22:53:35 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
22:53:35 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/12/22-did-irc
22:53:43 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #did
22:54:01 <burn> present+
22:54:53 <justin_r> justin_r has joined #did
23:00:13 <brent> present+
23:01:16 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
23:01:39 <TallTed> present+
23:01:45 <shigeya> present+
23:01:56 <justin_r> present+
23:02:13 <markus_sabadello> present+
23:02:41 <drummond> drummond has joined #did
23:02:46 <drummond> present+
23:02:47 <brent> scribe+
23:02:55 <drummond> scribe+
23:03:03 <burn> Topic: Agenda Review, Introductions, Re-introductions
23:03:10 <kdenhartog> kdenhartog has joined #did
23:03:25 <drummond> burn: quick reminder to rejoin the WG
23:03:35 <brent> topic: agenda review
23:03:42 <drummond> ...followed by priority issues
23:03:47 <burn> Topic: Reminder to Re-Join WG
23:04:14 <brent> burn: rejoin the working group. We have 45 days from the announcement (around the beginning of December).
23:04:28 <brent> ... any questions please ask us. Your access will expire after 45 days.
23:04:35 <burn> Topic: Give feedback on PR 480
23:04:38 <brent> ... many have done that, so thank you.
23:04:46 <burn> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/480
23:05:17 <drummond> brent: PR 480 is an attempt to meet the use case of DIDs identifying information resources
23:05:42 <kdenhartog> q+
23:05:52 <burn> ack kdenhartog
23:06:00 <drummond> ...it introduces a new DID parameter called "resource" that can be added to a DID URL to request the information resource to be returned
23:06:29 <drummond> kdenhartog: Wonders about the questions about resolution vs. dereferencing?
23:06:40 <drummond> brent: Manu's concern was mostly that others might be concerned
23:07:05 <kdenhartog> q+
23:07:05 <drummond> ...the spec has always differentiated about resolution vs. dereferencing, so that distinction is clear
23:07:16 <drummond> ...this parameter takes advantage of that
23:07:18 <drummond> q+
23:07:33 <burn> ack kdenhartog
23:07:34 <drummond> ...this parameter can be implemented by any DID method
23:07:42 <burn> ack drummond
23:07:45 <brent> kdenhartog: I'll comment via github
23:08:19 <brent> drummond: I wanted to say that they way in which this parameter takes advantage of the distinction between resolution and dereferencing is very elegant.
23:08:39 <burn> Topic: Topic call resolution
23:08:47 <burn> https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-12-17-did-topic#resolution1
23:08:56 <brent> burn: there was a resolution taken during our last topic call
23:09:04 <burn> "The DID Working Group will maintain the DID Spec Registries until the end of its charter. The DID Working Group plans to request the management of W3C to submit a charter for a maintenance DID Working Group to the W3C Advisory Committee as a successor to this Working Group. Per the planned charter of that Working Group, that group would officially manage the registry, and would do that in cooperation with the W3C Credentials Community Group."
23:09:11 <dbuc> dbuc has joined #did
23:09:45 <brent> burn: normally there are 7 days for folks to object to a resolution, but since this was during a topic call we wanted to ask here. Does anyone object?
23:09:53 <TallTed> q+ to not object but question the immediate process
23:09:58 <burn> ack TallTed
23:09:58 <Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to not object but question the immediate process
23:10:16 <kdenhartog> I wasn't on the call but am +1 for them
23:10:33 <brent> TallTed: I'm not objecting, but have questions about the process. Are we chopping time off the objection time?
23:10:41 <brent> burn: no, the full time is there.
23:11:04 <brent> TallTed: I think thgere should be an email sent out just about this, there are many who may be on holiday already.
23:11:35 <brent> burn: I'll make sure the minutes today state there were no objections raised, but the full seven days remain.
23:11:59 <brent> TallTed: I'm suggesting the immediate process is problematic.
23:12:19 <brent> burn: Anyone who objects within 7 days, we will raise and discuss it.
23:12:36 <brent> TallTed: I object to that process and the way these resolutions are being handled right now.
23:12:51 <brent> burn: you are asking for more time to review beyond the 7 days?
23:13:26 <brent> TallTed: no, but I was not aware that these decisions were going to be made and others are not now participating.
23:14:01 <brent> burn: Those who have been participating regularly know that the 7 days has applied even to the special topic calls.
23:14:14 <brent> ... I think it is perhaps that you are unfamiliar with the process.
23:14:34 <brent> ... the only requirement is to let us know that more review time is desired for any particular topic.
23:14:47 <brent> TallTed: This is not a pattern I would like to maintain.
23:15:24 <brent> burn: you are the first to object to this process. If you have objections to these resolutions, let us know. If you would like to review this process with the group, we can raise that in January.
23:15:51 <brent> TallTed: I'm familiar with the 7 days for the regular calls, but not the special calls.
23:16:11 <brent> burn: Yes, we started that a few months ago. Is this a topic you want to bring up in January?
23:16:38 <brent> TallTed: no, because my concerns are around this particular when a lot of folks are offline.
23:17:13 <brent> burn: We have already explained in the past that if there is a time coming up where a participant will be unavailable, they can let the chairs know.
23:17:42 <brent> ... you say this is a whole group issue, but the rest of the group has already accepted this process.
23:18:01 <brent> TallTed: I'm not seeing advance notice of these resolutions.
23:18:13 <jonathan_holt> jonathan_holt has joined #did
23:18:26 <jonathan_holt> present+ jonathan_holt
23:18:35 <brent> burn: there was advance notice that we were talking about the Registry, so they had opportunity to lewt us know that they wouldn't be available.
23:18:38 <justin_r> revisiting as needed is the important part here
23:19:00 <brent> ... If someone comes in January and objects, we will let them speak. We're not trying to ram anythin through.
23:19:23 <brent> ... we are particularly not scheduling things after today's call for the reason of the holidays.
23:19:29 <burn> q?
23:19:47 <jonathan_holt> q+
23:19:48 <brent> ... if someone didn;t know they were going to be gone and missed the opportunity, they will have that chance.
23:20:00 <brent> TallTed: I don't have an agenda for that call.
23:20:10 <brent> burn: It may have just been the topic.
23:20:33 <brent> ... I believe an announcement was sent, but what I'm concerned with is if this is an issue for you.
23:20:51 <brent> TallTed: this was not an issue for me, but I'm concerned about it being an issue for others.
23:21:25 <brent> ... I don't have objections to these resolutions as they stand. I didn't see an email with an agenda for that call.
23:21:38 <shigeya> > Brent Zundel: next special topic registry handling, on Thursday the 12/17 12pm EST.
23:21:38 <brent> burn: let me look and see if I can find that.
23:21:55 <brent> ... we are going to take the time to work this out because it is a process question.
23:22:05 <kdenhartog> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2020Dec/0008.html
23:22:35 <brent> burn: sent on december 11th announcing the call.
23:22:46 <brent> ... this is the pattern in which they have been sent.
23:22:59 <brent> TallTed: I ask Brent to revise the template.
23:23:23 <brent> burn: reading email
23:23:38 <shigeya>  /me you're welcome :)
23:23:54 <brent> burn: please send a request to us that you'd like that changed.
23:24:14 <brent> TallTed: problematic ones will happen and following the procedure we've laid out should work for us.
23:24:41 <brent> burn: an email was sent announcing the meeting, with notice that a minutes email would also be sent about the resolutions
23:24:58 <brent> ... I'd like to move on at this point.
23:25:10 <burn> ack jonathan_holt
23:25:16 <brent> ... if you still feel we've violated the process we've laid out, let the chairs know and we will adress it.
23:25:40 <brent> jonathan_holt: I think process was followed, but share Ted's frustration that we're moving so fast.
23:25:49 <brent> ... it is hard to stay on top of it all.
23:26:20 <brent> ... I wasn't able to attend in Amsterdam, then didn't have time to process and that was hard.
23:26:48 <brent> ... I think we need to take the time to make sure we're building this standard up properly.
23:27:21 <brent> burn: We've built this process to let us move as quickly as we can and anyone can let us know they need to take more time.
23:27:32 <brent> ... anyone who wnats more time can ask for it.
23:27:32 <justin_r> q+
23:27:37 <burn> ack justin_r
23:27:39 <brent> ... if you're asking for it we can stop.
23:27:43 <drummond> I agree with DanB that we have been following process and did so here. There were 15+ people on the special topic call that produced these proposals.
23:28:04 <brent> justin_r: the important thing here is the process has enough safety valves that we can always come back to things later.
23:28:29 <brent> ... it doesn't help us to dwel on a hypothetical problems not shared by the original raiser.
23:28:32 <jonathan_holt> +1, yes thank your justin_r
23:28:53 <brent> ... the escape valves have provided a good way to move fast and address things.
23:29:12 <justin_r> jonathan_holt: the important point is that "I need more time" is meaningful, but "someone else might need more time" is not
23:29:26 <burn> Topic: Priority 1 Issues
23:29:29 <brent> burn: we will allow until the first meeting in January for objections to these resolutions even thouugh process has been folowwed.
23:29:41 <brent> burn: moving on to priority 1 issues
23:30:04 <brent> ... github is very slow today, is there an editor who can walk through these.
23:30:07 <burn> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Apre-cr-p1+sort%3Aupdated-asc
23:30:14 <brent> justin_r: I can share my screen if that's useful
23:31:01 <brent> burn: starting with PR 506
23:31:24 <kdenhartog> present+
23:31:24 <dbuc> present+
23:31:32 <brent> ... Daniel Buchner, what's the status?
23:31:58 <brent> dbuc: the spec was originally polymorphic for this property and we needed an array.
23:32:17 <burn> q?
23:32:17 <brent> ... so we're transitioning this to an array of strings in this PR
23:32:39 <brent> ... this will be a breaking change if folks have used objects.
23:32:57 <brent> justin_r: an observation: objects are still allowed.
23:33:19 <brent> ... all of the things in the PR are allowed.
23:33:28 <brent> dbuc: I support this PR being pulled in
23:33:39 <brent> burn: can you review PR 510?
23:33:50 <brent> s/PR 506/issue 506/
23:34:04 <brent> burn: next one is issue 499
23:34:26 <kdenhartog> q+
23:34:48 <markus_sabadello> q+
23:34:48 <brent> ... assigned to Manu. It says ready for PR,.
23:35:10 <kdenhartog> q- Justin covered it
23:35:13 <kdenhartog> q-
23:35:21 <brent> justin_r: the issue 361 was related. we didn't have type definitions, and we need that for the metadata properties as well
23:35:39 <burn> ack markus_sabadello
23:35:41 <brent> burn: and this is now a P1 issue, it was P2. Looks like it still needs a PR.
23:35:49 <dbuc> Reviewed #510, good to merge
23:36:00 <brent> markus_sabadello: I also agree we need a PR to clarify the data types of metadata proerties.
23:36:13 <brent> burn: so it is just waiting on some work, it is in progress.
23:36:22 <brent> ... issue 498
23:36:37 <brent> ... waiting on PR 509.
23:37:05 <brent> justin_r: looks relatively straightforward. makes the time string more precise for JSON and CBOR
23:37:22 <brent> ... apparently I was supposed to review this.
23:37:35 <brent> burn: go back to 498.
23:37:46 <brent> justin_r: it will be closed once PR 509 is merged
23:38:31 <justin_r> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/509
23:39:02 <brent> TallTed: we need links
23:39:12 <kdenhartog> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/495
23:39:15 <brent> burn: moving on to the next one: issue 495
23:39:37 <brent> ... assigned to markus, shigeya will make a PR
23:39:48 <brent> justin_r: next is issue 384
23:39:57 <kdenhartog> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/384
23:40:22 <brent> justin_r: current status way down here
23:40:33 <brent> kdenhartog: this is tracking the normative statements so far.
23:40:42 <brent> ... there's a large comment with all of the current ones.
23:41:21 <brent> ... then Mike Jones pointed out that statements even without RFC 2119 language are normative
23:41:39 <brent> ... I said maybe we should specify that only RFC2119 statements are normative
23:41:51 <brent> justin_r: there's a RFC2119 update that we should adopt
23:42:13 <brent> ... it has "if and only if" language
23:42:18 <brent> burn:
23:42:37 <brent> ... issue 291, what is the status?
23:42:46 <kdenhartog> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/291
23:43:43 <brent> brent: PINGgot an email and siad they would assign a reviewer
23:43:55 <brent> burn: issue 199
23:43:57 <kdenhartog> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/199
23:44:45 <brent> justin_r: there is a link to the PR we disciussed earlier (480)
23:44:46 <drummond> brent: PR 480 is the answer to this issue. Which is why we are asking the group for review now.
23:44:55 <kdenhartog> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/170
23:44:58 <brent> brent: just waiting on review, it will be pulled in soon if no objections
23:45:13 <brent> justin_r: issue 170 is tagged pending closed
23:45:36 <brent> kdenhartog: Mike objected to closing it, saying it hadn't been resolved, but he noever proposed specific text.
23:46:04 <brent> ... so Manu said we would close it unless concrete text is provided.
23:46:30 <brent> justin_r: knowing some of what Mike is dealing with, I recommend that the chairs reach out to him specifically so it get on his radar.
23:46:41 <brent> burn: thank you, we will reach out.
23:46:52 <jonathan_holt> q+
23:47:06 <burn> ack jonathan_holt
23:47:25 <brent> jonathan_holt: I would also add that Mike has considerable expertise and his input is valuable.
23:47:47 <brent> burn: no argument there, but we have been waiting for concrete text for quite awhile.
23:48:02 <brent> burn: issue 119
23:48:03 <kdenhartog> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/119
23:48:51 <brent> brent: still waiting to hear back from TAG
23:49:11 <brent> justin_r: issue 118
23:49:13 <kdenhartog> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/118
23:49:20 <brent> burn: we will get this done right before CR
23:49:34 <brent> justin_r: issue 58
23:49:36 <kdenhartog> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/58
23:49:45 <brent> ... this is the topic of the resolution we looked at earlier
23:50:13 <brent> burn: could someone put in there that the deadline for objecting to the resolutions is January 5, 2021
23:50:25 <brent> justin_r: done
23:50:54 <brent> burn: I think that's all the P! issues
23:51:00 <brent> s/P!/P1/
23:51:45 <burn> Topic: Priority 2 Issues
23:51:50 <brent> burn: now priority 2 issues
23:51:54 <burn> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Apre-cr-p2+sort%3Aupdated-asc
23:52:42 <brent> burn: P1 issues are deemed by the editors to need to be done before CR. the P2 are important,
23:52:48 <kdenhartog> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/483
23:52:51 <brent> ... issue 483
23:53:11 <brent> kdenhartog: this issue raiser is at 3Box or ceramic.
23:53:19 <brent> burn: assigned to Markus
23:53:30 <kdenhartog> Ceramic, I don't believe he's a member of the WG
23:53:43 <brent> markus_sabadello: there is a PR to add additional metadata propeeties to add security to some cases of the resolution process.
23:54:09 <brent> ... two process questions: is this blocked by feature freeze? and the author is not a W3C member
23:54:16 <brent> ... not sure what to do.
23:54:39 <brent> burn: with respect to feature freeze, if this is fixing a bug, it can qualify under our existing process.
23:54:53 <brent> ... the question about IPR needs to be discussed by editors and chairs
23:55:13 <brent> ... since this has been proposed, we would appreciate comments from the group in the PR
23:55:25 <kdenhartog> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/479
23:55:26 <brent> justin_r: better example, issue 479
23:55:51 <brent> burn: linked to a PR in the registries (PR 168)
23:56:12 <brent> ... if there are no objections in general, because examples are non normative, they'll go in
23:56:20 <kdenhartog> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/468
23:56:23 <brent> burn: let's look at issue 468
23:56:57 <brent> markus_sabadello: I can talk about this one. what should be the result of a resolution process if a DID has been deactivated. we just need a PR.
23:57:12 <brent> burn: looked like there was some disagreement, but I may be reading it wrong.
23:57:23 <brent> markus_sabadello: there has been some discussion.
23:57:37 <brent> burn: we are at the point where we need a PR to discuss
23:58:01 <brent> ... there will come a time where items that are ready for a PR, but there isn't a PR, they may not make it in the spec.
23:58:14 <brent> burn: issue 463
23:58:21 <kdenhartog> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/463
23:58:36 <brent> markus_sabadello: this is following the long abstract data model discussions.
23:59:05 <brent> ... we said we would still figure out the exact terminology for naming the different buckets.
23:59:26 <brent> ... there is a diagram in the issue which is my understanding of where we ended up.
23:59:36 <brent> ... we need a PR to make the terms consistent
23:59:43 <brent> burn: I think this is in progress.
23:59:52 <brent> ... thanks Markus
00:00:03 <brent> burn: thanks to all.
00:00:30 <markus_sabadello> Thanks to Dan for being a wonderful chair!
00:00:52 <brent> ... this group has progressed so well
00:01:06 <brent> ... making good progress., see you in January
00:01:55 <burn> rrsagent, draft minutes
00:01:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/12/22-did-minutes.html burn
00:09:13 <brent> zakim, end the meeting
00:09:13 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been burn, brent, TallTed, shigeya, justin_r, markus_sabadello, drummond, jonathan_holt, kdenhartog, dbuc
00:09:15 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
00:09:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/12/22-did-minutes.html Zakim
00:09:18 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, brent; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
00:09:22 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did
00:09:31 <brent> rrsagent, goodbye
00:09:31 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'goodbye', brent.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
00:09:55 <brent> rrsagent, please excuse us
00:10:22 <brent> rrsagent, make minutes public
00:10:22 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', brent.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
00:10:32 <brent> rrsagent, make logs public
00:10:41 <brent> rrsagent, please excuse us
00:10:41 <RRSAgent> I see no action items