15:03:58 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
15:03:58 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/12/01-did-irc
15:04:01 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:04:02 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
15:04:09 <ivan> Meeting: DID WG Telco
15:04:09 <ivan> Chair: burn
15:04:09 <ivan> Date: 2020-11-01
15:04:09 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2020Nov/0029.html
15:04:09 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2020-12-01: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2020Nov/0029.html
15:32:33 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #did
15:51:43 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #did
15:52:13 <burn> burn has joined #did
15:56:55 <burn> present+
15:58:14 <ivan> present+
15:59:42 <brent> brent has joined #did
15:59:49 <brent> present+
15:59:59 <jonathan_holt> jonathan_holt has joined #did
16:00:18 <wayne> present+
16:00:50 <shigeya> present+
16:00:54 <jonathan_holt> present+ jonathan_holt
16:00:55 <rhiaro> present+
16:01:43 <agropper> agropper has joined #did
16:02:05 <identitywoman> identitywoman has joined #did
16:02:10 <identitywoman> I'll scribe
16:02:19 <identitywoman> I know i"m near the top
16:02:25 <identitywoman> Scribe+
16:02:29 <identitywoman> present+
16:02:35 <burn> Topic: Agenda Review, Introductions, Re-introductions
16:02:58 <agropper> present+
16:03:07 <TallTed> present+
16:03:10 <identitywoman> @dan: Close pull request 454 and focus on priority 1 and priority 2 issues.
16:03:28 <burn> Topic: PR 454
16:03:34 <manu> present+
16:03:35 <burn> ttps://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/454
16:03:39 <identitywoman> @burn: main item for today pull request 454
16:03:45 <ivan> scribjes, pr 454
16:03:47 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
16:03:49 <identitywoman> @burn: Manu where are we
16:03:57 <markus_sabadello> present+
16:03:59 <ivan> scribejs, pr 454
16:04:01 <identitywoman> @manu: we are waiting for mike jones to tell us if he is happy with it or not
16:04:24 <drummond> drummond has joined #did
16:04:39 <identitywoman> @burn: we had some time waiting for proposals. should we move on to priority 1 & 2 issues and come back go 454 (10 min at the end)
16:04:57 <burn> Topic: Priority 1 Issues
16:04:59 <identitywoman> @burn: next item priority 1 issues
16:05:02 <manu> q+
16:05:03 <burn> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Apre-cr-p1+sort%3Aupdated-asc
16:05:06 <burn> ack manu
16:05:16 <dlongley> present+
16:05:29 <identitywoman> @manu: happy to go though them - did review of priority 1 issues
16:05:34 <chriswinc> chriswinc has joined #did
16:05:38 <identitywoman> @manu: sharing screen
16:05:52 <chriswinc> present+
16:06:08 <identitywoman> @manu: here are all the priority 1 issues - did review of them basically not much has changed since last week - (expected)
16:06:10 <justin_r> justin_r has joined #did
16:06:13 <justin_r> present+
16:06:19 <dmitriz> present+
16:06:20 <dbuc> dbuc has joined #did
16:06:24 <dbuc> present+
16:06:24 <drummond> present+
16:06:50 <dbuc> The equivalence props are testable, and I will have a single page HTML page test today
16:07:05 <identitywoman> manu: Daniel there are three things we  need to talk about one thing can resolve all of them
16:07:41 <identitywoman> manu: 421, 368, 70 all canonacil did / equivalent ID issues - we are close to merging the PR and there is one outstanding thing
16:07:57 <by_caballero> by_caballero has joined #did
16:08:26 <agropper_> agropper_ has joined #did
16:08:32 <identitywoman> manu: Daniel there is one remaining thing - you had put in some must language around relying parties - and it is questionably testable and we don't know if we want to talk about that. I think you were concerned it is testable. Orie was like you write the test for it.
16:08:38 <by_caballero> present+
16:09:10 <identitywoman> Daniel: it is testable and will be writing the test today.
16:09:23 <identitywoman> Daniel: describes the test
16:09:59 <burn> q?
16:10:02 <dmitriz> q+
16:10:09 <identitywoman> Daniel: without the must language it is not reliable - start using the DID and a long time later when it has a simple form I can't switch over to it. If I can't rely on the fact that folks will recognize it - it effectively doesn't exist.
16:10:30 <identitywoman> manu: sounds like a complex test -
16:10:55 <burn> q?
16:11:03 <Orie> Orie has joined #did
16:11:04 <identitywoman> daniel: nope blank DID document that says primary ID - canocal switch
16:11:07 <Orie> present+
16:11:23 <identitywoman> manu: sounds really hard - we could mark it at risk.
16:11:36 <dmitriz> q-
16:11:41 <identitywoman> Daniel: if you fail to read a test we have to go through another CR
16:11:51 <drummond> +1 to merge and to mark at risk in case the test is harder than it looks.
16:11:55 <burn> s/Daniel/manu
16:12:04 <identitywoman> manu: as long as you do the work for it.
16:12:43 <burn> q?
16:12:47 <identitywoman> daniel: many things in the document says things about how it should work. "this is used for this"
16:12:59 <ivan> q+
16:13:05 <identitywoman> manu: we are removing all the language that is not testable.
16:13:25 <identitywoman> manu: we are trying to get very careful a about normative language
16:13:32 <TallTed> SHOULD != MUST among other things...
16:13:47 <dmitriz> q+
16:13:48 <identitywoman> manu: Must will have test for Should might have tests / judgement call
16:14:25 <identitywoman> Daniel: Could we degrade to a should from a must
16:14:26 <burn> ack ivan
16:14:28 <identitywoman> Manu: yes
16:15:47 <identitywoman> Ivan: may mis-understand the discussion and it reminds me of a discsusion. When a working group defines a vocabulary - what the CR phase means around vocabulary is unclear - you can not really test - prove that a certain community uses those terms because it is a useful vocabularly item. Mear existance of a term used by other community may be ok for CR phase.
16:16:11 <identitywoman> Ivan: what they heck does it mean to test a vocabulary item.
16:16:20 <jonathan_holt> q+
16:16:54 <identitywoman> manu: for CR its good enough to show that some people out there are using it (vocabulary)
16:17:03 <identitywoman> ivan: the bar is different
16:17:14 <dmitriz> q-
16:17:18 <identitywoman> ivan: what you have here as a standard reflects what the community means
16:17:34 <dbuc_> dbuc_ has joined #did
16:17:44 <identitywoman> manu: add a tag this must may become a should
16:18:04 <burn> ack jonathan_holt
16:18:40 <identitywoman> Jonathan: testability has to do with DID resolution - we aren't there yet. getting to the point that did methods are testable at did resolution
16:19:09 <identitywoman> manu: with that merge - we can knock out three priority 1 issues.
16:19:42 <identitywoman> manu: everything left is grunt work - we need to specifiy serialization rules we have them for JSON and need to define for JSONLD and CBOR
16:20:09 <burn> q?
16:20:10 <identitywoman> manu: I'm wrong - there is this appendix - discussion w/drummond, joe, kyle
16:20:24 <identitywoman> manu: are we making progress or do we need a speical call on this.
16:21:06 <identitywoman> Drummond: don't know that we need a special call - I'm trying to figure out how to respond to latest comments.  Will figure out in next 48 hours and try to figure out what productively we can do about his comments.
16:21:41 <dbuc_> Aside: the WebID folks at Chrome have advanced the features to the next stage in Chrome's dev stage and has a patch in for it: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2134202
16:21:45 <ivan> q+
16:22:10 <dbuc_> This lays claim to navigator.id as an API area, and at present, really blocks out extensibility and DIDs
16:22:16 <identitywoman> Manu: note to the chairs - everyone needs to start producing text they are going to be happy with. alternate PRs need to be raised or re-wordings need to be proposed. May need a special topic call on it.
16:22:17 <burn> ack ivan
16:22:25 <identitywoman> burn: general objections are no longer ok.
16:22:46 <identitywoman> Ivan: be careful what you wish for - what he is asking for changes all over the place.
16:22:52 <dbuc_> People should be active in their demands for changes to WebID interfaces and its overall scheme
16:23:21 <identitywoman> manu: those are the priority 1 issues and can move on to priority 2 issues.
16:23:54 <burn> Topic: Priority 2 Issues
16:24:00 <burn> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Apre-cr-p2+sort%3Aupdated-asc
16:24:46 <identitywoman> manu: priority 2 issues - start at the top. 1st one restriction of JWK - mike needs to weigh in.
16:25:27 <identitywoman> manu: we have agreed that it should (restrict use of JWK) anything that is in private registry not appear in did document.
16:25:37 <identitywoman> manu: still issues way we talk about keys in did core
16:26:04 <identitywoman> manu: we define things in did core that should be in linked data proof and linked data signature specs <-- just community group documents.
16:26:44 <identitywoman> manu: problem putting it in did core is a layer violation - we can continue to do that but it is not very clear (in the VC spec pointed to other specs)
16:27:01 <dbuc_> Mike says he'll be on in 15 minutes
16:27:16 <identitywoman> manu: tried to use this strategy in the did-core spec and we should normatively define in
16:27:37 <identitywoman> manu: are people open to cleaning up and layer it
16:27:55 <identitywoman> Drummond: can I ask - what do you mean by add the layering
16:28:09 <Orie> See https://w3c.github.io/did-core/#key-types-and-formats
16:28:27 <Orie> q+ to explain ^
16:28:29 <identitywoman> manu: taking out all the specifics of how you express it. we just say if you are interested in expressing bitcoin curve key.
16:28:55 <identitywoman> manu: instead of saying this is exactly how linkeddata proofs and - work - point over somewhere else.
16:29:00 <burn> ack Orie
16:29:00 <Zakim> Orie, you wanted to explain ^
16:29:05 <drummond> q+ to say that sounds like a good idea
16:29:41 <identitywoman> orie: I linked to thie relevent section of did core - a couple open issues. Key type and support section - specific curves and public key list. We are doing a tone of duplicated work.
16:30:10 <identitywoman> manu: feels really sloppy - seems to imply the are the only key types that are supported although the registreis.
16:30:22 <burn> ack drummond
16:30:22 <Zakim> drummond, you wanted to say that sounds like a good idea
16:30:28 <identitywoman> manu: different keys define different types and that is all we should have to say did core
16:30:33 <ivan> q+
16:30:49 <burn> ack ivan
16:30:53 <identitywoman> drummond: +1 to what Orie just said - does clean things up. Didn't understand term layering the way manu did.
16:31:37 <identitywoman> ivan: editorial comment - if I read the document - I will find in the examples - key representation - must make clear terms defined normatively in spec and those defined somewhere else in a registry.
16:31:49 <identitywoman> manu: so where is the line - did core defines these today.
16:32:15 <identitywoman> manu: point to other places - specifications and registries.
16:32:46 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
16:32:49 <identitywoman> ivan: if you stay at that block - id, type controler are defined in spec but publickeybase58 is not defined.
16:32:57 <Orie> q+ to propose defining publicKeyJwk and publicKeyBase58
16:33:03 <identitywoman> ivan: we need very clear list of what is defined IN the specification.
16:33:17 <identitywoman> manu: all true things and things editors would like to clear up.
16:33:27 <burn> ack Orie
16:33:27 <Zakim> Orie, you wanted to propose defining publicKeyJwk and publicKeyBase58
16:33:32 <identitywoman> manu: I expect Mike to object to this in some for
16:33:38 <ivan> present+ JoeAndrieu
16:33:59 <identitywoman> orie: we already agreed to define publickey JWK and publickeybase58
16:34:52 <identitywoman> manu: the reaming item did core doesn't define the left hand side but points to some things on right hand side that are used
16:34:57 <jonathan_holt> +1 to Orie, seems reasonable
16:35:17 <identitywoman> manu: only problem is that this belongs in security vocabulary
16:35:29 <identitywoman> manu: what you suggested orie seems fine to me
16:35:47 <identitywoman> manu: editors will put together a PR to make the layer cleaner (Mike might object)
16:36:08 <identitywoman> manu: Orie could you do me a favor and summarize that as a next step in this item.
16:36:32 <identitywoman> manu: horizontal review self test (its done)
16:36:39 <identitywoman> ivan: its done
16:36:52 <identitywoman> manu: pcr22 - left open for reporting.
16:37:26 <identitywoman> manu: same thing for accessability
16:38:07 <burn> s/pcr22/issue104/
16:38:30 <burn> s/accessability/accessibility, issue 105/
16:39:53 <identitywoman> manu: next issue 325 has to do with the raw values for secp256 r1 - we are trying to figure out ...this had to do with the rewrite - suggestion for this one is to remove the text or the JWK crypto suite to define this
16:41:48 <identitywoman> manu: ivan - this one 404 - so we have to agree - what exactly we want to do. JSON schema CDDL - ... I can't decide what should be there. I came up with RDF vocab and shakle - we have to define what exactly we want to do - maybe a special call - I woudln't know what to do
16:42:15 <identitywoman> manu: we are going to have did-core human readable. JSON LD context that defines URL -
16:42:21 <identitywoman> ivan: jump ahead a little bit
16:42:38 <burn> s/jump ahead/you jumped ahead/
16:42:49 <Orie> q+ to ask about the relationship to the registries
16:42:54 <identitywoman> manu: context defines some of the terms - reader doesn't want to go down to the core - reader doesn't want to look at JSONLD it is useless.
16:43:13 <identitywoman> ivan: what are the terms that are defined - usable.
16:43:24 <burn> ack Orie
16:43:24 <Zakim> Orie, you wanted to ask about the relationship to the registries
16:43:54 <identitywoman> orie: so we did have some discsusion about this on various different issues. this is the thing that bothers me and teh relationship between registreis and did core vocab.
16:44:48 <identitywoman> orie: the specific separation of concerns did core spec, did core vocab and did core registries. Yes JSONLD - RDF and also plain english - machine and human readable definitions.
16:44:56 <identitywoman> ivan: typical topic for special call.
16:45:01 <burn> q?
16:45:07 <identitywoman> manu: not ready for PR need special topics call
16:45:20 <identitywoman> manu: I think we need at least these things need to be defined.
16:46:03 <drummond> +1 to special topic call on specifying the vocabulary
16:46:09 <identitywoman> ivan: can I make life easier with next two items
16:46:35 <shigeya> +1 to special topic call on specifying the vocabulary, too.
16:46:43 <identitywoman> ivan: amy did heroic work since I read this it has changed a lot.
16:47:00 <identitywoman> ivan: I would propose to close both of those issues.
16:48:17 <identitywoman> manu: longly can we get a status on the information proxy type - if you can do anything it is going to go to registry
16:48:33 <identitywoman> manu: closing issues
16:49:13 <identitywoman> manu: orie issue 423
16:49:42 <identitywoman> manu: issue 240 was already discussed
16:50:00 <identitywoman> manu: will be closed when there is a PR
16:50:13 <identitywoman> manu: 298
16:50:21 <burn> s/298/398/
16:50:54 <identitywoman> orie: as soon as we have the CBOR CDDL  - in the security and privacy questionnaire.
16:51:41 <burn> Topic: Back to 454
16:51:42 <brent> q+ to say we should merge good faith efforts to address his concerns and continue forward
16:51:49 <ivan> +1
16:51:59 <identitywoman> Manu: we need a position on 454 my suggestion we merge it in - any changes mike wants can be made in a new PR.
16:52:03 <burn> ack brent
16:52:03 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to say we should merge good faith efforts to address his concerns and continue forward
16:52:03 <drummond> +1
16:52:32 <drummond> Agree with Brent.
16:52:50 <identitywoman> brent: essentially same things as manu - a number suggestions in the PR that are good faith efforts to meet mikes concerns those should be merged.
16:52:59 <burn> I agree, as co-chair
16:53:01 <identitywoman> manu: editors can proceed.
16:53:01 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #did
16:53:08 <selfissued> present+
16:53:38 <identitywoman> joe: my question is address by drummonds comment
16:53:46 <identitywoman> ivan: Mike has arrived.
16:54:22 <identitywoman> manu: discussing 454 with the changes that have been suggested would you be ok with merging the PR.
16:54:32 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
16:54:32 <Zakim> Present: burn, ivan, brent, wayne, shigeya, jonathan_holt, rhiaro, identitywoman, agropper, TallTed, manu, markus_sabadello, dlongley, chriswinc, justin_r, dmitriz, dbuc, drummond,
16:54:36 <Zakim> ... by_caballero, Orie, JoeAndrieu, selfissued
16:54:36 <Zakim> On IRC I see selfissued, JoeAndrieu, dbuc_, Orie, agropper_, by_caballero, justin_r, chriswinc, drummond, markus_sabadello, identitywoman, jonathan_holt, brent, burn, TallTed,
16:54:36 <Zakim> ... dmitriz, RRSAgent, Zakim, ivan, tzviya, deiu, wayne, faceface, dlehn, shigeya, hadleybeeman, Travis_, bigbluehat, ChristopherA, dlongley, manu, rhiaro
16:54:44 <identitywoman> burn: chairs believe there is a good faith effort
16:54:47 <selfissued> q+
16:54:54 <burn> ack selfissued
16:54:59 <ivan> present+ markus_sabadello
16:55:53 <identitywoman> burn: we are waiting on resolving your concerns
16:56:16 <identitywoman> manu: justin has attempted to add this additional language and defined terms
16:57:19 <identitywoman> manu: context will be ignored, will not have additional processing
16:58:23 <identitywoman> Mike: is this the PR that deletes the text - we add other text to clarify what ignore means.
16:58:53 <identitywoman> Mike: all right it is equivalent to what we had before - well alright.
16:58:56 <justin_r> q+
16:58:58 <drummond> Yes, it is equivalent and actually clearer
16:59:47 <TallTed> note that the later note has a textual (and I believe editorial) tweak suggestion from me, which Github doesn't track as such, because you can't add a suggested change to a suggested change...
16:59:47 <justin_r> q-
16:59:53 <identitywoman> manu: we added text around ignoring un-known properties - and it is more specific about what we mean. unrecognized properties will be preserved.
17:00:42 <identitywoman> Dan: we are at top of the hour. so we are done. There is a special topic call thursday - complete security and privacy questionaire.
17:01:10 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:01:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/12/01-did-minutes.html ivan
17:01:14 <agropper_> agropper_ has left #did
17:02:02 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
17:02:02 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been burn, ivan, brent, wayne, shigeya, jonathan_holt, rhiaro, identitywoman, agropper, TallTed, manu, markus_sabadello, dlongley, chriswinc,
17:02:05 <Zakim> ... justin_r, dmitriz, dbuc, drummond, by_caballero, Orie, JoeAndrieu, selfissued
17:02:05 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:02:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/12/01-did-minutes.html Zakim
17:02:08 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:02:13 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did
17:02:13 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
17:02:13 <RRSAgent> I see no action items