22:56:58 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
22:56:59 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/11/24-did-irc
22:57:38 <brent> rrsagent, draft minutes
22:57:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/11/24-did-minutes.html brent
22:58:12 <brent> rrsagent, make logs public
22:58:21 <brent> zakim, this is did
22:58:21 <Zakim> got it, brent
22:58:27 <dbuc> dbuc has joined #did
22:58:30 <brent> Chair: Brent Zundel
22:58:34 <dbuc> present+
22:59:21 <brent> brent has changed the topic to: DID WG Agenda 2020-11-24: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2020Nov/0026.html
22:59:45 <justin_r> justin_r has joined #did
23:00:31 <shigeya> present+
23:00:31 <brent> Meeting: Decentralized Identifier Working Group
23:00:44 <brent> present+
23:00:49 <dbuc> Note: the equivalence PR has been updated in accordance with the consensus from the special topic call, and is ready for final review/merge
23:00:51 <justin_r> present+
23:01:03 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
23:01:34 <dlongley> present+
23:01:38 <kdenhartog> kdenhartog has joined #did
23:01:41 <manu> present+
23:01:49 <jonathan_holt> jonathan_holt has joined #did
23:01:49 <kdenhartog> present+
23:01:51 <identitywoman> identitywoman has joined #did
23:02:48 <Orie> Orie has joined #did
23:02:56 <Orie> present+
23:03:02 <Orie> I can scribe
23:03:09 <jonathan_holt> present+ jonathan_holt
23:03:13 <Orie> scribe+ Orie
23:03:16 <markus_sabadello> present+
23:03:46 <Orie> brent: welcome to the asia friendly time the week of thanksgiving
23:03:51 <Orie> topic: agenda review
23:03:56 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #did
23:04:14 <Orie> ... begining with security / privacy report
23:04:19 <Orie> .... then PR454
23:04:34 <Orie> ... then we will cover the plan for covering issues for CR
23:04:46 <drummond> drummond has joined #did
23:04:51 <drummond> present+
23:04:53 <brent> q?
23:04:57 <Orie> ... issues have been prio'ed, we will go through them
23:04:58 <dbuc> PRs ready for merge
23:05:08 <dbuc> I would imagine those are the highest pri?
23:05:15 <dbuc> just a possibility
23:05:33 <Orie> ... we will cover 454 and other PRs
23:05:55 <Orie> brent: deliverable that needs to be finished for the security and privacy horizontal review
23:06:04 <TallTed> present+
23:06:12 <Orie> ... we need to hear concerns, so we can address and move forward
23:06:29 <Orie> ... we had volunteers for it, what is the status?
23:06:48 <Orie> jonathan: we met last monday, and hammered out discussion points.
23:06:55 <Orie> ... unsure of the next steps.
23:07:27 <Orie> drummond: unsure of status
23:07:54 <Orie> jonathan: we need changes accepted and threat models to be discussed by the wg
23:08:31 <Orie> drummond: since its security and privacy, we need the security expertise for the final questions
23:09:13 <tplooker> tplooker has joined #did
23:09:21 <tplooker> present+
23:09:29 <Orie> brent: looking for more volunteers for the security section
23:09:57 <Orie> jonathan: we discussed wanting to capture security issues in an ongoing way
23:10:24 <Orie> brent: primary concern is completing the document, but additional issues can be tracked in github
23:10:54 <Orie> brent: orie to try and help, moving on...
23:11:07 <Orie> brent: PR 454 and 455....
23:11:15 <Orie> brent: status update?
23:12:05 <Orie> dlongely: we are waiting for a response from mike jones regarding the suggestions for adding a note to the PR / regardign @context in the JSON representation section.
23:12:14 <Orie> ... unsure if he is still objecting
23:12:29 <Orie> brent: I will ping him again
23:12:30 <markus_sabadello> q+
23:13:14 <Orie> markus: after merging 455 and then 454 we still need to revisit the exact terminology... lots of different properties type to hammer down.
23:13:20 <Orie> ...see issue 463
23:13:23 <markus_sabadello> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/463
23:13:35 <Orie> ... feedback welcom
23:13:43 <manu> q+
23:13:46 <Orie> brent: other PRs that need to be discussed in this meeting?
23:13:49 <brent> ack markus_sabadello
23:13:51 <brent> ack manu
23:13:52 <drummond>                                                                                     +1 to 463
23:14:01 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/469
23:14:04 <Orie> manu: too note the new PRs 469, needs review
23:14:17 <Orie> ... this is regarding concrete serialization rules
23:14:24 <justin_r> q+ to talk about the concrete rules in PR 469
23:14:35 <jonathan_holt> q+
23:15:03 <Orie> ... daniel buchner raised another PR regarding equivalence properties
23:15:12 <Orie> ... please review PRs
23:15:21 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/431
23:15:22 <Orie> ... see PR 431
23:15:50 <Orie> brent: lots of PRs need review, moving on...
23:15:53 <brent> ack justin_r
23:15:53 <Zakim> justin_r, you wanted to talk about the concrete rules in PR 469
23:16:48 <Orie> justin_r: regarding 469 and follow ons, it is overly pedantic, but it needs to be... and also when considering other representations... it needs to be really spelled out here.
23:16:57 <brent> ack jonathan_holt
23:17:03 <justin_r> engineers are the worst runtime environment possible....
23:17:21 <Orie> jonathan: regarding the cbor section, i like it being pedantic, still struggling with the number types
23:17:28 <manu> q+
23:17:34 <brent> ack manu
23:17:42 <Orie> ... hard to map CBOR to the ADM without number types in the ADM
23:18:06 <Orie> manu: we have a number in the ADM, and they should map to CBOR
23:18:41 <Orie> jonathan: double is not specific enough... these types are not precise enough for double vs float.
23:18:59 <Orie> brent: next topic, moving forward plan.
23:19:14 <brent> Topic: The plan moving forward
23:19:37 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Apre-cr-p1
23:19:43 <Orie> manu: as mentioned, we have prioritized issues...
23:19:50 <Orie> ... the issues are P1, P2, P3
23:19:59 <Orie> P1 required to solve before CR
23:20:15 <Orie> ... P2 is good idea, P3 is not a blocker for CR
23:20:26 <Orie> ... we are going to start going through issues in priority order
23:20:46 <Orie> ... at some point, during P2 we will probably make the call to go to CR
23:21:09 <Orie> ... thats it, we will be processing issues to get closure on things...
23:21:33 <Orie> ... one of the options will be to defer the issue... if its inactive, we can defer to the next version of the spec.
23:21:46 <Orie> ... on an issue by issue basis, we can defer things.
23:22:08 <Orie> brent: sounds good, any questions from the group
23:22:15 <Orie> ... lets jump in
23:22:28 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Apre-cr-p1+sort%3Aupdated-asc
23:22:34 <Orie> manu: lets do P1 sorted by least recently updated
23:22:54 <Orie> ... running the issues
23:23:34 <Orie> ... first one is instant did resolution
23:23:43 <Orie> ... I think this is ...
23:23:47 <drummond> "start at the stop" <== Freudian slip from Manu ;-)
23:23:51 <Orie> dbuc: my pr 431 will resolve this
23:24:17 <Orie> ... this allows for slow blockchains that take a really long time to be useful
23:24:37 <Orie> manu: sounds like we are almost through this one
23:24:46 <Orie> ... moving on to the next one
23:25:02 <Orie> ... current language regarding cannonical dids increases signature complexity
23:25:25 <Orie> dbuc: the current spec text can cause harder validation issues
23:25:39 <Orie> ... this is also be fixed by the other PR
23:25:54 <Orie> manu: this issue is also blocked by 431
23:25:57 <tplooker> agree with dbuc's assessment
23:26:08 <Orie> ... next one is Ping horizontal reviview
23:26:32 <Orie> brent: we need this done, if you have any security expertise, please halp
23:26:48 <Orie> manu: we are blocked from going to CR until this is done
23:27:02 <Orie> ... CBOR "should not be marked at risk"
23:27:07 <Orie> ... update?
23:27:21 <kdenhartog> Where is that security questionaire at? I've had a hard time finding it to see if I may be able to help in any way
23:27:41 <Orie> jonathan: I have made updates to the PR, we still need to handle unknown properties in CBOR... still WIP, and semi blocked by numbers
23:28:02 <Orie> manu: we are waiting on PR 420 to be merged, and marking it at risk
23:28:29 <Orie> jonathan: I am asserting it should not be marked at risk
23:28:43 <Orie> manu: marking it at risk is telling people that the section may change
23:28:44 <brent> q+ to clarify at risk
23:28:46 <Orie> q+
23:29:01 <Orie> jonathan: i though we settled this with the ADM
23:29:04 <brent> ack brent
23:29:04 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to clarify at risk
23:29:45 <Orie> brent: at risk does not mean the section is lacking, it means if this section changes during CR we want to be able to change it without going through another CR
23:30:00 <brent> ack Orie
23:30:28 <manu> q+
23:30:39 <brent> ack manu
23:31:04 <drummond> Yes, marking an entire spec at risk won't work
23:31:06 <Orie> manu: we could mark them all at risk, if we mark them all at risk we our CR attempt will get denied
23:31:23 <dlongley> scribe+
23:31:24 <dlongley> Orie: Why aren't we marking everything at risk? We have seen several orders of magnitude more activity on CBOR than JSON, why not mark all the representations at risk?
23:31:42 <Orie> ... marking at risk is a way of conveying stability
23:32:04 <Orie> ... this is us trying to get weak sections into CR <- edited by me
23:32:07 <jonathan_holt> q+
23:32:13 <brent> ack jonathan_holt
23:32:42 <Orie> jonathan: I have tried to get CBOR supported, and tried hard to deal with the ADM
23:32:49 <manu> q+ to move on
23:33:15 <brent> ack manu
23:33:15 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to move on
23:33:18 <Orie> ... i think CBOR should not be marked at risk
23:33:44 <Orie> manu: suggest we move on, we know the PR needs to be merged before the issue can be addressed
23:34:20 <Orie> ... horizontal review / tag
23:34:52 <Orie> ... we offered to meet to go over stuff...
23:35:08 <Orie> brent: this issue and others will stay open until horizontal review is complete
23:35:36 <Orie> manu: PR454 will address unknown properties
23:36:05 <Orie> ... moving on
23:36:24 <Orie> ... ability for a DID method to be known as more than.... addressed by 431 as well
23:36:48 <justin_r_> justin_r_ has joined #did
23:36:54 <justin_r_> q+
23:36:59 <Orie> manu: define serialization for numbers / dates /other properties... this is in progress, justin_r?
23:37:15 <brent> ack justin_r_
23:37:44 <Orie> justin_r: yes, this should be addressed, and the language is changing in a way thats goood.
23:37:53 <Orie> ... we should be defining types, not serializations
23:38:06 <Orie> ... and we are doing that in the representations sections
23:38:39 <Orie> ... so this should be solved soon, see 469... we are doing a good job of splitting the types and representations
23:38:39 <jonathan_holt> q+
23:38:45 <drummond> +1 to a datatype on URI
23:39:00 <brent> ack jonathan_holt
23:39:01 <Orie> manu: this should be addressed when the related PRs are merged?
23:39:05 <wayne> present+
23:39:14 <Orie> jonathan: will we handle big int / big float
23:39:16 <manu> q+
23:39:22 <brent> ack manu
23:39:29 <dlongley> q+ to suggest we don't handle big int/big float
23:39:53 <jonathan_holt> q+
23:40:00 <Orie> manu: right now no, because integers are big ints in the adm... decimal should support float... we would need a demonstration to add support for other types
23:40:15 <brent> ack dlongley
23:40:15 <Zakim> dlongley, you wanted to suggest we don't handle big int/big float
23:40:32 <kdenhartog> +1 to not supporting them
23:40:44 <Orie> dlongley: i don't think we should support big int / big float, because some representations cant support those types
23:40:45 <brent> ack jonathan_holt
23:40:49 <justin_r_> q+ to talk on specific field processing rules
23:41:10 <kdenhartog> q+
23:41:10 <Orie> jonathan: I agree they are hard, i guess we will see poor interop for big ints and big floats.
23:41:16 <brent> ack justin_r_
23:41:16 <Zakim> justin_r_, you wanted to talk on specific field processing rules
23:41:24 <brent> q+ to talk zkp
23:41:49 <Orie> justin_r: we already need to consider per field processing, because fields get to define types beyond the ones in the representations
23:42:13 <Orie> ... that said, i agree this is more speculative than concrete... we can always add types later.
23:42:26 <brent> ack kdenhartog
23:43:07 <brent> ack brent
23:43:07 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to talk zkp
23:43:20 <Orie> kdenhartog: we have used base64url encoding inside of JSON for proof values... we imagine the base64url bytes would be preserved, and the type would be not a float / big int
23:43:35 <tplooker> Our experience with ZKPs is that you only really need Uint8Arrays
23:43:35 <jonathan_holt> q+
23:43:36 <Orie> brent: string values or bytes will be used to handle big int / big floats
23:43:48 <Orie> manu: please add comments to the issue
23:44:07 <jonathan_holt> q-
23:44:36 <Orie> jonathan: we have already covered base64 to byte array in CBOR
23:44:54 <Orie> manu: issue 199, there is a PR...
23:45:19 <Orie> brent: we had a PR / PRs for this... the most recent one was the "type" property....
23:45:24 <drummond> q+
23:45:26 <Orie> ... not aware of solutions to this
23:45:53 <kdenhartog> q+
23:45:55 <Orie> brent: this would be addressed by a property that allows for the expression of a did subject in a did document
23:46:17 <brent> ack drummond
23:46:25 <kdenhartog> q- going to state what I was going to in the comments
23:46:31 <kdenhartog> q-
23:46:40 <Orie> drummond: only on the q too say, the answer to the question is now in the appendix, but its not a full solution
23:47:14 <Orie> manu: when should we expect a PR for this?
23:47:32 <Orie> brent: editors /chairs should discuss the cut off date
23:47:46 <Orie> drummond: suggest christmas of closing issues
23:48:00 <Orie> manu: normative statements review
23:48:04 <kdenhartog> q+
23:48:25 <kdenhartog> q-
23:48:29 <Orie> manu: i think i saw an update from amy, where we have the new list of normatives statemnts
23:48:39 <Orie> ... we need to make another pass through
23:49:20 <Orie> ... would be best if testing folks will go through the list
23:49:27 <Orie> q+
23:49:40 <brent> ack Orie
23:49:42 <tplooker> scribe+
23:49:54 <wayne> q+
23:49:56 <brent> scribe+ dlongley
23:49:59 <dlongley> Orie: I'll try and go through the list again. The more upfront culling we can do the happier people will be, and the more people that commit the better.
23:50:15 <dlongley> Orie: We've got way more normative statements than people willing to write tests, we need more testeres.
23:50:21 <dlongley> s/testeres/testers/
23:50:30 <Orie> manu: this issue is not going to close until we are ready for CR,
23:50:35 <brent> ack wayne
23:50:49 <Orie> wayne: where do we find the latest tasks for tests
23:51:03 <Orie> q+ to explain tests
23:51:23 <Orie> manu: you use the test suite
23:51:26 <brent> ack Orie
23:51:26 <Zakim> Orie, you wanted to explain tests
23:51:53 <dlongley> Orie: The main thing that you want to do is that you want to look through this list for things you can write some tests around. Before you look at the list, you want to say you commit yourself/your company to working on tests.
23:52:10 <wayne> q+
23:52:27 <brent> ack wayne
23:52:30 <dlongley> Orie: You can also say, in that issue where you commit, to say you're good at writing tests for URLs, or that you want to take certain sections of the spec. Once you've stated which issues/sections you're handling you can start opening PRs to cover those statements. All of those are in the test-suite repo and you should open issues over there if you need help.
23:52:51 <Orie> wayne: would there be an objection to transforming normative statements to issues
23:53:01 <Orie> q+ to reply to issues
23:53:08 <brent> ack Orie
23:53:08 <Zakim> Orie, you wanted to reply to issues
23:54:00 <dlongley> Orie: We did discuss this an option, it was my initial proposal for every normative statement to have an issue. There was pushback for that to being a lot of process -- and if the statements change that's problematic. Now we just want you call out that you take a block of tests and you should try and own that block. We'll start there, if that's not working out well, we'll go back to opening issues for each statement that won't get removed until we
23:54:00 <dlongley> have a test.
23:54:09 <Orie> manu: those are all the P1 issues
23:54:19 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Apre-cr-p2+sort%3Aupdated-asc
23:54:21 <Orie> ... what should we do next?
23:54:34 <Orie> brent: lets look at some of the P2s
23:54:47 <Orie> manu: there are lots of P2 issues, and many of them are ready for PR
23:55:05 <Orie> ... if you are looking for work, please look at ready for pr, and try to write a pr to address those issues
23:55:20 <brent> q+ to say even if you feel uncomfortable, you should submit a PR
23:55:51 <Orie> ... looking at the issues, there are key expression clarity issues, general concern regarding sloppiness of key expression.... there are some cases where we want to do restrictions
23:56:24 <Orie> ... there are some reviews ivan did, did spec registries issues, questions about the ADM...
23:56:37 <Orie> ... many of them are how we talk about keys / media types
23:57:04 <Orie> manu: these are none blocking, and we could defer a good chunk of P2
23:57:20 <brent> ack brent
23:57:20 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to say even if you feel uncomfortable, you should submit a PR
23:57:46 <Orie> brent: as you can see, P2... please submit a PR, some of these can be addressed by you!
23:57:55 <drummond> As the Greek God Nike says, "Just do it!"
23:58:04 <Orie> ... editors will help you get it done, just give it a try
23:58:14 <Orie> brent: please no easter eggs
23:58:25 <justin_r_> it's still exciting when it blows up just less enjoyable
23:58:26 <Orie> ^ this was me
23:59:21 <brent> zakim, end the meeting
23:59:21 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been dbuc, shigeya, brent, justin_r, dlongley, manu, kdenhartog, Orie, jonathan_holt, markus_sabadello, drummond, TallTed, tplooker, wayne
23:59:24 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
23:59:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/11/24-did-minutes.html Zakim
23:59:26 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, brent; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
23:59:30 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did
23:59:44 <brent> rrsagent, please excuse us
23:59:44 <RRSAgent> I see no action items