07:16:04 RRSAgent has joined #did 07:16:04 logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/09/29-did-irc 07:16:06 RRSAgent, make logs Public 07:16:08 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan 07:16:23 Meeting: DID WG Telco 07:16:23 Chair: burn 07:16:23 Date: 2020-09-29 07:16:23 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2020Sep/0023.html 07:16:23 ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2020-09-29: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2020Sep/0023.html 07:50:46 burn has joined #did 07:54:12 present+ 07:57:18 present+ 07:58:31 phila has joined #did 07:59:02 present+ 07:59:14 present+ 08:00:10 brent has joined #did 08:00:16 present+ 08:00:44 present+ markus 08:00:44 present+ tobias 08:00:54 scribe: phila 08:01:00 markus_sabadello has joined #did 08:01:04 scribenick: phila 08:01:05 jonathan_holt has joined #did 08:01:13 present+ 08:01:26 present+ 08:01:57 present+ jonathan 08:02:17 present+ jonathan_holt 08:02:44 present+ manu 08:02:46 tplooker has joined #did 08:03:12 chair: burn 08:03:13 Topic: Agenda Review, Introductions, Re-introductions 08:03:19 present+ 08:03:47 burn: Agenda is to review the WoT joint meeting that we're having in a couple of weeks 08:04:05 burn: Then the chairs would like suggestions for the TPAC f2f 08:04:26 burn: Remaining time will be on topics of interest - any issues that people would like to cover 08:04:44 q+ 08:04:45 ... a change from usual walk through of issues. So open to suggestions for topics 08:04:49 ack jonathan_holt 08:04:49 ack jonathan_holt 08:05:07 jonathan_holt: I'd like to discuss the CBOR section 08:05:27 burn: First opportunity is to people for whom this is the ideal time. Will discuss CBOR if there is tme 08:05:40 burn: Non one here for the first time 08:05:56 ... This crew has been together for a long time so no need for re-introductions 08:05:57 Topic: WoT joint meeting time/agenda review 08:06:07 https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/932 08:06:16 burn: That's an issue we have for that meeting 08:06:47 burn: WoT WG requested a joint meeting around TPAC. Time selected is 13 Oct, during normal call time 08:06:53 ... So that's the agenda in 2 weeks 08:07:16 q+ 08:07:21 ack manu 08:07:22 burn: There are links to some issues that they proposed. Question is: are there agenda items that people in our group would ike discussed 08:07:57 manu: It looks like their issues have a strong overlap with DIDs. Feels like we need to do some pre-work, to see how interested that group would be in using DIDs 08:08:25 ... If it's a handful, that's one thing. If the IoT community wants DIDs/VCs, that's a different matter 08:08:39 ... We need to look at what this community can offer WoT 08:08:48 And LD-Proofs in general by the looks of some of their issues 08:09:03 q+ 08:09:06 manu: I don't think we go in with an agenfd, other than 'how can we help you' 08:09:33 q? 08:09:34 manu: An example of a VC, applied to the Thing Description spec, and an e.g. of a DID used to identify a Thing would be the approach 08:10:07 ack markus_sabadello 08:10:07 burn: The links in that issue take you to a list of things they want to discuss. Some pre-processing on our part would be good. Who s 'we'? 08:10:31 markus_sabadello: An additional topic tends to come up, usually have to deal with constrained environments. 08:10:45 markus_sabadello: Can't operate a full BitCoin node on an IoT 08:10:55 +1 to markus_sabadello -- perspectives on resolution mechanisms for constrained environments. 08:11:17 burn: There are 2 ways we can go... would someone like to volunteer to put that together 08:11:23 q+ to volunteer -- have interacted w/ the group multiple times... with Markus' help. 08:11:28 ack manu 08:11:28 manu, you wanted to volunteer -- have interacted w/ the group multiple times... with Markus' help. 08:11:42 manu: I'm volunteering as I've interacted with that group many times 08:11:49 ... happy to take the lead with markus_sabadello's help 08:11:56 markus_sabadello: We can split is up, sure 08:12:14 kdenhartog has joined #did 08:12:25 action: Manu and Markus to pre-process the WoT issue list at https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/932 08:12:39 burn: We could dedicate a special topic to that - next week 08:13:02 manu: Maybe have a draft slide deck for next week's topic call 08:13:12 manu: So then the Wg can see if they want to add any more 08:13:28 burn: Group can go through the deck and offer improvements - good, thank you 08:13:36 burn: That also helps the WG members prepare for the call 08:13:47 s/the call/the joint call/ 08:13:47 present+ 08:14:01 burn: I'd also suggest that our WG looks at the specific issues that WoT has highlighted 08:14:14 q? 08:14:32 burn: Anything else on the WoT call? 08:14:33 Topic: Next special topic call 08:14:51 burn: This week's special topic call is in ca 14 hours from now. On un-registered properties 08:15:29 Topic: F2F Meeting topic requests 08:15:34 regrets I'm likely to only make about half of that meeting. I had something else conflicting with that time. 08:15:48 burn: Our TPAC meeting is not long from now. 08:16:01 burn: Brent and I have started putting the agenda together 08:16:13 burn: What other topics should we cover? 08:16:40 burn: We have the goal of reaching CR in November. Plan for TPAC remains trying to get ready for that at TPAC so we can goto CR straight after that 08:17:00 burn: Working on the test suite is one thing. That doesn't have to be ready to enter, but does need to be ready to exit CR 08:17:16 burn: Can't prove compatibility without a test suite 08:17:26 burn: We do not want any new topics and features 08:17:50 burn: Who would like to suggest topics for the F2F 08:17:50 q+ 08:17:54 ack jonathan_holt 08:18:35 jonathan_holt: One thing that jumped out at me recently - the redundancy in verification methods. Because all the key types are basically the same 08:19:02 jonathan_holt: There may be a parallel JWK to handle this. Leveraging a property like 'use' for sig etc. 08:19:19 q+ to IANA registration last minute items 08:19:20 jonathan_holt: Could look for simplification 08:19:31 ack manu 08:19:31 manu, you wanted to IANA registration last minute items 08:19:35 burn: We can look at that when we get there in today's agenda 08:20:00 +1 to manu 08:20:08 manu: There's a section on IANA registration for the MIME types at the end of the doc. We've been kicking that can down the road but we're going to need to make a decsion about that 08:20:11 q+ 08:20:17 manu: Amy is working on an RFC 08:20:26 manu: There are two bad paths - we need to choose which one 08:20:35 q+ 08:20:40 manu: We will need to decide before we enter CR 08:20:40 ack ivan 08:20:52 ivan: FYI - which RFC is Amy working on 08:21:09 manu: IETF asked us to write the RFC for the double plus 08:21:16 ... They suggested what we write, Amy has the action 08:21:20 Justin_r has joined #Did 08:21:28 Justin_r has left #did 08:21:42 Justin_r has joined #did 08:21:52 manu: Once we do that, is the WG going to be OK with that, or does the Wg want to do something that provides an outcome that isn't ideal. Like creating a new MIME type for did+CBOR, did+Json-ld etc. 08:22:01 (an update to 6838) 08:22:05 manu: So we'll either be creating 2 or 4 new MIME types 08:22:10 burn: And that assumes that they approve it 08:22:25 ivan: I think it's a dream that they would approve this within a year or two 08:22:30 ack kdenhartog 08:22:34 ...but that's for the f2f 08:22:46 q+ 08:22:55 kdenhartog: Clearing up the Jose discrepencies might be an easy win. Might be able to do it before TPAC 08:23:01 q+ 08:23:02 ack ivan 08:23:05 kdenhartog: There are 4 issues related that JOSe tag 08:23:30 ivan: It may be discussed before, but TPAC at the latest - but the whole issue around the vocab, SHACL, how we incorporate it into the spec 08:23:46 burn: I've not reviewed that one. It sounds like a good deal of work for someone 08:23:55 ivan: An intro to what's going on? I can do that 08:24:00 q- 08:24:01 ack manu 08:24:59 q+ 08:25:04 ack kdenhartog 08:25:22 kdenhartog: Do we think that 373, Drummond's appendix stuff and the ... ? will be ready? 08:25:37 q+ to focus on normative test vs. non-normative. 08:25:39 kdenhartog: That's had a lot of discussion recently. Might we come to a conclusion 08:25:44 burn: That's a good question 08:25:55 burn: I hope it's ready 08:25:57 s/.. ?/PR 410 08:26:16 (PR 410 is the type property) 08:26:16 burn: For me it falls into the same category as the implementation guide, which needs a lot of work 08:26:29 q+ for normative statement last minute items. 08:26:36 burn: Lots of informational work that hasn't been done yet 08:26:45 ack manu 08:26:45 manu, you wanted to focus on normative test vs. non-normative. and to discuss normative statement last minute items. 08:26:49 burn: The implementation guide is 'other stuff we need to write down; 08:27:08 +1 to normative statement priorities 08:27:09 manu: AS far as prirorities - I'd like to focus on normative statements 08:27:42 manu: The appendix session is large and could generate a lot of discussion. But given a choice |-| spending time on normative statements cf appendix - normative wins in my view 08:28:01 normative statements comments doc: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oVFYZdK65C6f4ErF5zfoGv1c57M5Em75YKCtRdAF-yg/edit#gid=0 08:28:13 manu: The other thing... normative items... we had requested that the Wg review the normative statements and provide feedback. I believe Kyle was the only person who did that 08:28:27 manu: Amy has looked at then, I need to make another pass 08:28:50 q+ 08:28:57 manu: We gave people time to provide input, I'm afraid that the F2F will see lots of discussion. That cold eat up a large chunk of the discussion time 08:28:58 q+ 08:29:15 manu: Is there a plan on how to deal with tons of objections to the normative text during the F2F 08:29:30 ack kdenhartog 08:29:46 kdenhartog: Based on my rading, many of the normative statements end up being untestable as they talk about writing a DID method 08:30:05 ... I'd like a DID method authorship guide as a significant part of the imp guide 08:30:09 ack ivan 08:30:41 ivan: I agree with Kyle. In some senses the Google doc is a derivative of the spec and e need to look at MUSTS/SHOULDs - it's there that the thing has to be reviewed 08:30:56 ivan: I did review the doc, there are comments, including what Kyle said 08:31:34 ivan: The fuzziness of what's in the core voc ... how the constraints are described... whwn the core doc is finalised, then we can finalise the IG. We need to do things in the right order 08:31:38 q+ to note "settle time" for spec text. 08:31:53 s/whwn/when/ 08:31:54 burn: I think Manu did that to give people a heads up about what might change 08:32:21 burn: And I agree with you, Ivan. Discussion about items in a spreadsheet is a new experience (paraphrase) 08:32:54 burn: Amy is pointing out that human testable are OK. But statements that are truly untestable we need to do something about 08:33:02 ack manu 08:33:02 manu, you wanted to note "settle time" for spec text. 08:33:02 burn: May need proposals 08:33:38 manu: Ivan raises a good point, There's a 'settle time' for spec text. We have PRs... the easy ones uusally go in within a week, some take a month 08:33:47 ivan: PRs that don't make it into the spec are rare 08:33:55 s/ivan/manu 08:34:20 manu: It may be good to discuss a work mode that allows us to get changes into the spec that's faster than we have now 08:34:49 manu: We need a clear understanding that either things will go faster during the F2F or not, in which case expectations for the spec might have to change, 08:35:11 burn: A work mode change to move faster always means less review time 08:35:54 burn: I think it's fine for the WG to discuss that... the thing to do Manu... we should talk about that specific work mode and present it to the WG for feedback and opinion 08:36:02 q? 08:36:37 burn: I do have one other comment. It's always that change proposals don't come in during the F2F meeting when we're trying to finish up. 08:36:48 burn: They should come in before 08:37:10 burn: Any remaining time ets allocated to working through issues 08:37:27 Topic: Topics of Interest 08:38:07 burn: I'd like to offer an opportunity to Kyle and Tobias primarily... any issues in any of the repos that you think are important and have not been discussed properly 08:38:36 kdenhartog: I'm satisfied with where things are at the moment 08:38:57 kdenhartog: In terms of looking at the spec, I think we're addressing the areas that need to be addressed. 08:39:18 tplooker: No special topics of interest for me at the moment 08:39:29 q+ 08:39:37 zakim, who is here? 08:39:37 scribe+ 08:39:37 Present: burn, ivan, phila, rhiaro, brent, markus, tobias, manu, markus_sabadello, jonathan, jonathan_holt, tplooker, kdenhartog 08:39:38 scribe+ 08:39:40 On IRC I see Justin_r, kdenhartog, tplooker, jonathan_holt, markus_sabadello, brent, phila, burn, RRSAgent, Zakim, ivan, dmitriz, ChristopherA, bigbluehat, dlehn, faceface, Travis, 08:39:40 ... manu, dlongley, deiu26, wayne, rhiaro 08:39:46 scribe- 08:39:49 ack phila 08:40:20 phila: trying to get the use case documents finished and looking for review from other WG members to get it through the process 08:41:24 burn: we'll convey to the relevant WG members that they should take a look at these documents 08:41:39 phila: I'm fairly confident that the use case document is ready to go 08:41:40 q+ 08:42:12 burn: I'd like to remind people ... there's a group working on the Rubric doc. It wold be good to see progress on that before the F2F 08:42:35 ack burn 08:42:35 q+ to note DID Rubric may not be as important these days... 08:42:40 ack manu 08:42:40 manu, you wanted to note DID Rubric may not be as important these days... 08:42:41 ... If there's anyone on the call who participated in the work to get it to the state where it can be adopted by the WG, that would be helpful to chme in 08:43:08 q+ 08:43:09 manu: When the Wg started, the rubric started like the critical item. It wold be good if the Wg publsihed it, but we're in a different place than we were then 08:43:25 Not every document that's useful to the working group should be a deliverable of the working group 08:43:31 q+ 08:43:39 manu: The Wg has a lot of tribal knowledge that hasn't been written down. I don't think it would be critical if the rubric doc weren't completed 08:43:43 ack ivan 08:43:46 manu: I regard it as medium to low priority 08:44:20 ivan: Yes and no. Maybe the rubric doc as it's planned today isn't a high priority, but if we want this tech to be adopted widely, there is a huge amount of work to do. 08:44:53 ivan: Docs that go out to the public about why you might use this tech. I'm not really part of the tribe, but if I look at the number of registered DID methods 08:45:23 ... the documentation isn't great. I look at that table and think it's way too much and I'll do something else 08:45:25 q+ 08:45:40 ivan: Something along those lines I'd say is absolutely necessary 08:45:49 ack burn 08:46:09 burn: This is a great discussion topic for the F2F. We're talking about a non-normative note. 08:46:31 burn: What's most useful to the community. We have a lot of flexibility in non-normative Notes 08:46:36 ack phila 08:48:00 phila: this resonates with what we spend our time at gs1 trying to do. We spend lots of time trying to explain the technology, so trying to explain what the tech is. Once I'm done with the use case doc I may be able to spend the time to help with the rubrics document 08:48:18 burn: Any other topics for discussion by our Europeans 08:48:28 Topic: CBOR 08:48:59 jon: I put 2 PRs, one for the registry and one for DID core 08:49:33 jon: Authentication in constrained environments. Where JOSE, CBOR mix etc mix. 08:49:44 ... Conclusion is that vanilla CBOR is the way to go 08:49:59 ... can represent in JSON with hex, padding/no padding 08:50:13 ... but things like Base58 representation not clear 08:50:23 [conscious that scribing not great here] 08:50:57 jonathan_holt has joined #did 08:51:03 brent has joined #did 08:51:06 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/420 08:51:13 https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/138 08:51:22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y46dARLUmmI 08:51:35 jonathan_holt: Vanilla CBOR with clear representations in the syntax is best 08:51:49 jonathan_holt: The two PRs are about making this explicit 08:52:03 ['conclusion' made by number of CS experts] 08:52:18 jonathan_holt: Shows DID doc as CBOR 08:52:34 q+ to thank jonathan for work performed, request citation for CBOR, note that this makes binary representations not valid. 08:52:41 jonathan_holt: Shows PR. Shows CDDL representation in PR 08:52:57 jonathan_holt: Explains that all features are supported 08:53:22 q+ 08:53:36 jonathan_holt: CDDL is a general data definition language that is mostly focused on CBOR, but as it's an extension of JSON, it validates CBOR as well as JSON 08:53:58 jonathan_holt: Shows validation 08:54:27 jonathan_holt: My recommendation is: 08:54:32 1. vaniall CBOR 08:54:40 2. As I did in the PR, refer to the CBOR spec 08:54:59 ... as well as the CDDL RFC that describes this as a data defn language 08:55:06 s/vanial/vanilla 08:55:40 jonathan_holt: There's a lot of overlap, so I conclude that lots of verification methods are the same 08:56:07 jonathan_holt: A topic of conversation might be to modify the verification methods ... simplify 08:56:23 q+ to ask about the usages 08:56:32 jonathan_holt: I'm not a cryptographer, but the public key JWK would need some additional time to make sure it's sufficiently robust 08:57:02 jonathan_holt: Things like the KID from the spec is optional, we might want to be more explicit - SHA256 in Base64 for example 08:57:28 jonathan_holt: The Etherium address - might want to say that the address has to be 42 characters long beginning 0x etc. 08:57:50 I'm not on audio, but from the chat log it seems like this will be relevant to the representations discussion later today 08:57:57 jonathan_holt: Shows more examples from the DID registry in CBOR and JSON using CDDL 08:58:22 jonathan_holt: [Shows more detail] 08:58:27 burn: We're out of time 08:58:32 ack manu 08:58:32 manu, you wanted to thank jonathan for work performed, request citation for CBOR, note that this makes binary representations not valid. 08:58:56 manu: I have a lot of thoughts and fedback, but no time for it today. Thanks you Jonathan - looking forward to discuss it later today 08:58:58 +1 on the work. 08:59:00 q- 08:59:01 ack ivan 08:59:12 ivan: First reaction was, OK, I need to dive into CDDL 08:59:46 ivan: What you did, much more detailed than I did with SHACL. We need some sort of formal spec of the terms and constraints in the core voc. It's not clearly stated. WE need a formalism and this might be it. 09:00:05 burn: I want to say thank you jonathan_holt too. That concrete work makes it easier to discuss. It's very helpful 09:00:10 burn: Out of time for today 09:00:20 ... Look forward to speaking some of you in 13 hours 09:00:47 burn: Thanks the scribe 09:01:07 zakim, end meeting 09:01:07 As of this point the attendees have been burn, ivan, phila, rhiaro, brent, markus, tobias, manu, markus_sabadello, jonathan, jonathan_holt, tplooker, kdenhartog 09:01:10 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 09:01:10 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/09/29-did-minutes.html Zakim 09:01:12 I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 09:01:16 Zakim has left #did 09:01:58 rrsagent, bye 09:01:58 I see 1 open action item saved in https://www.w3.org/2020/09/29-did-actions.rdf : 09:01:58 ACTION: Manu and Markus to pre-process the WoT issue list at https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/932 [1] 09:01:58 recorded in https://www.w3.org/2020/09/29-did-irc#T08-12-25