DID WG vF2F meeting — Minutes

Date: 2021-10-28

See also the Agenda and the IRC Log


Present: Brent Zundel, Ivan Herman, Justin Richer, Charles Lehner, Shigeya Suzuki, Adrian Gropper, Ryan Grant, Drummond Reed, Kazuhiro Hoya, David Waite, Manu Sporny, Markus Sabadello, Kyle Den Hartog, Pamela Dingle, Geun-Hyung Kim, Ted Thibodeau Jr., Daniel Burnett, Phil Archer, Daniel Buchner, Dmitri Zagidulin, Orie Steele


Guests: Michel Foucault, Moshe Lehrer, Eric Siow, Ned Smith, Shinta Sato, Pierre-Antoine Champin, Peter Bruhn Andersen, Kazuhiro Hoya, Russel Stringham, Jeff Jaffee, Tzviya Siegman, Ryuichi Matsukura, Kinji Matsumura, Matt Wilson, Jeffrey Yasskin, Samuel Weiler, Philippe le Hégaret, Mohammad Almousawi

Chair: Brent Zundel, Daniel Burnett

Scribe(s): Drummond Reed, Markus Sabadello


1. Intros/greeting.

Brent Zundel: Greetings and agenda review.
… agenda is three topics: 1) conversation with W3C CEO Jeff Jaffe.
… 2) DID Rubric - discussing roadmap.
… 3) DID Spec Registries - open issues, DID method registration, etc..
… next will be introductions.
… Brent Zundel, Chief Cryptography Architect, Evernym, focused on SSI for enterprises.
… supplies technology for IATA Travel Pass.

Ivan Herman: Staff Contact.

Ryan Grant: Ryan Grant, with Digital Contract Design - make foundational libraries for did:btcr and verifiable credentials.

Drummond Reed: Chief Trust Officer at Evernym, Co-editor of DID spec, worked on it for >5y.

Adrian Gropper: Adrian Gropper, CTO of a non-profit called Patient Privacy Rights, brings privacy expertise for human rights implications of standards.

Charles Lehner: Charles Lehner, Spruce Systems.

David Waite: David Waite, Ping Identity.

Eric Siow: Eric Siow, Intel, on W3C Advisory Board, joining the call to get educated.

Jeff Jaffee: Jeff Jaffe, W3C CEO, Massachusetts.

Joe Andrieu: Joe Andrieu, Legendary Requirements, DID Rubric.

Justin Richer: Justin Richer, independent consultant.

Kazuhiro Hoya: Kauhiro Hoya, Judd Bagley.

Manu Sporny: Manu Sporny, Digital Bazaar, editor of the DID spec and several others.

Markus Sabadello: Markus Sabadello, founder of DanubeTech, co-editor of the spec, DIF ID Working Group co-chair.

Kyle Den Hartog: Kyle den Hartog.

Michel Foucault: Michel Foucault, Paris, interested in DID.

Ned Smith: Ned Smith, Intel, co-chairing several groups in the industry related to attestation, located in Oregon.

Pamela Dingle: Pam Dingle, Director of Identity Standards, Microsoft.

Peter Bruhn Andersen: Peter Bruhn Andersen, Danish Agency working on DID & verifiable credentials.

Pierre-Antoine Champin: Pierre-Antoine Champin, based in France, W3C Fellow.

Russel Stringham: Russell Stringham, Adobe, joining to learn.

Shigeya Suzuki: KEO University, attending as a member.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: Works across a number of W3C groups.

Geun-Hyung Kim: Geun-Hyung Kim: member of DID WG, very interested in SSI and decentralized identity.

Kristina Yasuda: Kristina Yasuda, Microsoft Identity Standards.

Kyle Den Hartog: Kyle den Hartog, works at Mattr in NZ, editor of Verifiable Credentials spec v1.1.

Brent Zundel: grateful to everyone for coming at this time.

2. Talk with the CEO.

Brent Zundel: This is a free-form conversation and will use the queue in IRC for questions.

Jeff Jaffee: I’d like to start by thanking the DID community for bringing the work to W3C.
… I was invited today to talk about the formal objections to the spec and the process..
… for a spec to get to a W3C REC status, it must be at the highest level of quality.
… so it is a conceptually great thing to have formal objections (FOs).
… but it is not comfortable to be on the receiving end.
… I have been reading up on the objections, and also on the DID WG’s responses.
… so how do FO’s get resolved?.
… in the past, they would be resolved by Tim Berners-Lee.
… and it’s never been easy.
… Tim is still the director, but it’s now a more complex process.
… I’m happy to talk more about how the process works.
… finally, I want to express my appreciation for the thoughtfulness of the DID WG members in the AC discussions.
… people have been helpful in addressing not only the content of the objections, but the process discussions.

Manu Sporny: Thank you Jeff for the background..
… we brought this work to the W3C because we thought it was the right place..
… personally I think the W3C process is a good one and I expect it to work here too.
… One of the reactions to FOs brought up so late can make it seem like we are “under attack”.
… however I’ve done research on FOs, and it reveals some interesting data.
… this data actually shows that this situation with the DID spec is actually very much of an exception.
… is there any way we can help get this data and this message conveyed outside of W3C to correct misconceptions without violating member confidentiality.

Jeff Jaffee: It’s a great question. I call this a “controversy” because there are points and counterpoints..
… to even to someone who understands what’s going on, it can be pretty confusing, and putting it out in the public will be even more confusing.
… so does it actually help the situation to “extend the news cycle” and make more out of it.
… so one strategy is to let this process finish, and then just report on that.
… which will take it out of the space of conjecture and “spin” and just report on a decision.
… so I’m open to the idea of sharing data, but only if it helps and doesn’t just “extend the news cycle”.

Markus Sabadello: What is the next step in the process?.

Jeff Jaffee: Several years ago, Tim Berners-Lee because less active, so he delegated managed FOs to the W3C team.
… the day of Tim formally stepping down are coming soon.
… so the W3C team feels it needs to incubate the process for how the FO process should work once that happens.
… so W3M tries to bring the “plaintiff” and the “defendant” together to see if they can be resolved.
… but 3 times recently that has not worked.
… so W3M has recommended to put together a Council to resolve it.
… however the AC and W3C staff have been very busy with TPAC, so it hasn’t started up yet.
… so hopefully the Advisory Board will formally respond shortly to agree to the Council process.

Eric Siow: As an AB member, I am trying to get as much information as I can so I can be prepared.
… the important thing for me personally is that I’d like to make a request to both the proponents and the opponents to help the council make an objective decision.
… if the W3C Council is going to work, it must have the trust of the membership.
… it is important that the Council make good decisions based on good principles.
… if the Council is perceived as making decisions based on political pressure, that would be very bad for W3C.
… what I would like to make a request to the DID WG to provide very objective data.
… I attended the sustainability session and heard arguments for and against the sustainability issues.
… secondly, I’d like clarification on the scope of the objections.
… and then there is discussion that video over the web is computation-intensive as well.
… whatever decision the Council makes, someone will be unhappy.
… I have a responsibility as an AB member to the membership, so if my decision makes someone unhappy, I want to be able to look them in the eye and explain the decision.
… this is important because the members need to be able to trust the Council and that there’s trust in the process.

Daniel Buchner: Even better example: animated GIFs, which are 99% memes that deliver virtually 0 utility value to humankind. If these same folks don’t move to rid xfer/render of that data format from the Web, it will be wildly hypocritical..

Manu Sporny: Thank you Eric, I thing those thoughts are wonderful. I also agree with Jeff’s points..

Manu Sporny: See Some content to help FO council look at objective arguments.

Manu Sporny: we are trying to put that content together in that link..
… that is a FAQ where everything is documented..
… this is still in process and we are working to have all DID WG members review to make sure it is complete.
… it may help for the Council to have a dialog with the DID WG to discuss.
… there is also a fairness issue that you brought up..
… I am speaking on a personal level, not on behalf of my company.

Daniel Buchner: +1 to Manu.

Manu Sporny: I find it unacceptable for objectors to be on that Council – and also for DID WG members to be on the Council.
… that include Amy Guy, since she’s on the TAG, but should be recused.
… that doesn’t mean they can’t provide input, but they should not vote.

Joe Andrieu: +1 to a disinterested jury.

Manu Sporny: lastly, a question for Jeff: what’s the timeline for the Council to make a decision?.
… I’ll note that the DID spec FO process is already the second-longest delay after EME.

Jeff Jaffee: First, on recusals, this is one of the benefits of incubation, we need to see issues like this come up.

Tzviya Siegman: See see the issue on recusals.

Jeff Jaffee: Manu, you have participated in this issue.
… that issue showed up well before there was a DID FO.
… if you’ve seen some of my comments, you’ve seen my POV that conflicts should be recognized.
… and there is the other POV that all should participate.
… we won’t resolve this today.
… but it will be a community process discussion on the “director-free” topic.
… even before the DID FO came up, this is an issue to be resolved..
… on the timeline question, I don’t have a complete answer.
… the AB has not agreed to form the Council yet. Once they do….
… the Council needs to appoint chairs and then resolve the recusal issue.
… we did a Council experiment a year ago with the [missed name of issue].
… that process was felt to be rushed and wasn’t very satisfactory.
… and there are also two other FOs that must be dealt with.
… but it is appropriate to “put pressure on us”.

Brent Zundel: can we continue to the top of the hour?.

Jeff Jaffee: yes.

Daniel Burnett: We may not be the first group to go through the FO process, but if I’m going to through out a new tech deployment, I roll it out slowly.
… so something the AB should consider is whether taking up a difficult issue like this.
… especially because those who are objecting are causing a delay for an entire industry that is waiting on the result.
… so is it wise to overload the AB with other FOs.
… secondly, I want to second what Eric said about making decisions based on principles.
… within a WG, that’s the nature of the work, making decisions.

Daniel Buchner: I am excited to see the objectors solve the 40+ year chronological oracle problem for us - they can inform Chaum, Back, and others that there was an easy solution right there, all along..

Daniel Burnett: I have been involved with the work here at W3C for over two decades.
… and sometimes the only way to make a decision is to decide to postpone some of the work.
… one of the things that is most challenging in this case is for organizations who did not participate in this work to make FOs about work they would like to see done.
… some of these issues are for future work, but they should not hold back version 1.
… to ask yourselves, “Under what situations should work be held up when the work accomplished its charter and FOs should apply to future work”..

Ryan Grant: +1 to quality of objection being weighed against effect on industry. thank you for being so clear, burn.

Jeff Jaffee: With regard to overloading the AB, I understand, but this is also a good idea to test the Council with a difficult question..
… as far as the issue that there is a whole community that the work that is “frozen”, I think we can share with that community where it stands..
… that there are specific issues that have been raised..
… people have raised questions about interoperability because DID methods is not in scope.
… and folks outside of the community have pointed out that there is real market interop.
… and also the questions about sustainability.
… so all of these issues should be brought to the Council.
… within the IETF, people implement RFCs all the time before they are final.
… I don’t want to soften how much I like RECs..
… but I hope that implementers can feel more comfortable..
… with regard to the specific objectors, I would prefer not to comment on that..
… I think we need to go with the process..

Daniel Burnett: I wasn’t commenting on who objected. I was commenting on non-participants making FOs..

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: We have no control over the scope of the objections; we are not the objectors..

Daniel Buchner: +1 to Tall Ted.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: that could have been accomplished on the call between the formal objectors and DID WG leadership, but that call did not accomplish anything other than restate the objections.
… the only way to move forward is to read and understand all the deliverables of the DID WG.
… this time frame is hideous.
… many of the 100+ DID methods were created before the DID spec was finished, so it is not something where interop should be expected..

Tzviya Siegman: I had to miss the start of the call, sorry.
… I sent an email earlier today that agreed that tackling such a complex FO by the Council is problematic.
… the recusal issue is also a complex issue to solve.
… we are really interested in getting perspectives about this issue.
… some people feel like we should have gotten that input a long time ago.
… I would like to get input from everyone about this process and how it can be improved.
… having it be perceived as fair is the most important outcome.

Phil Archer: I wanted to thank Jeff and Tzviya for their input and working on this. GS1 is totally behind this..

Eric Siow: I am very conscious of us setting a precedent here, and I want to set a good precedent..
… we have done this once before on “Devices and ___” [missed second part] and we heard from both sides.
… so please plan to come to the Council and provide compelling arguments and evidence, especially on principles.

Brent Zundel: time for one or two more questions.

Ryan Grant: My request to the Council that they help us narrow the scope appropriately..
… the question of whether “proof of work” is actually in scope because it is such a large topic..
… one way to narrow that scope is to look at the specific scope of the DID spec.
… or to say that this issue has been adequately addressed in the text of our deliverables.
… one way or another, I need to know what the scope is..

Jeff Jaffee: If there is a Council, there will definitely be a process of having input to the Council. The DID WG can decide how to do that..

Tzviya Siegman: See for documentation that exists.

Eric Siow: I can see a process whereby both parties have a chance to present their case to the Council, and then both parties have a chance to respond to the others..
… and the Council could provide feedback to the scope issue.

Ryan Grant: +1 to Eric_Siow, a two round council meeting would help immensely..

Daniel Buchner: Perhaps we could have an objective waterline for all technology we allow in the Web? For example: “No technology must be in any way related to any hardware/software process that results in any greater than 1/20 of the emissions from clothes dryer energy consumption” (a personal favorite of mine).

Orie Steele: I just wanted to say that I’m very grateful to have the opportunity to respond to the feedback we’ve had both on process and the objections..
… What has been challenging with regard to some of the concerns raised is that these FOs were raised at the very end of the process..
… so it’s important that we figure out where do we apply the feedback and does it mostly apply to a future charter.
… I also wanted to note the mix of the technical feedback, when mixed with separate sustainability issues, has made it difficult to be clear about how to respond effectively..
… we will contine to respond as effectively as we can.

Kyle Den Hartog: We’ve been talking in hypothetical “if” a Council is formed. What happens if it’s not?.

Jeff Jaffee: It is the responsibility of the Director. So the Council will only make a recommendation to the Director..
… if no Council is formed, then the Director will delegate it to W3M to review and make a recommendation..
… if W3M has a clear decision, they can publish that..
… however if W3M feels there is an aspect that needs the Director’s attention, then they will involve the Director..
… that has happened a few times..
… now let me seque into a summary..
… as I said at the outset, FOs make for stronger specifications, even if they can be frustrated..
… I really do appreciate that this group feels they have checked all the boxes and want to get the DID 1.0 spec out as a REC.
… despite the strong feelings on all sides, I like that the discussion has been constructive.
… so I hope we can get through this and move on to the next stages of the work, including DID method interoperability.
… so I hope this process does clear the way for that work to happen.

Brent Zundel: I want to thank Jeff and Eric and Tzviya for coming..

Ryan Grant: +1 thanks jeff.

Daniel Burnett: Yes, many thanks Jeff (and others) for joining today.

Daniel Buchner: Let’s go Zakrandon!.

3. Rubric - prep for future deep dive.

Brent Zundel: We anticipate in future calls to do deep dives into Rubric discussions. The purpose of this block of time is to queue up some topics that we want to deep-dive into.
… Let’s get some of those issues recorded that we want to work on.

Manu Sporny: The resource usage of DID records, it’s clear we need some guidance on that in the Rubric document.
… But don’t try to “villify” certain resource usage patterns..
… This also came up in the Web-of-Things call this morning.

Kyle Den Hartog: One of the things we found in did:web, is try to have a deeper understanding of who participates in it.
… We should structure scope in a more clear way.

Orie Steele: +1 lets be careful no to use language that maligns technologies, and associates them with environmental destruction or criminal activity… we should focus on how much power they cost, and what properties we get from that cost..

Kyle Den Hartog: E.g. is US gov in-scope, since they have jurisdiction over ICANN and root servers.
… So the Rubric should explore who participates.

Manu Sporny: +1 to make the discussion a cost-benefit discussion..

Adrian Gropper: Does the Rubric need to consider interoperability as a criterion. Are there going to be different grades of interoperability between methods?.

Ryan Grant: I think any DID method that allows other implementations to parse their DID document properly, is mostly covered by the DID Core specification itself.
… There are various levels of interop. The most basic is the data model..
… Once you have the data back, you know what to do with it..
… Beyond that level, there are many different options on how to get the DID document, as defined by the DID method..

jyasskin: I think https://w3c.github.io/did-rubric/#alternatives does cover interoperability? It’s not very fleshed out, but the outline’s there and good..

Ryan Grant: One additional tool could be the Universal Resolver, but you don’t have to use that..
… Some methods allow queries against external nodes.
… This is about assignment of trust, so you have a similarly spectrum of being able to interop quickly.
… Addressing all TAG Ethical Web Principles is the right way to provide guidance, for environmental aspects as well..
… DID methods and their reviewers may see nuances of DID methods that are stronger in some points, and weaker in other points..

Manu Sporny: jyasskin, yep, “substitutability” is a big consideration in the ecosystem… and we do need to flesh that out more, perhaps even within DID Methods… like, can you substitite resolvers, etc..

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: There could be multiple kinds/levels of interop, so multiple interop Qs in the rubric. I see no reason not to raise whichever ones you think of as issues (for potential criteria) against rubric.

Joe Andrieu: +1 to addressing all TAG Ethical Web Principles as criteria. How do we align with those principles when evaluating DID methods. This could be one of our deep-dive topics..

Drummond Reed: +1 to making sure the Rubric also includes evaluating to W3C principles, including ethical principles.

Joe Andrieu: There isn’t an interoperability criterion. We are evaluating did:web did:v1, did:ion. All three have had things that taught us how the current criteria are broken..
… E.g. applying some criteria to did:web has been confusing. This could be a deep-dive topic..
… One of the issues of interoperability is explicitly listing the types of verification methods or relationships. E.g. some DID methods don’t support verification methods, so there may be less interoperability..

Kyle Den Hartog: One thing we learned is that method specification interoperability isn’t necessarily granular enough, there are also implementation-specific questions..
… I.e., don’t just evaluate the DID method spec, but also a specific implementation..

Joe Andrieu: +1 to new criteria about implementations.

Adrian Gropper: The sense in which I meant interoperability has to do with substitutability. This can give individuals more meaningful choice. The Rubric should reflect such issues of substitutability, as one aspect of interoperability..

Charles Lehner: Is the SRI review still under consideration for criteria?.

Charles Lehner: thanks.

4. DID Method Registration.

See github issue did-spec-registries#83.

Kyle Den Hartog: #83 is the ongoing issue about this topic.

Brent Zundel: What specifically do we have to do to make the registry process as straightforward and clear as possible, both both those who register, and for those who look at it..

Manu Sporny: This concrete proposal could address a number of challenges we have had with DID method registration.
… There are complaints that we are not being strict enough about who can register. This was by design in the beginning, we wanted a low barrier of entry..
… This has created a problem that people can’t tell the difference between DID method registrations..

Drummond Reed: The challenge is QUALITY.

Manu Sporny: What are the “good” ones that have way more implementation experience than e.g. someone’s weekend project..
… We don’t want to put a huge burden on those who register either..
… If we do an attribute-based registration process. E.g. This DID method has a specification, this specification has an implementation, it has a testnet, etc. These are clear yes/no questions..

Brent Zundel: this did method passed the did core test suite?.

Manu Sporny: If we do that, we can annotate the DID method registry in an objective way.
… We could add tiny JSON files to registrations that are used to render tables.
… This could make the process more manageable and objective..

jyasskin: +1 manu.

Kyle Den Hartog: +1 to manu, that’s a really good starting point.

Ryan Grant: +1 to attribute-based registration process.

Kyle Den Hartog: My frustration is that it doesn’t get us the full way there to decide what’s a “quality” DID method..
… There is a need for better specifications. Many methods have security considerations that are a single sentence. Implementation guidelines sometimes just point to a single library..
… Rather than us deciding on quality, we lean on standards organizations that have WGs that can look at methods..
… E.g. if a certain method has gone through a standardization process, it achieves a higher status..

Drummond Reed: Encourage people to contribute to the Github issue..
… We should have a process that is as objective as possible, but it should also have an objective quality bar. E.g. to simply point to a specification, some of those are very lacking..

Brent Zundel: maybe the JSON could also point to a rubric evaluation.

Manu Sporny: +1 to that, brent.

Drummond Reed: We wanted to be inclusive in the beginning. I’ve been an advocate of keeping the current table, but start a new table that has a baseline bar. You must revise your specification for all DID Core 1.0 requirements, and you can’t handwave at Security+Privacy Considerations..

Kyle Den Hartog: +1, that seems like a potential quality metric if we’re not going to be able to achieve consensus on the reliance of standards bodies.

Kristina Yasuda: Agree with how Manu framed the problem statement, and +1 to Kyle that we need to do more that the initial proposal. there is a need for an organized structured process/body of ppl reviewing what gets accepted as a DID method..

Drummond Reed: I don’t think it’s going to be a large burdens, but you should only go into the new table if you are 1.0 compliant..
… Then our attention should be on objective characteristics on which registry maintainers could make objective decisions..
… DID method authors should be free to standardize wherever they want. We should encourage the process of maturing DID methods, so that the market can compete..

Orie Steele: I agree with some of what drummond said. Other things make me nervous. In Privacy+Security Considerations, there is sometimes only one sentence. Sometimes that’s okay, and sometimes it is not..
… My experience is with JOSE/COSE registries. Merges into them are controlled by a set of individuals who establish consensus. The entries of terms points to a specification, which doesn’t have to be at a specific standards organization..
… We’re now at a point where we need a larger amount of editors, with a higher number of required consents before we accept something..
… The JOSE/COSE registry is very successful, I hope we can be like that..
… The number #1 way of improving quality is to add editors, and require all to approve..

Kristina Yasuda: really well-said, Orie..

Manu Sporny: I wanted to respond to Kyle. I’m nodding in agreement with a lot. The original proposal is something we can execute on today..

Drummond Reed: I mostly agree with Orie, but I don’t think every registry maintainer should be required to approve every listing. Just a threshold..

Manu Sporny: With that proposal we will end up with either the same document or a better one that has labels e.g..
… We don’t have to strife for perfection right now.
… The proposal is such that it doesn’t matter if we have 1 or 2 tables. We can generate them programmatically based on the data..

Drummond Reed: +1 to generating the table(s) programmatically.

Manu Sporny: We have a concrete proposal in front of us that can give us immediate improvements that we can continue to iterate on.

Orie Steele: drummond, we need acountability, otherwise a maintainer can never approve things… and still be listed as an editor… we need the burden to be shared equally..

Ryan Grant: Requiring validation from a standards organization is a difficult bar for some decentralized protocols..

Daniel Buchner: +1 to Ryan’s comment.

Ryan Grant: Some decentralized protocols are based on VDRs that disrupt traditional institutions..
… I’m a strong proponent of manu ‘s objective criteria.

Eric Siow: This is a question that hopefully can educate me. Is this issue related to one of the objections (diverging instead of converging)?.

Ryan Grant: Eric_Siow, I think it is the essence of one of the objections..

Eric Siow: If that’s the issue, then if the group can define a way to come up with objective methods, that might be helpful..

jyasskin: +1 that non-standardized methods should be acceptable on the registry, just distinguished from ones that match manu’s and kdenhartog’s criteria..

Orie Steele: limiting registration is not an objective, imo…. letting the market pick methods is..

Kyle Den Hartog: Responding to manu, I wholeheartedly agree that editors should be able to handle this in a programmatic way. Managing this is a tragedy of the commons problem. Leaning on programmatic approach is better..
… A good litmus test of what is “high quality” is “can I produce an interoperable implementation just by reading the spec?”. The test suite can help with this. Being able to lean on Rubric evaluations also gets us close to where I want us to get..
… We should reach a high bar, without excluding methods that can’t go through a standards body..

Orie Steele: See this IANA registry for comparison….

Drummond Reed: Wanted to Eric_Siow ‘s really good question. It’s easy to look at a registry with ≈114 registered methods and seeing divergence. I want to make it clear that comparing DID methods to URIs/URNs, that comparison makes sense in some parts (URI schemes, URN namespaces, DID methods), but they are also different..

Daniel Buchner: +1 to Drummond.

Drummond Reed: This design was intentional. Every DID method is an attempt to provide a verifiable identifier using any combination of cryptography and VDR. There are many ways of doing that. We wanted to accelerate and standardize the competition. We built an abstraction layer on top of all of them, that’s the primary reason of the specification..

Ned Smith: We have a similar challenge working with the sea of cryptographic algorithms. Different algorithms have different purposes so they are grouped by intended function. Beyond that specs need to define negotiation of which algorithm to use..

Manu Sporny: +1 to what Drummond is saying..

Drummond Reed: We want the market to choose and let the best DID methods rise to the top. This is different from encouraging divergence..

Eric Siow: Can you standardize the ones that have some objective measure (e.g. widely implemented and use), vs. those that are not widely used could be standardized later?.

Drummond Reed: I wanted to talk about standardization. The existence of a standard (effort) associated with a DID method is another one of those objective criteria. I want to see W3C standardize more DID methods, but some DID methods are also going to happen elsewhere..
… I don’t think you should HAVE to standardize a DID method..

Joe Andrieu: +1 to decentralized innovation.

Drummond Reed: The marketplace can develop DID methods anywhere they want, but we want an objective process for adding them to the registry. If there is a standard, then we will have a way to point to it..

Ryan Grant: See relevant DID Rubric issue to discuss standardization (whether or not the DID WG requires anything here).

Drummond Reed: Once we improve the quality of the registry, that will help the market make its decisions..

Kyle Den Hartog: +1 to not requiring them. It’s worth stating to that while I believe a standards body can be a way to display quality it’s not the only one. Another example metric that can help evaluate quality is number of implementations submitted to a test suite.

Orie Steele: See the charter issue raised here.

Drummond Reed: There are also many URI schemes..

Manu Sporny: We optimized the registry to learn early about DID methods that are being created. We wanted to know about DID methods that are being created..
… We can provide signals in the registry that tell you whether or not a DID method has reached a certain level of maturity..

jyasskin: The IETF has a history of putting too high a bar on acceptance to some of their registries, and I believe they mostly regret that. So +1 to manu..

Manu Sporny: I want to push back hard against making it harder for people to register DID methods. It should be easy to sort by criteria that matter to people..

Daniel Burnett: +1, we want to ensure that experimental did methods can get registered.

Manu Sporny: not if we make it all optional for registration :).

Orie Steele: We can’t sort on criteria, unless we require people to provide them, which will make it harder for people to register..

Manu Sporny: The only mandatory thing for registration is a spec that meets DID Core… everything else is optional..

Drummond Reed: I mostly want to see the baseline criteria for registration be a v1.0 compliant DID method specification. All other registration attributes should be optional..

Orie Steele: The challenge I see is that the registry is attempting to do more than just being a registry. See JOSE/COSE which is simple. If we add criteria, it will not just be about adding a link to a spec, it will also about additional tasks for the editors..

Philippe le Hégaret: See “The Registry Track”.

Orie Steele: To some degree, the Rubric has begun to capture some of the things we were also envisioning for the registry..

Drummond Reed: +1 to the DID Spec Registries NOT being the place that you go to for advice and guidance on selection of DID methods. We want the market to compete on offering those services..

Orie Steele: It might be better to keep it a very boring registry, and refer to the Rubric for a better way to add comparision, sorting, etc..

Ryan Grant: Orie: +1 to both adding a column allowing one to note a standards process underway (or achieved) in the registry, as well as to speaking to this more in the Rubric.

Drummond Reed: Yes, I like the idea of adding a column for being able to point to one or more published evaluations against the Rubric..

Orie Steele: maybe we can point from the registry to the rubric, instead of expanding the registry requirements, and move that consideration to the rubric..

Brent Zundel: I think we got some good data points. We seem to have agreement around a desire for registration to remain simple, to benefit those who are making those registrations happen (the editors).
… But we do need some way of making the registry easier to consume. A number of directions were proposed, I think we will be able to come to consensus..
… Thanks all for coming, we had some great conversations. Next week we will be back to our regular schedule of meetings..
… We invite you to join the DID WG..

Ryan Grant: thanks everyone!.

Brent Zundel: Thanks to scribes, thanks to all, see you next week..