15:24:47 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
15:24:47 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/02/11-did-irc
15:24:50 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:24:51 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
15:24:58 <ivan> Meeting: DID Working Group Telco
15:24:59 <ivan> Chair: brent
15:24:59 <ivan> Date: 2020-02-11
15:24:59 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2020Feb/0015.html
15:24:59 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2020-02-11: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2020Feb/0015.html
15:25:00 <ivan> Regrets+ selfissued, phila
15:46:17 <yancy> Regrets+
15:51:48 <chaals> chaals has joined #did
15:55:01 <burn> burn has joined #did
15:55:55 <burn> present+
15:56:52 <joel> joel has joined #did
15:56:55 <burn> regrets+ selfissued, phila
15:57:01 <joel> present+
15:57:04 <burn> scribe+
15:57:31 <burn> Topic: Agenda Review, Introductions, Re-introductions
15:57:59 <chriswinc> chriswinc has joined #did
16:00:35 <manu> present+
16:00:44 <Justin> Justin has joined #did
16:00:46 <dlongley> present+
16:00:50 <Justin> present+
16:01:17 <chriswinc> present+
16:01:34 <brent> brent has joined #did
16:01:46 <brent> present+
16:02:10 <Irene__Jolocom_> Irene__Jolocom_ has joined #did
16:02:14 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
16:02:15 <Justin> present+
16:02:16 <markus_sabadello> present+
16:02:16 <Orie> Orie has joined #did
16:02:20 <Irene__Jolocom_> present+
16:02:20 <ivan> present+
16:02:28 <agropper> agropper has joined #did
16:02:32 <Orie> present+
16:02:36 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #did
16:02:45 <dmitriz> present+
16:02:47 <agropper> present+
16:03:02 <ivan> scribe+ manu
16:03:17 <burn> brent: (reviews agenda)
16:04:13 <burn> ... any changes to the agenda?  (crickets)
16:04:16 <Eugeniu_Rusu_Jolocom> Eugeniu_Rusu_Jolocom has joined #did
16:04:42 <ivan> q+
16:04:46 <Identitywoman> Identitywoman has joined #did
16:05:08 <ivan> q-
16:05:10 <burn> joel: from advanced research at USAA, working on identity and related topics, now a member of W3C (and shortly the working group)
16:05:44 <burn> ... waiting on sumita to add me
16:06:01 <burn> Topic: F2F review
16:06:15 <manu> brent: This is a review of the Amsterdam F2F meeting that just happened.
16:06:21 <Eugeniu_Rusu_Jolocom> present+
16:06:29 <manu> burn: This is going to be a very brief summary.
16:06:42 <ivan> present+ joel
16:06:43 <manu> burn: We began with a lot of background topics - one of the first was IoT use case.
16:07:13 <manu> burn: Sam Smith talked to us about IoT and needs there... talked about use of DIDs, again based on comments from Sam Smith, Brent presented security issues around DIDs, you can look at slides (getting that link now).
16:07:24 <agropper> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1XI5rrEdBUSYd2tW07GfzOjBkvgKmfeKQyh95Ekl-u8o/edit#slide=id.g76abf93741_68_0
16:08:00 <manu> burn: Then we covered possible DID Document links formats... wasn't just JSON and JSON-LD... also included CBOR, PDF was also discussed (widely used in legal space, lots of interest wrt. PDFs of DID Documents)... we'd need to know how that maps.
16:08:28 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #did
16:08:41 <drummond> drummond has joined #did
16:08:44 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
16:08:44 <Zakim> Present: burn, joel, manu, dlongley, Justin, chriswinc, brent, markus_sabadello, Irene__Jolocom_, ivan, Orie, dmitriz, agropper, Eugeniu_Rusu_Jolocom
16:08:45 <drummond> present+
16:08:47 <Zakim> On IRC I see drummond, tzviya, Identitywoman, Eugeniu_Rusu_Jolocom, dmitriz, agropper, Orie, markus_sabadello, Irene__Jolocom_, brent, Justin, chriswinc, joel, burn, RRSAgent,
16:08:47 <Zakim> ... Zakim, ivan, llorllale, dlehn_, bigbluehat, jfishback, ChristopherA, Travis, deiu, wayne, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, manu, dlongley, yancy
16:09:03 <manu> burn: We also talked about extensbility for DID Documents, what are the ways in which people commonly extend JSON using registries and then looked at JSON-LD, since that's an extensibility mechanism for JSON. The intent was on making sure everyone had same background/knowledge of possibilities on extensibility of JSON documents... registries, JSON-LD, etc.
16:09:19 <ChristopherA> present+
16:09:25 <brent> q?
16:09:32 <ken> ken has joined #did
16:09:33 <manu> burn: The key two points for discussion were extensibility and interoperability.
16:09:54 <ken> present+
16:10:03 <ivan> present+ daniel
16:10:04 <manu> burn: We had a long discussion on those two topics - looking at different kinds/levels of interop, all the way from none, to abstract data model, all the way to same syntax.
16:10:26 <manu> burn: There was agreement on interop on being able to do loss-less conversation... exactly what lossless means is not clear, but we'll get to that.
16:11:08 <manu> burn: We also talked about metadata, the challenge there is that everyone has a different idea of what metadata is. Everytime the Chairs have heard the group talk about this, people say "there is data" and there is "metadata", but there are disagreements on number of categories... we don't even agree on categories.
16:12:07 <manu> burn: The intent of the discussion was to write down potential metadata items. Something where you're not sure where it should go - not trying to agree on whether a particular property is metadata, but cataloging what types of information we're interested in... how was it generated, DID Controller, DID Resolution? It turned out to be a useful exercise.
16:12:23 <manu> burn: We are tracking this work in a document (link to be placed in here later).
16:12:45 <manu> burn: We are just trying to catalog.
16:12:58 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
16:13:04 <JoeAndrieu> present+
16:13:31 <manu> burn: Next big item was the "Grand Compromise", what we were leading up to - goal was to have extensibility and interoperability across JSON, JSON-LD, and CBOR. We had a fruitful discussion here, lots could be said, tried to summarize on list... folks might cringe, but I think this is where we are.
16:14:23 <manu> burn: The suggestion is that in any given representation, if you're just working in JSON, or JSON-LD, or CBOR... you can extend in any way you wish. In JSON, you can extend by just adding properties... however, ther eis no guarantee of lossless interop unless you ALSO add your property into a registry.
16:14:40 <dlongley> s/ther eis/there is/
16:14:52 <sumita> sumita has joined #did
16:14:58 <manu> burn: There is a registry that holds the information necessary for an extension such that it can be mapped to other representations and back. For example, if you extend JSON and add to registry, you also have to provide a JSON-LD context to ensure lossless conversion.
16:15:07 <sumita> present+
16:15:23 <manu> burn: This in no way limits someones ability to do an extension... but the second you want LOSSLESS GLOBAL INTEROP, you need to use the registry.
16:15:45 <manu> burn: Yes, there are details that need to be worked out... but that was basically the grand compromise. At that point, the group felt they could move forward.
16:16:21 <manu> burn: Once we got consensus on that... we talked about document structure and refactoring, based on work done at F2F based on work done by Drummond, we just needed to restructure based on the decisions made at F2F.
16:16:30 <dbuc> dbuc has joined #did
16:16:53 <JoeAndrieu> q
16:17:25 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to mention service endpoints v matrix parameters
16:17:26 <manu> burn: Moving on to matrix parameters, there was a group of people that felt we need them and others that felt we didn't. Those that feel like we need matrix parameters, need to come up with use cases. Those that feel like we do not need matrix parameters, need to explain how the pro-matrix-parameters folks use cases can be solved w/o matrix parameters.
16:17:35 <manu> burn: So both groups need to do some work.
16:17:49 <dlongley> +1 to requiring use case and to requiring people to show how it can be done without matrix parameters if that is argued
16:18:03 <dlongley> (i think that's the right approach for all of these sorts of issues)
16:18:34 <manu> burn: We talked about DID Resolution work because there is a relationship to the work we're doing - it's not clear that we'll move faster if the DID Resolution work will move into this group because it's many of the same people. There are some Charter/Scope/IPR issues around that. However, there are some people that believe that this group should define the contract between DID Resolution and work we have control over in this group.
16:18:37 <Identitywoman> present+
16:19:03 <jonathan_holt> jonathan_holt has joined #did
16:19:17 <jonathan_holt> present+ jonathan_holt
16:19:48 <manu> burn: Not everyone agrees on that, but it's a topic of discussion. That section could be done as a non-standards-track NOTE - same as rubrics, it doesn't tie us to schedule, no IPR, allowing document to progress, and making it simple to pull it in as a standards-track item if we can recharter WG to do that. Ivan mentioned that having that work as an information note would provide additional incentive to W3C to bring it in as a charter work item.
16:19:54 <manu> burn: Did I miss anythign major?
16:19:55 <manu> q+
16:20:09 <ivan> s/anythign/anything/
16:20:16 <Justin> q+
16:20:17 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
16:20:18 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention service endpoints v matrix parameters
16:20:27 <chriswin_> chriswin_ has joined #did
16:20:31 <dbuc> q+
16:20:46 <manu> JoeAndrieu: There was some confusion on matrix parameters... service specs got bundled into that - folks that weren't there, might be worth noting for them, we also have included service endpoints in that discussion.
16:20:48 <brent> ack manu
16:21:02 <burn> manu: juan c wrote up a good perspective on the f2f meeting
16:21:08 <manu> manu: Juan wrote up a good article on the F2F meeting - https://medium.com/spherity/worldwide-web-consortiums-w3c-did-working-group-meeting-bf6c8cef1751
16:21:15 <chriswinc> chriswinc has joined #did
16:21:25 <burn> ... may be useful for people who tweet, etc.
16:21:27 <brent> ack Justin
16:22:03 <burn> Justin: for extensibility compromise, don't be worried.  we are trying to solve what interop means for this group and this spec.
16:22:05 <manu> Justin: For the extensibility compromise, one alarm that I saw in the channel - one of the things we discussed is that we're really trying to solve the definition of "What interop means for the group" and we need to clarify in text.
16:22:15 <manu> Justin: Dan's excellent summary was too short to capture that.
16:22:20 <burn> ... we need that written down.  Dan's summary doesn't capture all the subtle details.
16:22:35 <burn> ... /me I thought I was
16:22:54 <brent> ack dbuc
16:23:14 <Orie> justin: interop is hard, we need to define it in text.
16:23:53 <Yue_> Yue_ has joined #did
16:23:56 <burn> dbuc: question on matrix params.  if i want to do something in 2 months, can i just use an obfuscated URL parameter?
16:23:56 <Justin> I had a good feeling of what we mean as "interop" when we left the F2F -- in terms of what I'm allowed to do and what I can expect when I plug in two unrelated off-the-shelf things that are both compliant
16:24:12 <markus_sabadello> q+
16:24:27 <burn> ... are URL parameters still in, or are they out?
16:25:03 <burn> ... can i just use URL parameters without reservation
16:25:07 <manu> q+ to answer dbuc.
16:25:38 <burn> ack markus_sabadello
16:25:40 <drummond> Daniel, the short answer is that the questions around matrix parameters have still not been settled. We want to get there ASAP.
16:26:08 <burn> markus_sabadello: after f2f joe and i have assignment to work on google doc to describe a use case unique to matrix params
16:26:16 <dbuc> OK, so I was hoping to get a "Yeah, totally fine, URL params are perfectly safe and you can trust that nothing about them will change from under you"
16:26:18 <burn> ... joe and I will share with group when ready
16:26:20 <burn> q?
16:26:26 <burn> ack manu
16:26:26 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to answer dbuc.
16:26:33 <burn> q+
16:26:33 <dbuc> It's getting down to decision time for us, so I MUST make a decision here
16:27:04 <burn> manu: i doubt the group will remove query params.  you could hack something and it might be what we do if we remove matrix params.
16:27:06 <dbuc> OK, thank you Manu!
16:27:16 <burn> ... pretty sure that won't go away as option.
16:27:20 <burn> q?
16:27:25 <burn> ack burn
16:27:30 <Orie> If MS shipped matrix params... they would not got away either ;)
16:27:30 <manu> burn: Time to move on :)
16:27:55 <manu> brent: Agree, we need to move on.
16:28:08 <ivan> Topic: possible new repos
16:28:14 <burn> Topic: New repos: Registry, Impl. Guide
16:28:15 <gannan> gannan has joined #did
16:28:32 <burn> brent: manu sent an email with links to repos and proposals
16:28:46 <manu> s/Topic: possible new repos//
16:28:54 <dbuc> Orie: I don't want to dictate this, I just need a freaking string on the end of a string
16:29:06 <brent> PROPOSAL: Adopt https://msporny.github.io/did-core-registry/ as an Editors Draft for the DID WG's DID Core Registry.
16:29:12 <burn> brent: as meniotioned we decided on a registry for extensible interop.  Manu has created outline for such a registry
16:29:20 <burn> ... proposal to start work here
16:29:21 <burn> q+
16:29:28 <brent> ack burn
16:29:48 <kimhd> kimhd has joined #did
16:29:52 <manu> burn: I wanted to point out that we haven't figured out structure of registry or anything, don't panic with this document, we need a place to start working on registry/registries.
16:29:56 <jonathan_holt> q+ I would like to table this proposal until we have a time to process it
16:30:00 <manu> brent: This is a place to begin development.
16:30:03 <burn> brent: this is a place to begin development.  it's a starting point
16:30:06 <manu> q+ to object to tabling.
16:30:25 <manu> q+ jonathan_holt
16:30:27 <manu> q- later
16:30:37 <brent> ack manu
16:30:37 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to object to tabling.
16:30:42 <manu> q+
16:31:05 <burn> jonathan_holt: still processing.
16:31:24 <jonathan_holt> I haven't had a chance to process this, can we take a week to understand it
16:31:48 <burn> manu: jonathan wants to table proposal until there has been time to review.
16:32:12 <drummond> +1 to proceeding with the Registry document
16:32:16 <burn> ... I disagree.  There has been plenty of time to review since the f2f, it's a starting draft with no commitments, there is no reason to delapy
16:32:16 <brent> q?
16:32:17 <Orie> +1
16:32:20 <burn> +1 to moving forward
16:32:21 <brent> ack jonathan_holt
16:32:22 <manu> +1 to proceeding w/ registry document.
16:32:22 <Eugeniu_Rusu_Jolocom> +1
16:32:24 <drummond> q?
16:32:25 <manu> ack manu
16:32:29 <brent> ack manu
16:32:30 <drummond> q+
16:33:07 <gannan> present+
16:33:13 <manu> s/delapy/delay./
16:33:15 <burn> drummond: agree with manu.  Jonathan, we had extremely thorough discussion at f2f.  It is not the only way to extend, but it is the interoperable way to do so.
16:33:19 <brent> PROPOSAL: Adopt https://msporny.github.io/did-core-registry/ as an Editors Draft for the DID WG's DID Core Registry.
16:33:23 <ivan> +1
16:33:24 <dlongley> +1
16:33:25 <Orie> +1
16:33:25 <manu> +1
16:33:28 <burn> +1
16:33:28 <drummond> +1
16:33:30 <jonathan_holt> -1
16:33:32 <brent> +1
16:33:33 <Eugeniu_Rusu_Jolocom> +1
16:33:38 <dbuc> +1
16:33:39 <ken> +1
16:33:45 <JoeAndrieu> +1
16:34:16 <jonathan_holt> I just need to get my head around a registry in a decentralized platform
16:34:18 <Yue_> Yue_ has left #did
16:34:25 <burn> q+
16:34:28 <JoeAndrieu> q+
16:34:36 <brent> ack drummond
16:34:45 <brent> ack burn
16:34:48 <Orie> q+ to cover the concept of decentralization and registries.
16:35:14 <kimhd> +1
16:35:23 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
16:35:33 <ivan> present+ kimhd
16:35:52 <brent> q+ to say the registry is no more centralized than a working group and a spec
16:35:54 <burn> JoeAndrieu: we can't make everything perfectly decenttralized. we can accept centralization of what properties we will allow.
16:35:58 <Orie> q-
16:36:05 <burn> ... operationally it is still fully decentralized
16:36:09 <brent> ack brent
16:36:09 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to say the registry is no more centralized than a working group and a spec
16:36:14 <burn> ... it lets us agree on what properties mean
16:36:15 <Justin> +1 to JoeAndrieu 's point
16:36:23 <burn> brent: agree with Joe's comments
16:36:26 <burn> +1 JoeAndrieu
16:36:29 <dlongley> +1 to Joe
16:36:35 <jonathan_holt> Just need time to process
16:36:42 <ivan> s/decenttralized/decentralized/
16:36:45 <Orie> the did core spec is centralization tyranny!
16:36:50 <dbuc> Why minus, when plus feels so goooood ;)
16:36:58 <manu> q+ to say you'll have time to process while the Editors draft is worked on.
16:37:00 <jonathan_holt> haven't not attended the f2f I'm just slow on the upkeep
16:37:08 <brent> ack manu
16:37:08 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to say you'll have time to process while the Editors draft is worked on.
16:37:08 <dlongley> feel free to bring any concerns to the group after processing
16:37:48 <burn> manu: if jonathan wants time to process, you will have that time while we work on the document.  it will be a while before we publish as any formal doc
16:38:16 <burn> ... 'not enough time to review' is not a good enough excuse.  minutes were released in a timely manner almost two weeks ago.
16:38:42 <burn> ... it is not acceptable to stand in the way of the entire group this way.
16:39:29 <manu> burn: Manu is correct, we understand that not everyone was there, this is always going to happen, there will always be someone that's not there. As Manu mentioned, the minutes have been out for more than a week, which is the stated minimum requirement that we have in our process.
16:39:42 <manu> burn: There is nothing we're doing right now that allows you to approve publication of a document.
16:40:09 <ChristopherA> q+
16:40:24 <manu> burn: This was viewed as an acceptable compromise by a very very very large percentage of the group. I understand that you need more time and are a -1, I'm going to ask the question as Chair... are you going to raise a formal objection at W3C if we proceed?
16:40:55 <manu> jonathan_holt: I did attend WebEx at 3am... I haven't had a chance to read it... short enough, parameteres, property registries, then I'm content.
16:41:17 <manu> burn: I will make one comment  - none of those details were agreed to in the meeting. That's what we need to work on.
16:41:46 <brent> q?
16:42:27 <manu> jonathan_holt: Reading the document right now... where does this registry live?
16:42:37 <manu> brent: All to be determined.
16:42:41 <burn> brent: all to be determined once we start.
16:42:42 <manu> jonathan_holt: Ok, no objections.
16:42:42 <brent> RESOLVED: Adopt https://msporny.github.io/did-core-registry/ as an Editors Draft for the DID WG's DID Core Registry.
16:42:52 <brent> ack ChristopherA
16:43:02 <ivan> action: ivan to create the did-core-registry repo
16:43:21 <brent> q?
16:44:04 <burn> brent: the repo is where all of this conversation will occur.
16:44:06 <dlongley> +1 to ChristopherA, myself as a supporter of permissionless, decentralized extensibility, i have no reason not to support creating a place for this document
16:44:18 <burn> ... right now there isn't even anything to object to - it's an empty shell
16:44:19 <brent> PROPOSAL: Adopt https://msporny.github.io/did-imp-guide/ as an Editors Draft for the DID WG's DID Implementation Guide.
16:44:52 <ivan> +1
16:44:52 <dlongley> +1
16:44:52 <manu> +1
16:45:00 <ken> +1
16:45:00 <Orie> +1
16:45:01 <Eugeniu_Rusu_Jolocom> +1
16:45:02 <JoeAndrieu> +1
16:45:08 <burn> brent: implementation guide is a place where we can discuss KERI proposal from Sam and other security and other topics
16:45:10 <burn> +1
16:45:11 <burn> q+
16:45:16 <drummond> +1
16:45:20 <joel> +1
16:45:21 <ChristopherA> +1
16:45:32 <agropper> +1
16:45:40 <brent> ack burn
16:46:01 <manu> burn: Just wanted to point out why this proposal is happening... There are things that need to be written down, but they don't belong in the core spec.
16:46:29 <kimhd> +1
16:46:42 <manu> burn: Some of the broader questions a round security... use of the specification, belongs in an implementation guide. That's all that this is, this will eventually be a WG note, there is no place to write these things down right now and that's what this proposal is meant to address.
16:46:49 <brent> RESOLVED: Adopt https://msporny.github.io/did-imp-guide/ as an Editors Draft for the DID WG's DID Implementation Guide.
16:46:50 <ivan> action: ivan to create the did-imp-guide repo
16:46:55 <burn> brent: not hearing any objections
16:47:02 <burn> Topic: Document restructuring PR
16:47:05 <manu> q+ to explain the PR.
16:47:11 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/186
16:47:12 <burn> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/186
16:47:29 <Justin> q+ to discuss the comments on the PR
16:47:36 <ivan> q+
16:47:41 <burn> brent: restructures document so we can begin to put in content. No substantive changes at all.
16:47:41 <manu> q- later
16:47:48 <brent> ack Justin
16:47:48 <Zakim> Justin, you wanted to discuss the comments on the PR
16:48:51 <burn> Justin: i raised a comment on the PR.  Not objecting to it, just asking what we need in addition to this.  I would like to see something around producers and consumers being included.  Otherwise great.
16:49:02 <burn> +1 to follow-on PR
16:49:02 <dlongley> +1 to do that as a separate PR
16:49:09 <burn> brent: can this be a follow-on PR?
16:49:20 <drummond> +1 to using the terms "Producer" and "Consumer" and +1 to doing it in a subsequent quick PR.
16:49:36 <brent> ack ivan
16:49:37 <burn> Justin: yes.  if it is handled quickly, okay.  Want our discussion to happen in those terms as soon as possible.
16:49:45 <dlongley> and to understand that it means "producer" and "consumer" *of the data model*
16:50:24 <burn> ivan: understand and agree that current PR means just a restructure with no content changes.  Doc as it is now is difficult to read to understand what DIDs are.  As soon as we merge it becomes offcial to outside world.
16:50:51 <burn> ... can we put temporary warning that we are the middle of a major restructure so be prepared for changes over the coming weeks
16:50:51 <brent> ack manu
16:50:51 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to explain the PR.
16:51:31 <Orie> +1 for not making all the changes in a single PR...
16:51:43 <burn> manu: justin's changes sound like good ones.  would prefer to make those changes as follow-on PRs.  Goal of this PR is to make the core better so we can parallelize all the other changess that need to happen
16:51:48 <brent> +1 to Orie's +1
16:51:49 <Justin> +1 -- as stated in my comment, it was my intent that most of them be addressed in follow ons as we go forward
16:51:49 <dlongley> +1 to get things in the right place so we can work in parallel on separate sections
16:52:03 <burn> ... if we put it all in one PR then everyone will want to add 'one more littel thing'
16:52:06 <Justin> to be clear, that is not at all what I was asking
16:52:12 <drummond> +1 to making iterative improvements
16:52:21 <burn> ... we can make iterative improvements.  Two PRs suggested:
16:52:56 <burn> ... producer/consumer, let's put into separate PR.  I suspect we will need to discuss whether there are conformance changes as well, so a bit more complex.
16:53:30 <burn> ... ivan is right about flow.  Front matter is okay, but the rest is not.  Specifically didn't change any content to avoiid claims of biased mods.
16:53:48 <burn> ... would be good to add disclaimer at the top, but i don't think we should do anything else to this PR
16:53:59 <brent> PROPOSAL: Merge PR #186 to implement structural changes to the specification as discussed during the recent DID WG F2F meeting, as soon as a note is added which informs readers that further changes are underway.
16:54:13 <ivan> +1
16:54:13 <dlongley> +1
16:54:14 <Orie> +1
16:54:19 <burn> +1
16:54:20 <Eugeniu_Rusu_Jolocom> +1
16:54:21 <agropper> +1
16:54:21 <drummond> +1
16:54:23 <manu> +1
16:54:31 <brent> +1
16:54:33 <markus_sabadello> +1
16:54:38 <JoeAndrieu> +1
16:54:42 <ken> +1
16:54:51 <kimhd> +1
16:54:52 <ChristopherA> +1
16:54:55 <brent> RESOLVED: Merge PR #186 to implement structural changes to the specification as discussed during the recent DID WG F2F meeting, as soon as a note is added which informs readers that further changes are underway.
16:55:05 <burn> brent: not hearing/seeing any objections
16:55:09 <JoeAndrieu> q+
16:55:18 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
16:55:49 <burn> JoeAndrieu: mikej and I have discussed what the name of the JSON section should  be
16:56:11 <burn> manu: you and Mike and others who want to discuss should probably start a new PR.
16:56:25 <burn> ... it's editorial beacuse it doesn't change any normative statements.
16:56:45 <burn> ... personally agree that there is no such thing as "pure JSON", just JSON.
16:56:46 <Orie> There is no such thing as Pure JSON, but i don't really care.
16:56:55 <burn> hah
16:56:59 <jonathan_holt> q+
16:57:16 <burn> brent: get your PRs in.  Once 186 is merged we can really move ahead.
16:57:24 <brent> ack jonathan_holt
16:57:41 <burn> jonathan_holt: working on the CBOR section.  what would makej it more readable?
16:57:47 <drummond> +1 to Jonathan working on the CBOR section
16:57:49 <burn> ... CBOR is tough to read.
16:57:55 <Justin> q+
16:58:01 <burn> ... anyone else have suggestions for making it morec readable?
16:58:23 <Orie> Start by adding anything... PRs gather feedback.
16:58:30 <manu> +1 to Orie
16:58:31 <burn> brent: not with CBOR, but I have found that it is worth just writing down my thoughts in a PR for others to improve upon
16:58:40 <burn> ... so getting a PR in sooner is better.
16:58:41 <manu> s/+1 to Orie/manu: +1 to Orie/
16:58:44 <brent> q?
16:58:46 <jonathan_holt> ?CDDL
16:58:49 <brent> ack Justin
16:59:34 <burn> Justin: CDDL is used in the COSE specs to great effect.  Also, producer/consumer/conformance strucuter will have a big impact on how we manage serializations.
16:59:41 <jonathan_holt> "Concise Data Definition Language"
16:59:51 <jonathan_holt> cool
16:59:53 <burn> ... keep in mind that the doc may require a different organization of the info than you have had in mind.
16:59:54 <manu> manu: Yeah, I wouldn't write that section yet...
17:00:07 <JoeAndrieu> cheers, all
17:00:12 <burn> brent: thanks all for being engaged and passionate.
17:00:19 <manu> manu: wait until we have the JSON / JSON-LD sections done.
17:00:26 <ken> ken has left #did
17:00:26 <Irene__Jolocom_> Thanks everyone!
17:00:41 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
17:00:41 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been burn, joel, manu, dlongley, Justin, chriswinc, brent, markus_sabadello, Irene__Jolocom_, ivan, Orie, dmitriz, agropper,
17:00:44 <Zakim> ... Eugeniu_Rusu_Jolocom, drummond, ChristopherA, ken, daniel, JoeAndrieu, sumita, Identitywoman, jonathan_holt, gannan, kimhd
17:00:44 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:00:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/02/11-did-minutes.html Zakim
17:00:46 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:00:50 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did
17:02:42 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:02:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/02/11-did-minutes.html ivan
17:04:10 <caballerojuan> caballerojuan has joined #did
17:05:11 <caballerojuan> present+
17:08:31 <chriswin_> chriswin_ has joined #did
17:26:03 <gannan> gannan has joined #did
17:35:34 <gannan> gannan has joined #did
18:03:16 <chaals> chaals has joined #did
19:33:15 <chriswinc> chriswinc has joined #did
19:50:32 <chriswin_> chriswin_ has joined #did
20:06:31 <chriswinc> chriswinc has joined #did
21:02:28 <chaals> chaals has joined #did
21:45:48 <gannan> gannan has joined #did
23:03:33 <chriswinc> chriswinc has joined #did
23:23:55 <chaals> chaals has joined #did