15:39:02 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
15:39:02 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/01/21-did-irc
15:39:04 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:39:05 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
15:40:37 <ivan> eeting: DID Working Group Telco
15:40:38 <ivan> Chair: burn
15:40:38 <ivan> Date: 2020-01-21
15:40:38 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2020Jan/0024.html
15:40:38 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2020-01-21: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2020Jan/0024.html
15:44:11 <burn> burn has joined #did
15:45:28 <burn> present+
15:45:39 <ivan> present+
15:48:28 <jonathan_holt> jonathan_holt has joined #did
15:57:53 <ken> ken has joined #did
15:59:02 <chriswinc> present+
15:59:50 <ken> present+
15:59:58 <dlongley> present+
15:59:59 <ivan> present+ jonathan_holt
16:00:10 <rhiaro> present+
16:00:19 <agropper> agropper has joined #did
16:00:27 <justin_r> justin_r has joined #did
16:01:15 <phila> phila has joined #did
16:01:16 <justin_r> present+
16:01:19 <Eugeniu__Jolocom_> Eugeniu__Jolocom_ has joined #did
16:01:29 <Eugeniu__Jolocom_> present +
16:01:40 <Eugeniu__Jolocom_> present+
16:02:36 <ivan> present+ rhiaro
16:02:49 <chriswinc> scribe+
16:02:51 <brent> brent has joined #did
16:03:03 <brent> present+
16:03:04 <burn> Topic: Agenda Review, Introductions, Re-introductions
16:03:19 <mike-lodder> mike-lodder has joined #did
16:03:32 <mike-lodder> present+
16:03:56 <chriswinc> burn: Introductions, IPLD on agenda, prep for F2F
16:03:56 <agropper> present+
16:04:05 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
16:04:06 <chriswinc> … no new members
16:04:10 <burn> Topic: Announcements
16:04:34 <manu> present+
16:04:36 <manu> q+
16:04:41 <burn> ack manu
16:04:51 <Orie> Orie has joined #did
16:04:58 <Orie> present+
16:04:59 <chriswinc> Burn: Announcements
16:05:39 <chriswinc> Manu: DIDAuth using http requests. Some using IETF http signature spec. Consider using here
16:05:45 <manu> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2020Jan/0091.html
16:05:53 <tzviya> regrets+
16:06:03 <justin_r> q+ to clarify what the HTTP WG engagement process is
16:06:05 <ivan> q+
16:06:12 <gannan> gannan has joined #did
16:06:13 <burn> ack justin_r
16:06:13 <Zakim> justin_r, you wanted to clarify what the HTTP WG engagement process is
16:06:17 <chriswinc> … Consider participating as it may benefit us in the DID community
16:06:38 <dezell> dezell has joined #did
16:07:15 <chriswinc> justin_r: Add to Manu, http working group looking for help and those interested in implementing
16:07:16 <ivan> -> the real ietf document to read https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-richanna-http-message-signatures-00
16:07:18 <ivan> q-
16:07:48 <markus_sabadello> present+
16:08:14 <gannan> present+
16:08:20 <chriswinc> burn: Read notewell for restrictions
16:08:31 <burn> Topic: IPLD
16:08:33 <burn> https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/QmXFhzGYF27zvjNxbJNcfn226ZkJpRg2sQGRgK7JKdCKje/#/
16:08:38 <justin_r> https://ietf.org/about/note-well/
16:08:38 <drummond> drummond has joined #did
16:08:45 <drummond> present+
16:09:03 <chriswinc> burn: Main topic - IPLD with jonathan_holt. 30 minutes
16:09:29 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
16:09:31 <chriswinc> jonathan_holt: Using IPLD for DID documents
16:09:33 <ivan> -> https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/QmXFhzGYF27zvjNxbJNcfn226ZkJpRg2sQGRgK7JKdCKje/#/ Jonathan's slides
16:09:41 <chriswinc> … not IPID or IPFS
16:10:05 <kdenhartog> kdenhartog has joined #did
16:10:28 <ivan> present+ pamela
16:10:41 <chriswinc> … some concerns with JSON-LD as URL’s are mutable resources. Suceptible to DNS MITM. Also needs to call home.
16:10:49 <oliver> oliver has joined #did
16:10:52 <oliver> present+
16:10:53 <JoeAndrieu> present+
16:10:54 <ivan> present+ kyle
16:10:55 <kdenhartog> present+
16:11:01 <manu> I'd like to point out that there are mitigations for all of those concerns w/ JSON-LD :)
16:11:16 <chriswinc> … linking data through the hash of the content
16:11:56 <dlongley> I'd like to point out that none of it is specific to JSON-LD either :) ... URLs may/may not resolve to mutable resources -- that JSON-LD uses URLs is irrelevant wrt that.
16:12:02 <burn> q?
16:12:18 <chriswinc> … distributed = live on the moon with no connection. Distinct from decentralized.
16:12:23 <oliver> oliver has joined #did
16:12:30 <oliver> present+
16:13:02 <chriswinc> … each ecosystem is its own Merkle DAG
16:13:09 <chaals> chaals has joined #did
16:13:36 <chriswinc> … no central authority
16:14:18 <chriswinc> … narrow waste protocol. IPLD tries to fit this structure.
16:14:22 <dezell> present+
16:15:35 <chriswinc> … IPLD identifier is simply the has of the content. Not a location/protocol nor about dereferencing or retrieving a resource
16:15:49 <ivan> zakimn, who is here?
16:16:14 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
16:16:14 <Zakim> Present: burn, ivan, chriswinc, ken, dlongley, jonathan_holt, rhiaro, justin_r, Eugeniu__Jolocom_, brent, mike-lodder, agropper, manu, Orie, markus_sabadello, gannan, drummond,
16:16:18 <Zakim> ... pamela, oliver, JoeAndrieu, kyle, kdenhartog, dezell
16:16:18 <Zakim> On IRC I see chaals, oliver, kdenhartog, JoeAndrieu, dezell, gannan, Orie, markus_sabadello, mike-lodder, brent, Eugeniu__Jolocom_, phila, justin_r, agropper, ken, jonathan_holt,
16:16:18 <Zakim> ... burn, RRSAgent, Zakim, ivan, tzviya, chriswinc, llorllale, ChristopherA, bigbluehat, jfishback, Travis, hadleybeeman, wayne, dlehn, manu, dlongley, rhiaro, yancy, deiu
16:16:54 <chriswinc> … Components - CID, Data Model, Deterministic Serialization Formats, IPLD selectors, IPLD transformations
16:17:12 <ivan> present+ dmitriz
16:18:13 <chriswinc> … this is a self-describing data model
16:18:31 <ivan> present+ JoeAndrieu
16:19:13 <Orie> Can we get the explorer link in chat?
16:19:41 <drummond> drummond has joined #did
16:19:41 <chriswinc> … examples on explorer.ipld.io
16:20:00 <Orie> Link is dead: https://explorer.ipld.io/
16:20:19 <gannan> explore.ipld.io
16:20:42 <dlongley> +1 for a URI format (then it just works with everything else)
16:20:43 <yancy> present+
16:21:01 <chriswinc> … no “//“ as there is no authority in scheme
16:21:07 <tzviya> present+
16:21:45 <ivan> present+ ganesh
16:22:06 <chriswinc> … DID method is did:IPID
16:22:38 <chriswinc> … blockchain agnostic, public permissionless “microledger” with “sidetree”
16:22:46 <chriswinc> … no need to call home
16:22:49 <burn> q?
16:23:18 <manu> To be clear, the "//" is not an issue... the issue was that there was no URI scheme defined. If there is a URI scheme, we're all good here. :)
16:23:45 <manu> Creating a CBOR tag for this doesn't address the issue, which is that we need a URI scheme... if we have a URI scheme for IP*, we're good.
16:24:35 <justin_r> q+ to ask about cbor/json
16:24:38 <chriswinc> … can navigate natively in the JSON structure
16:24:54 <SamSmith> SamSmith has joined #did
16:25:18 <SamSmith> Q+
16:26:42 <chriswinc> … context field incudes everything needed to locally deconstruct without URL lookup
16:28:02 <Orie> We really need to fix these key id issues.... https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/131
16:28:06 <justin_r> q-
16:28:11 <justin_r> this covered my question, thanks
16:28:18 <burn> ack SamSmith
16:28:26 <ivan> present+ SamSmith
16:30:11 <identitywoman> identitywoman has joined #did
16:30:16 <chriswinc> SamSmith: Concept of verifying root of trust. Without phoning home, how is this accomplished in IPLD?  Both for integrity of data and control authority.
16:30:19 <identitywoman> present+
16:30:33 <manu> q+ to ask how we should map this slide to changes to the spec -- what should change in the spec based on this presentation?
16:30:39 <drummond> present+
16:30:58 <drummond> q?
16:31:05 <chriswinc> jonathan_holt: It is self-certifying because it is signed with the key.
16:31:08 <drummond> q+
16:31:18 <chriswinc> SamSmith: disagrees
16:31:23 <manu> q- later
16:32:20 <kdenhartog> q+
16:32:24 <burn> ack drummond
16:32:25 <chriswinc> jonathan_holt: Will talk offline with SamSmith
16:32:28 <manu> q- later
16:33:17 <chriswinc> drummond: Can you clarify? Are you wanting to have a DID doc that support CBOR?
16:33:46 <chriswinc> jonathan_holt: CBOR is the underlying format for this DID doc
16:33:46 <Orie> q+
16:33:55 <manu> q- later
16:34:06 <chriswinc> drummond: Are you willing to submit CBOR format with others?
16:34:37 <burn> ack kdenhartog
16:34:38 <chriswinc> jonathan_holt: Yes, clearer after presenting as well. On task list.
16:35:09 <chriswinc> kdenhartog: How are you handling caching?
16:35:51 <burn> ack Orie
16:35:56 <manu> q+ kdenhartog
16:35:59 <kdenhartog> I think I disconnected
16:36:21 <chriswinc> Orie: huge fan of IPLD, love the technology
16:36:47 <manu> q+ to answer how the JSON-LD document loader could work.
16:36:57 <chriswinc> … Kyle’s question related to the document loader. How many changes are required to JSON-LD to support IPLD?
16:37:17 <kimhd> kimhd has joined #did
16:37:21 <kimhd> present+
16:37:33 <kdenhartog> q-
16:37:42 <chriswinc> … How does this integrate into the JSON-LD tooling infrastructure?
16:38:43 <chriswinc> jonathon_holt: Get CBOR and get blocks using “ipfs block get"
16:39:01 <dlongley> if no one has done it yet, would be great to see an npm module that includes an IPFS document loader that does all this that people can just plug into the tools
16:39:13 <chriswinc> … for IPFS but IPLD stands on its own.
16:39:15 <burn> ack manu
16:39:15 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask how we should map this slide to changes to the spec -- what should change in the spec based on this presentation? and to answer how the JSON-LD document
16:39:18 <Zakim> ... loader could work.
16:40:25 <chriswinc> manu: We need to make sure we understand the depth of the changes required. Expectation is that if there is an URI format then we are good.
16:40:55 <justin_r> q+ to talk about cbor/json for real
16:41:30 <chriswinc> … CBOR may not work for current systems but URI would work if it is defined. If there is a URI scheme then there should be minimal work.
16:41:40 <chriswinc> … Are you asking for a change in the DID spec?
16:42:20 <manu> q+ to note that URI schemes don't need an authority (in the traditional HTTP URL sense).
16:43:03 <chriswinc> jonathon_holt: Confusion around retriving info from a central authority. DID doc should have native support for CBOR. IPLD stands on its own, and can be resolved directly.
16:43:58 <SamSmith> are Jonny's slides posted someplace
16:44:31 <burn> SamSmith, the link is in the minutes
16:44:35 <manu> I'm hearing that this may need to be taken up in the DID Resolution specification (not the DID Core spec).
16:44:35 <Orie> AFAIK these cids need to be prefixed to be URIs... ipld:<cid> ... to work with todays tooling in the same way that did documents are used today... we could check every identifier for "bafy" and not prefix it, but I don't like that...
16:44:36 <chriswinc> … IPNF key used to sign DID doc. This sets the self sovereign authority.
16:44:42 <burn> ack justin_r
16:44:42 <Zakim> justin_r, you wanted to talk about cbor/json for real
16:45:07 <SamSmith> The term self-certifying is describing a similar concept to "stands on its on" it means verifiable without resort to other authority
16:45:09 <burn> SamSmith, here's the link again: https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/QmXFhzGYF27zvjNxbJNcfn226ZkJpRg2sQGRgK7JKdCKje/#/
16:45:17 <mike-lodder> this is why I think we need an abstract data model
16:45:24 <mike-lodder> +1 to Johnny
16:45:44 <chriswinc> justin_r: cbor is a superset of JSON. Translation should be trivial in this contrained workspace.
16:45:48 <manu> We /do/ have an abstract data model currently, but the spec probably isn't very clear about that :)
16:45:53 <burn> ack manu
16:45:53 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that URI schemes don't need an authority (in the traditional HTTP URL sense).
16:46:29 <chriswinc> manu: URI schemes do not require an authority
16:47:04 <JoeAndrieu> q?
16:47:08 <ivan> +1 to manu
16:47:12 <burn> agreed, mike-lodder.  We need a proper abstract data model.  JSON may not be the best language for that.
16:47:18 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say DIDs do need an authority
16:47:27 <dlongley> +1 to burn
16:47:45 <SamSmith> +1 did need authority. Its the root of trust
16:47:46 <mike-lodder> +1 to burn, I'd support anything else that we can use for an abstract data model
16:47:48 <chriswinc> … You don’t need the “//“ or an authority. There is a misunderstanding that this is a new concern.
16:48:12 <burn> +1 manu.  The URL scheme defines the rest of the string.  HTTP defines an authority section using //, but that is not a requirement for all URL schemes.
16:48:13 <drummond> +1 to a proper abstract data model, in whatever notation we decide is best
16:48:45 <dlongley> also, the argument that we should ensure we don't define anything that conflicts with JSON so that it will work in both CBOR and JSON (as CBOR is a superset) can also be used to say we shouldn't define anything that conflicts with JSON-LD (as JSON is a superset) ... so it works with all three.
16:48:52 <SamSmith> Integrity by itself is not a sufficient root-of-trust. Non-repudiability provides a root-of-trust via consistent attribution not just integrity
16:48:54 <burn> q?
16:48:59 <chriswinc> … Is there a miscommunitation between URI schemes and “//authority?”
16:49:40 <burn> manu, queue ...
16:49:42 <chriswinc> jonathon_holt: On point for creating “IPFS:” not “IPFS://“
16:49:44 <manu> q+
16:50:18 <burn> ack JoeAndrieu
16:50:18 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say DIDs do need an authority
16:50:23 <chriswinc> … IPLD is ephemeral. Narrow waste protocol.
16:50:35 <JoeAndrieu> Many URI schemes include a hierarchical element for a naming    authority so that governance of the name space defined by the    remainder of the URI is delegated to that authority (which may, in    turn, delegate it further).
16:50:50 <Orie> ipld (is a namespace, and is an authority)
16:51:00 <dlongley> notes that this shouldn't be a "debate", there's a definition for a URI, it's a fact.
16:51:07 <burn> ack manu
16:51:14 <chriswinc> JoeAndrieu: IRC3986 reference. DID authority for this will be IPFS. Not concerned with “//“
16:51:19 <chriswinc> jonathon_holt: Agree
16:51:21 <SamSmith> But for decentralized web we want the IPID to be the authority
16:51:27 <SamSmith> not IPFS
16:51:42 <Orie> +1 to manu, no need to change anything as long as CIDs are prefixed.
16:51:47 <dlongley> +1
16:51:49 <ivan> +1 to manu
16:51:51 <burn> good point, Joe.  **Many** URI schemes delegate further namespace management to an authority, and the DID scheme does so
16:52:00 <chriswinc> Manu: Believes we don’t need to change the DID spec after this discussion. Is this corred?
16:52:04 <burn> q?
16:52:24 <chriswinc> jonathon_holt: IPFS is an application that sits on top of IPLD
16:53:09 <burn> q+ to remind folks to present  plus themselves
16:53:15 <drummond> Note that the link to Jonathan's deck goes (in my current browser, Chrome, anyway) to a static page. Is that the intention?
16:53:17 <Orie> names are hard...
16:53:48 <chriswinc> … really about how to serialize cbor so that tags are semantically interoperable
16:53:50 <manu> q+ to note that I'm still concerned we're miscommunicating... this isn't about CBOR? Or we can do JSON-LD in CBOR.
16:54:26 <burn> ack burn
16:54:26 <Zakim> burn, you wanted to remind folks to present  plus themselves
16:54:29 <burn> ack manu
16:54:29 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that I'm still concerned we're miscommunicating... this isn't about CBOR? Or we can do JSON-LD in CBOR.
16:54:32 <ivan> s/Note that the link to Jonathan's deck goes (in my current browser, Chrome, anyway) to a static page. Is that the intention?//
16:54:39 <Orie> q+ to discuss CBOR is not the interoperability level... IPLD / JSON-LD is...
16:54:57 <chriswinc> manu: We have made progress but concerned about lingering miscommunication for CBOR
16:55:30 <chriswinc> … how do we map this into current methods
16:55:40 <burn> q?
16:55:58 <chriswinc> … can we use a JSON-LD implementation of CBOR to avoid writing a translator
16:56:17 <chriswinc> … could write a CBOR-LD but resources to do this are sparse.
16:56:47 <burn> ack Orie
16:56:47 <Zakim> Orie, you wanted to discuss CBOR is not the interoperability level... IPLD / JSON-LD is...
16:56:57 <chriswinc> jonathon_holt: Should we all be using CBOR natively? How do we make this human readable?
16:57:28 <SamSmith> Is not CBOR described by CDDL which is Human readable?
16:57:50 <mike-lodder> SamSmith, I think when they say Human readable, they also mean the data content
16:57:55 <burn> q?
16:58:06 <burn> I am about to freeze the queue
16:58:19 <SamSmith> @mike  so we need to have human readable versions of the data values
16:58:19 <burn> zakim, close the queue
16:58:19 <Zakim> ok, burn, the speaker queue is closed
16:58:22 <chriswinc> Orie: Recommendation to not discuss IPFS as it is too high level for this group. Real topic is how to make linked data models interoperable.
16:58:22 <chriswinc> … Full interop if IPLD: is used
16:58:42 <chriswinc> … CBOR is not the interop layer. IPLD is the interop layer.
16:59:23 <chriswinc> jonathon_holt: Paper submitted to RWoT. Feedback requested.
16:59:27 <manu> Yes, +1 thanks Jonathan :)
16:59:34 <JoeAndrieu> s/RWoT/RWOT/
16:59:43 <drummond> Jonathan, this was very excellent. Thanks!
16:59:48 <justin_r> +1 thanks
17:00:06 <chriswinc> ivan: no call next week.
17:00:15 <ken> ken has left #did
17:00:15 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
17:00:15 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been burn, ivan, chriswinc, ken, dlongley, jonathan_holt, rhiaro, justin_r, Eugeniu__Jolocom_, brent, mike-lodder, agropper, manu, Orie,
17:00:18 <Zakim> ... markus_sabadello, gannan, drummond, pamela, oliver, JoeAndrieu, kyle, kdenhartog, dezell, dmitriz, yancy, tzviya, ganesh, SamSmith, identitywoman, kimhd
17:00:18 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:00:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/01/21-did-minutes.html Zakim
17:00:20 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:00:24 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did
17:00:34 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
17:00:34 <RRSAgent> I see no action items