniel Burnett: The most critical PR has been merged - thank you! Chairs are pleased. Over to JoeAndrieu: We would like to discuss the environmental impact first

5.1. Possible environmental criteria (pr did-rubric#51)

See github pull request did-rubric#51.

Joe Andrieu: In a section that is due to be removed so I pointed to the PR for an example of how to submit criteria. As long as we have all the data fields the editors will accept it.
… if there is only one example, there will be a Provisional tag - to be removed when there are 3 examples

Michael Prorock: We will be closing out #51 and opening others to add appropriate examples - Thanks for the helpful criteria

Orie Steele: +1 to PR per criteria

Joe Andrieu: Thanks for noting things into separate PRs

Michael Prorock: +1 separate PRs very helpful

Orie Steele: Ryan see https://w3c.github.io/did-rubric/#registration-process

Ryan Grant: I have a question about principles in the rubric and the W3C vs Chris Allen vs. Kim Cameron - I would like to propose putting all 30 in - each would be separate pull request - 2 questions: separate and add 30

Joe Andrieu: Yes, separate PRs. There’s an issue with how to split into sections. On the principles, principle would still be coherent with different criteria

Drummond Reed: I’m familiar with Kim Cameron’s but some of them don’t apply to DIDs. Happy to have separate discussion which ones apply - seek off-line discussion on which apply

Daniel Burnett: Conclusions? What does Joe think?

Drummond Reed: Ryan, if you want to have an offline discussion about which principles would translate into good decentralization criteria, just ping me

Ryan Grant: I propose that we add the PRs and bong them where not relevant or merge them where duplicates, in discussion.

Joe Andrieu: A single principle might link to five criteria. The devil is in the details. Want to see an issue followed by a PR

5.2. Add links to external evaluation and conference paper. (pr did-rubric#47)

See github pull request did-rubric#47.

Joe Andrieu: Let’s talk about #47 - the chairs have an opinion but want to include the rest of the group - adds a reference to external publications - Daniel and I would like to avoid the rubric becoming an index
… draw the line by citation to only papers mentioned in a criteria

Ryan Grant: I have trouble understanding

Joe Andrieu: All of the criteria need an evaluation. If the cited evaluation is from a published report, then point to author, when, and who paid.
… the other was about including part of an evaluation in the rubric. Not opposed to citing where the criteria came from.

Orie Steele: Agree with Joe. The rubric has a specific format and don’t turn it to an index. Link to independent respects somewhere like we did with the SRI evaluation in the IG.

Joe Andrieu: That sounds great - to put it in the Implementation Guide.

Daniel Burnett: OK on time Joe?

6. Rubric Issues

Ryan Grant: all set with my question

Daniel Burnett: Talking about #52 and #53 - please update the two issues to that effect.

7. DID Implementation Guide PRs

7.1. New section on environmental impacts (pr did-imp-guide#27)

See github pull request did-imp-guide#27.

Ryan Grant: I am still objecting to the current version.

Orie Steele: One open PR. Already discussed versions of it. The original text is gone because there has been a lot of great contribution on both sides - Mike did a great job but still have objections but not clear if objecting to the current version of the text and specifically what kind of changes you would like to see

Michael Prorock: +1 need to see concrete recommendations

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: current version (with all merged suggestions) is always at …/files, e.g., https://github.com/w3c/did-imp-guide/pull/27/files

Ryan Grant: Working on a PR that moves discussion to the rubric and still objecting to the current version

Michael Prorock: I find it concerning that we can’s add objections that reflect the opinion of certain members - not a fan on moving everything to the rubric - but as developer it’s important to see all the things I need to consider - if there is clarity from the chairs about the relevancy of certain objections
… . the ability for us to say some members feel on way and others another is important.

Ryan Grant: We have multiple DID methods and #27 came in as an attack on POW - and this will maximize dissent -

Daniel Burnett: personal opinion: I also see no problem with different viewpoints in the IG - especially for timely topics - even if long-term they belong in the Rubric. Just like privacy is a current interest and should be in the IG - agree with Mike.

Daniel Buchner: If a consideration is marked as subjective and lacking material, empirical proof, I suppose people can note that they personally feel there may be a concern

Orie Steele: as an editor I find it concerning that we might censor the opinions of members in the IG. It’s appropriate to address these concerns in multiple places.
… Had a similar disagreement with respect to representations and was well resolved

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: “As a DID method implementor (developer, deployer, [other?]), you may want to refer to xyz criteria in the DID Method Evaluation Rubric, and keep those in mind when implementing this/these feature(s).”

Daniel Buchner: I think the issue is with allowing concerns to be posed as “This thing IS a concerning issue”, as if the premise of the concern is founded/assumed true

Manu Sporny: remind that we worked on VCs JSON JSON-LD and it’s been useful to have the different opinions in the document - it’s appropriate to highlight the differences in the IG as well as the rubric - Since it’s a note we should document things a much as possible.

Drummond Reed: +1 to the Impl Guide reflecting different opinions on the subject as long as they are objectively stated and not inflammatory.

Daniel Burnett: closing queue

Daniel Buchner: Orie: I think he’s saying the section existing that makes this look like a unique, special concern is what he is objecting to

Ryan Grant: Substantive issues are not being addressed. Do we need to keep talking. The same amount of carbon will be released either way and still objecting

Daniel Burnett: please look at the current text and make sure it still applies

Ivan Herman: current text can be seen at: https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/mesur-io/did-imp-guide/pull/27.html#environmental-and-ethical-considerations

Michael Prorock: Note that as a developer who is working on environmental and sustainability issues I would hope to encourage others working in that space to adopt DIDs and realize that we also think of those same concerns