14:10:50 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
14:10:50 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/06/09-did-irc
14:10:51 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:10:52 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:12:35 <ivan> Meeting: DID WG Telco
14:12:35 <ivan> Chair: brent
14:12:35 <ivan> Date: 2020-06-09
14:12:35 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2020Jun/0006.html
14:12:35 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2020-06-09: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2020Jun/0006.html
14:12:36 <ivan> Regrets+ andrei
14:41:56 <gannan> gannan has joined #did
14:53:20 <burn> burn has joined #did
14:56:06 <gannan> gannan has joined #did
14:56:43 <ivan> present+
14:58:46 <burn> present+
14:59:00 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
15:00:12 <chriswinc> present+
15:00:17 <ivan> present+ markus_sabadello
15:00:27 <ivan> present+ jonathan
15:00:34 <Orie> Orie has joined #did
15:00:45 <ivan> present+ adrian
15:00:48 <ivan> present+ rhiaro, manu
15:00:55 <ivan> present+ Orie
15:01:16 <oliver> oliver has joined #did
15:01:19 <oliver> present+ oliver_terbu
15:01:31 <justin_r> justin_r has joined #did
15:01:34 <justin_r> present+
15:02:31 <dlongley> present+
15:02:58 <ivan> present+ selfissued
15:03:11 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #did
15:03:14 <ivan> present+ yancy
15:03:18 <selfissued> present+
15:03:20 <agropper> agropper has joined #did
15:03:21 <ivan> present+ brent
15:03:30 <ivan> present+ phila
15:03:42 <ivan> present+ drummond
15:03:46 <agropper> present+
15:03:48 <brent> brent has joined #did
15:03:52 <phila> phila has joined #did
15:04:00 <selfissued> What a guy, Justin!
15:04:00 <phila> present+
15:04:03 <ivan> present+ dmitri
15:04:16 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #did
15:04:22 <ivan> scribe+ justin_r
15:04:24 <dmitriz> present+
15:04:29 <drummond> drummond has joined #did
15:04:34 <drummond> present+
15:04:59 <justin_r> brent: agenda for today = next topic call, feature freeze, extended discussions, straw poll resolution about publishing first public WG note of registries, jump into core issues
15:05:05 <justin_r> ... any agenda bashing?
15:05:14 <brent> present+
15:05:26 <justin_r> ... hearing none we move on. Introductions.
15:05:45 <ivan> scribe+ rhiaro
15:05:48 <justin_r> ... re-introducing yancy
15:05:56 <yancy> sorry my audio is on the fritz
15:06:10 <justin_r> yancy: ... (maybe no audio but here in spirit)
15:06:21 <justin_r> brent: re-introducing rhiaro who also has no audio
15:06:31 <jonathan_holt> jonathan_holt has joined #did
15:06:34 <justin_r> brent: MOVING ON
15:06:48 <jonathan_holt> present+ jonathan_holt
15:07:04 <justin_r> brent: next topic call is coming up; focused on resolution contracts; th 6/11 @ noon EDT
15:07:25 <manu> q+
15:07:26 <Eugeniu_Rusu> Eugeniu_Rusu has joined #did
15:07:27 <justin_r> ... please join us, we want to wrap things up
15:07:44 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/labels/contract
15:07:54 <justin_r> ... there's momentum, see existing pull requests
15:07:56 <dezell> dezell has joined #did
15:08:01 <brent> ack manu
15:08:01 <Eugeniu_Rusu> present+
15:08:38 <justin_r> manu: is justin able to process proposed changes to merge in?
15:08:46 <ivan> present+ dezell
15:08:56 <justin_r> justin_r: maybe 🤷‍♀️
15:09:30 <justin_r> brent: feature freeze ❄️. It means "no more substantive changes, no more big ideas, we have everything we want"
15:09:38 <identitywoman> identitywoman has joined #did
15:09:43 <identitywoman> present+
15:09:54 <justin_r> ... we have already passed our original deadline but we're still working towards it.
15:10:06 <justin_r> ... if you have something you want to add, do it now, because we're going to feature freeze in the next month or so
15:10:10 <justin_r> ... otherwise we'll never get this done
15:10:12 <burn> q+
15:10:20 <brent> ack burn
15:10:25 <justin_r> burn: "month or so" actually means "next few weeks"
15:10:36 <justin_r> ... realistically this is right before fake/virtual F2F discussions
15:10:52 <justin_r> ... we haven't seen "new stuff" rolling in in general. bug fixes and repair are ok
15:11:03 <justin_r> ... if you think something major is missing get it in now
15:11:04 <justin_r> q+
15:11:36 <manu> justin_r: Point of clarity on feature freeze, is that for things that are already incorporated into the spec at that point, or are outstanding discussions about things that we may or may not want in the spec will continue?
15:11:40 <brent> ack justin_r
15:11:44 <manu> brent: It's more "Let's not bring up anything new"
15:11:51 <ivan> scribe+ manu
15:12:02 <justin_r> brent: next topic is extended discussion time -- "fake F2F"
15:12:09 <brent> https://doodle.com/poll/9gr3824w5p3qxs3e
15:12:16 <ivan> Topic: Fake F2F
15:12:17 <justin_r> ... it won't be face to face but will be excellent™️
15:12:50 <justin_r> ... please fill out the poll, it lets you indicate availability during the selected week (in 3.5h blocks). Chairs will check it Friday morning (7am mountain time US)
15:13:09 <justin_r> ... please pretend that you're actually traveling and skip your regular meetings to attend this
15:13:53 <ivan> present+ ThomasSchwarz
15:14:02 <justin_r> ... going to have 2 or 3 blocks of 3.5h each over 2 or 3 days. Hoping to find times that work for all three time regions (US/EU/APAC)
15:14:23 <ivan> Topic: Publising registries document as a FPWD Note
15:14:26 <justin_r> brent: time to put forth a proposal about DID registries document. it's a NOTE
15:14:58 <justin_r> ... proposing that we will publish our first public Working Draft. does not indicate any consensus at all. Doesn't even mean we like it.
15:15:06 <manu> https://w3c.github.io/did-spec-registries/FPWD/2020-06-18/
15:15:06 <justin_r> ... it means "here's a thing and it's probably worth looking at"
15:15:16 <brent> PROPOSED: The DID WG will publish a FPWD Note of the DID Specification Registries document, using the short name did-spec-reg, and use echidna to update the note as PRs are merged.
15:15:34 <manu> q+ to verify did-spec-reg
15:15:37 <dbuc> dbuc has joined #did
15:15:40 <dbuc> present+
15:15:49 <rhiaro> +1, but did-spec-registries better
15:16:01 <brent> ack manu
15:16:01 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to verify did-spec-reg
15:16:16 <brent> PROPOSED: The DID WG will publish a FPWD Note of the DID Specification Registries document, using the short name did-spec-registries, and use echidna to update the note as PRs are merged.
15:16:16 <justin_r> manu: what's the reason to did-spec-reg instead of did-spec-registries?
15:16:25 <selfissued> q+
15:16:31 <justin_r> brent: that's what I typed, will amend proposal
15:16:34 <brent> ack selfissued
15:16:52 <manu> q+ that is not where consensus was.
15:16:55 <justin_r> selfissued: for all the reasons we talked about on the special topic calls, we should just use "did registries" rather than "did spec registries"
15:16:55 <burn> let's please not rename
15:16:57 <manu> q+ to note that is not where consensus was.
15:17:03 <brent> ack manu
15:17:03 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that is not where consensus was.
15:17:23 <drummond> We had consensus on the name "DID Specification Registries"
15:17:23 <justin_r> manu: that is not where we had consensus. we specifically put that to the group and decided not to. consensus was on "did spec registries"
15:17:32 <justin_r> +1 that was the consensus
15:17:55 <justin_r> selfissued: why this proposal?
15:17:59 <justin_r> burn: brent mistyped
15:18:04 <justin_r> selfissued: comment withdrawn
15:18:13 <ivan> +1
15:18:13 <rhiaro> +1
15:18:13 <Orie> +1
15:18:14 <markus_sabadello> +1
15:18:14 <dlongley> +1
15:18:15 <Eugeniu_Rusu> +1
15:18:16 <burn> +1
15:18:16 <justin_r> +1
15:18:17 <manu> +1
15:18:20 <drummond> +1
15:18:21 <brent> +1
15:18:22 <selfissued> +1
15:18:35 <agropper> +1
15:19:01 <brent> RESOLVED: The DID WG will publish a FPWD Note of the DID Specification Registries document, using the short name did-spec-registries, and use echidna to update the note as PRs are merged.
15:19:18 <justin_r> brent: We are resolved. that feels good.
15:19:37 <justin_r> brent: we got through that in record time so we have lots of time for issue status check
15:19:43 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc
15:19:46 <ivan> Topic: Core issues
15:20:01 <justin_r> ... these are our issues in the order that we most recently looked at them
15:20:08 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/85
15:20:31 <justin_r> ... syntactically differentiate data about the did, assigned to selfissued
15:20:51 <justin_r> selfissued: i thinkw e need to have a call where we discuss this
15:20:52 <justin_r> q+
15:21:05 <justin_r> ... this is an important thing to solve before feature freeze
15:21:29 <brent> ack justin_r
15:21:55 <rhiaro> justin_r: i don't think it necessarily does, but this conversation is going to follow on from the functional contracts conversation because one of the big purposes of that in the core spec is to create an actual notion of what this metadata stuff is
15:21:58 <manu> justin_r: don't think it necessarily does, but do think this conversation is going to follow on from functional contract conversation. One of the purposes of getting that into the spec is to create an actual notion of what this metadata stuff is.
15:22:13 <rhiaro> ... so we have a way to talk about it which we dont' in the core spec right now
15:22:20 <rhiaro> ... [missed a bit] we need to define as sa thing first
15:22:25 <manu> s/justin_r: don't think it necessarily does, but do think this conversation is going to follow on from functional contract conversation. One of the purposes of getting that into the spec is to create an actual notion of what this metadata stuff is.//
15:22:28 <rhiaro> ... if you tak ethe full set of PRs, 299, that covers that
15:22:35 <rhiaro> ... I will add a link to the new PR as well
15:22:43 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/75
15:23:50 <dlongley> This duplicates issue 14 -- comment regarding a PR at the end: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/14#issuecomment-637657441
15:23:57 <dlongley> I will put that into the issue
15:24:00 <justin_r> dbuc: feels like issue 14 is the bigger issue and we shouldn't define revocation
15:24:09 <justin_r> ... we should just not do this and close it
15:24:23 <selfissued> q+
15:24:24 <justin_r> ... dlongley will add comments to the issue
15:24:31 <brent> ack selfissued
15:24:44 <justin_r> selfissued: I had written a pull request to disallow revoked keys
15:24:47 <justin_r> manu: it was merged
15:24:51 <dbuc> If that was merged, then we can close both
15:24:53 <dbuc> agree
15:25:04 <justin_r> selfissued: I think we should close this on the basis of this PR, need PR # to make that comment in the issue
15:25:23 <dlongley> this PR (https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/308) follows on from https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/279
15:27:00 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/261
15:27:15 <justin_r> brent: definition of "client" in regard to SSI principles
15:27:49 <justin_r> ... [?] is not on the call, kyle and drummond are working on it
15:28:22 <justin_r> ... is anyone in the WG willing to accept assignment?
15:28:31 <justin_r> markus_sabadello: will take it, it's related to resolution
15:28:59 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/259
15:29:19 <justin_r> brent: DIDs and JOSE public keys, assigned to Orie
15:29:49 <justin_r> Orie: we can potentially close this issue, my understanding is that the 'kid' can be anything, this WG doesn't want to add specific language
15:29:59 <justin_r> ... about using 'kid' as the fragment
15:30:06 <justin_r> ... not seeing a ton of desire to do anything with it
15:30:07 <manu> q+
15:30:12 <brent> ack manu
15:30:47 <justin_r> manu: we have text today that it's recommended kid values are set to public key fingerprint; we do put normative stuff on kid and how ID property is a compound key
15:30:55 <justin_r> ... issue is resolved because group put normative text in
15:31:08 <oliver> q+
15:31:10 <justin_r> ... will add that as a comment, does Orie agree for closing the issue?
15:31:13 <justin_r> Orie: yes, makes sense
15:31:17 <brent> ack oliver
15:31:45 <justin_r> oliver: to clarify, this is only about the 'kid' in the JWK? or is this also about external JWT/JWS and providing external 'kid'?
15:31:58 <jonathan_holt> q+
15:32:08 <justin_r> manu: yes that's fine
15:32:28 <justin_r> ... you can still point to an external key from the did document
15:32:54 <jonathan_holt> q-
15:33:00 <justin_r> brent: this is not discussion time, this is status check
15:33:13 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/185
15:33:18 <justin_r> ... next issue 185, supported cyphers
15:33:28 <justin_r> ... raised by tobias
15:33:38 <Orie> q+
15:33:39 <justin_r> ... who is not on the call
15:33:47 <brent> acl Orie
15:33:51 <brent> ack Orie
15:34:24 <justin_r> Orie: most of the use cases we discuss are about signatures and this is about encryption keys; there are a couple ways of doing this and there's desire to have them in the DID documents; we want consensus as to how to do that
15:34:52 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/203
15:34:58 <justin_r> brent: 203, define did document metadata
15:35:06 <justin_r> justin_r: no update until we finish the congtracts
15:35:24 <manu> s/congtracts/contracts./
15:35:32 <rhiaro> justin_r: we need a place to talk about metadata before we define any metadata
15:35:48 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/269
15:36:16 <justin_r> brent: 269, good conversation, but they're not on the call
15:36:37 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/151
15:36:52 <justin_r> brent: 151, include discussion of levels of assurance
15:37:44 <justin_r> markus_sabadello: add discussion about eidas identities and how to link DIDs to them; not discussion about specific frameworks but about linking to a framework in general
15:38:10 <brent> link to proposed steps: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/151#issuecomment-603932879
15:39:00 <justin_r> brent: is it worthwhile to split this issue or keep this one open?
15:39:19 <justin_r> markus_sabadello: still valuable to keep it there but need to see if it splits
15:39:46 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/204
15:39:58 <justin_r> brent: 204 define terminology for properties and values
15:39:59 <ivan> q+
15:40:10 <justin_r> q+
15:40:13 <brent> ack ivan
15:40:26 <justin_r> ivan: there's a resolution to use VC terminology in our spec as well
15:40:38 <drummond> I remember that same conclusion.
15:40:44 <justin_r> brent: "chairs have decided this is what we're going to do"
15:40:45 <brent> ack justin_r
15:41:05 <rhiaro> justin_r: my understanding was that what we had decided was an augementation of what's in vcs to state that we have things called properties, those properties have names and values
15:41:14 <rhiaro> ... i've seen that language applied to new PRs but not seen it back through the rest of the document
15:41:19 <rhiaro> ... I don't think we're entirely consistent yet
15:41:25 <manu> agree that we're not consistent yet, need to do PRs to ensure consistency
15:41:26 <rhiaro> ... we had decided what to do but we need to make sure we're doing it everywhere
15:41:41 <drummond> Agree that we need to consistently use "properties" that have "names" and "values".
15:41:42 <rhiaro> q+ to say you can assign that to me as an editorial issue
15:41:51 <rhiaro> ack rhiaro
15:41:51 <Zakim> rhiaro, you wanted to say you can assign that to me as an editorial issue
15:41:53 <rhiaro> ^^
15:41:57 <brent> ack rhiaro
15:42:31 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/248
15:42:40 <justin_r> brent: 248, new term for relying party
15:43:37 <drummond> "verifier"
15:43:38 <justin_r> phila: this is holding up the use case document; is there a term the group is happy with for whatever this thing is that some people call "Relying Party"; if so we'll use that
15:43:43 <justin_r> brent: let's go bikeshed
15:43:48 <drummond> q+
15:43:57 <justin_r> ... rough consensus within issue is "Requesting Party"
15:44:13 <justin_r> phila: have already written a PR with "requesting party", need to account for other views
15:44:18 <drummond> q-
15:44:31 <justin_r> ... (PR is for use case document not core)
15:44:57 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/65
15:45:12 <justin_r> brent: 65, does did document metadata belong in the document?
15:45:51 <justin_r> markus_sabadello: current status is similar to others (203), should be addressed by resolution contract PR's that include metadata
15:46:08 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/274
15:46:22 <justin_r> brent: 274, ambiguity around necessity of top-level stuff
15:47:32 <justin_r> dbuc: should we add direction for @base in JSONLD? need to look at top-level IDs
15:47:56 <justin_r> brent: 258, list of early implementations
15:48:05 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/258
15:48:16 <justin_r> ... anyone willing to move it forward?
15:48:31 <justin_r> manu: will take it
15:48:50 <markus_sabadello> I'll assign myself too if that's okay
15:48:59 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/273
15:49:08 <justin_r> brent: 273, invert mapping between proof purpose and verification methods
15:49:33 <justin_r> drummond: no update, daniel was the lead, need to talk to him
15:50:20 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/249
15:50:33 <justin_r> brent: 249, mitigating single source of failure in universal resolver
15:51:12 <justin_r> markus_sabadello: haven't looked recently, have talked with carsten, definitely broader than just universal resolver; has been extensively discussed in did resolution calls
15:51:35 <justin_r> ... have some of this in the resolution PR's
15:52:07 <justin_r> burn: we are now in issues from less than a month ago
15:52:17 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/165
15:52:22 <justin_r> brent: 165, what are entityship and startup authority
15:52:52 <justin_r> s/startup/start-of-/
15:52:57 <justin_r> selfissued: will write the PR
15:53:18 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/170
15:53:20 <justin_r> brent: 170, public key IDs
15:53:29 <justin_r> ... duplicate JWK fields
15:54:12 <justin_r> selfissued: we agreed to have a special call
15:55:02 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/240
15:55:09 <justin_r> brent: 240, shoudl did core restrict JWKs
15:55:21 <justin_r> manu: needs a special topic call
15:55:36 <justin_r> brent: is this the same as the last issue, or should we have separate calls?
15:55:43 <justin_r> manu: agreed
15:55:43 <justin_r> selfissued: if there's time...
15:55:49 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/36
15:55:51 <justin_r> brent: 36, details on method-specific parameters
15:56:26 <justin_r> drummond: markus_sabadello and I are in active dialogue, will talk tomorrow
15:56:48 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/95
15:57:26 <justin_r> brent: 95, document structure
15:57:41 <justin_r> burn: we're on track with resolution contracts
15:57:46 <dezell> present+
15:58:06 <justin_r> brent: reminder, special topic call is thurs 6/11 noon EST on resolution contracts
15:58:15 <justin_r> ... manu issues are waiting for that ... resolution ...
15:58:17 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:58:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/06/09-did-minutes.html ivan
15:58:35 <rhiaro> s/manu/many
15:58:45 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
15:58:45 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been ivan, burn, chriswinc, markus_sabadello, jonathan, adrian, rhiaro, manu, Orie, oliver_terbu, justin_r, dlongley, selfissued, yancy, brent,
15:58:48 <Zakim> ... phila, drummond, agropper, dmitri, dmitriz, jonathan_holt, Eugeniu_Rusu, dezell, identitywoman, ThomasSchwarz, dbuc
15:58:48 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:58:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/06/09-did-minutes.html Zakim
15:58:51 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:58:55 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did
15:59:41 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
15:59:41 <RRSAgent> I see no action items