15:48:24 RRSAgent has joined #did 15:48:24 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/01/05-did-irc 15:48:25 RRSAgent, make logs Public 15:48:27 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan 15:48:40 Meeting: DID WG Telco 15:48:41 Chair: brent 15:48:41 Date: 2021-01-05 15:48:41 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/mid/00000000000067ace805b8152761@google.com 15:48:41 ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2021-01-05: https://www.w3.org/mid/00000000000067ace805b8152761@google.com 15:51:11 burn has joined #did 15:55:53 present+ 15:56:19 scribe+ 15:56:56 Topic: Agenda Review, Introductions, Re-introductions 15:58:02 present+ 15:58:06 agropper has joined #did 15:58:20 present+ 15:59:19 present+ 15:59:20 present+ 16:00:09 phila_ has joined #did 16:00:26 present+ 16:01:36 drummond has joined #did 16:01:42 present+ 16:01:55 dmitriz has joined #did 16:02:03 present+ 16:02:08 present+ 16:02:58 brent: presents agenda 16:03:02 selfissued has joined #did 16:03:03 present+ identitywoman 16:03:05 present+ 16:03:14 present+ 16:03:21 present+ 16:03:26 ... reminder: if you have not yet voted in TAG election, deadline is midnight US ET tonight, so vote! 16:03:34 ... this is for AC reps 16:03:50 ... reintroductions? 16:04:00 Orie has joined #did 16:04:04 present+ 16:04:29 markus: Editor of DID core spec, with Danube Tech. Been working on DIDs etc since the beginning. Interested in resolution aspect of the topic. 16:04:49 Topic: Reminder to Re-Join WG 16:05:14 present+ jandrieu 16:05:24 brent: we have officially rechartered the group due to the new patent policy, so we all have to rejoin. Orgs, please rejoin. 30th of this month is last opportunity. After that you will be removed from the group 16:05:34 ... do individuals also need to rejoin? 16:06:11 ivan: AC rep does renewal for the org, then selects which individuals already in the group to continue. 16:06:33 brent: I had received an email asking me to rejoin, so just checking 16:06:43 ivan: yes, that was an automated email but you're fine. 16:06:47 Geunhyung_Kim has joined #did 16:06:53 present+ ned_smith 16:06:58 Is there a link at which organizations rejoin? 16:06:58 brent: there was a special topic call scheduled for today, but we have canceled it 16:07:07 present+ 16:07:08 Topic: qv 16:07:11 Topic: Give feedback on PR 460 16:07:13 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/460 16:07:30 Eugeniu_Rusu has joined #did 16:07:49 brent: If you have not looked at this non-normative appendix text, please do. They are important for the spec 16:07:51 q+ 16:08:21 jonathan_holt has joined #did 16:08:45 present+ jonathan_holt 16:08:58 present+ 16:08:58 q+ 16:09:07 charles_lehner: work for spruce systems. I have to rejoin as others. 16:09:21 ivan: wayne needs to take care of getting you on the list, charles. 16:10:04 Geunhyung_Kim: I work for Goorumi. I am member of W3C and joined this group to check out DID. 16:10:27 ack drummond 16:10:59 drummond: on 460, there has been some good feedback. since resource parameter has been pulled in, the appendix text needs a small update. 16:11:01 Gooroomee 16:11:20 ... encourage everyone to take a look at the text and comment. Preferably this week so I can update this weekend 16:11:32 ack selfissued 16:11:40 selfissued: what does an org need to do to rejoin 16:11:55 ivan: microsoft has already done it, and you are all set 16:12:09 ... the AC rep for MSFT should have done this for everyone in the group 16:12:15 JoeAndrieu has joined #did 16:12:21 present+ 16:12:23 brent: if your AC rep needs the link let us know 16:12:28 q+ 16:12:39 ack JoeAndrieu 16:13:17 JoeAndrieu: on 460, I posted a lot. The current language is confusing and misleading. We can do better. Identifiers refer to things rather than identifying things. 16:13:34 present+ charles_lehner 16:13:39 brent: everyone, please make your opinions known on the pull request. 16:13:43 Topic: Registry resolutions 16:13:46 https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-12-17-did-topic#resolution1 16:14:15 markus_sabadello has joined #did 16:14:17 brent: a number of resolutions were made in a special topic call in December. 16:14:18 present+ 16:14:25 present+ caballero_juan 16:14:54 Resolution #1: 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. 16:14:57 present+ Eugeniu_Rusu 16:15:01 +1 16:15:15 PROPOSAL: 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. 16:15:18 +1 16:15:19 +1 16:15:20 ... Our standard work mode is, because we provide minutes and advertise the calls, after 7 days we assume the decision reflects the will of the g9roup. In this case we allowed extra time due to the holidays. Will run now as a proposal. 16:15:21 +1 16:15:22 +1 16:15:22 +1 16:15:23 +1 16:15:26 +1 16:15:26 +1 16:15:26 +1 16:15:28 +1 16:15:36 +1 16:15:39 +1 16:15:41 +1 16:15:41 +1 16:15:58 RESOLVED: 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. 16:16:03 +1 16:16:25 q+ 16:16:27 cel has joined #did 16:16:39 ack ivan 16:17:00 q+ 16:17:05 ack jonathan_holt 16:17:14 ivan: this was the only one that needed confirmation because of its implications for the work. The other resolutios are reflected in PRs 16:17:47 jonathan_holt: I would like an approach like the EIP process for improvements. 16:17:59 brent: please suggest in the registries repo 16:18:05 Topic: Priority 1 Issues 16:18:10 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Apre-cr-p1+sort%3Aupdated-asc 16:18:29 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/118 16:18:48 brent: this will happen just before CR; editorial 16:18:56 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/292 16:19:10 ... leaving open to track horizontal review. anticipate hearng from PING shortly 16:19:19 q+ 16:19:25 ack manu 16:19:29 ... haven't heard anything on security review 16:19:51 +1 to giving PING dates 16:19:52 manu: may want to notify them that we are going to CR imminently and suggest a date when we need their feedback by 16:20:01 brent: agree. Will send them a note. 16:20:25 manu: not just PING, but anyone we're waiting on 16:20:45 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/199 16:20:59 q+ 16:21:14 brent: addressed by PR that has been merged (I think). Is there anything that needs to be addressed by appendix PR? 16:21:16 justin_r has joined #did 16:21:21 ack drummond 16:21:22 present+ 16:21:54 drummond: yes. The substantive issue has been addressed by the resource parameter, but the balance will be addressed by the appendix PR 16:22:05 brent: manu has reflected this status now in the PR 16:22:16 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/291 16:22:28 ... leaving open for PING review. Action is on brent to contact. 16:22:42 q+ to ask about "resource" 16:22:43 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/119 16:22:44 ... Same for TAG, same action item. 16:22:54 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/170 16:23:06 ack JoeAndrieu 16:23:06 JoeAndrieu, you wanted to ask about "resource" 16:23:08 JoeAndrieu: what was the PR that pulled in resource? 16:23:22 I wasn't aware of it 16:23:31 q+ 16:23:36 s/I was/JoeAndrieu: I was/ 16:23:47 JoeAndrieu: I want to look into it 16:23:55 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/480 16:23:57 brent: PR 480 16:24:31 ... the text had been modified to comply with most consensus we had in the group during our special topic call. There is not a property in the DID doc, but a parameter that can be created to ma]ke a DID URL 16:24:49 ... it was merged under the assumption of agreement by group, so please review 16:25:00 JoeAndrieu: what you said sounds okay, but I will check 16:25:10 brent: we revised it with your opinions in mind 16:25:16 ack drummond 16:25:50 drummond: I proveded response on 457 that herd privacy is important but may not apply to all DIDs. Can apply to many, but not all. 16:25:58 brent: let's not have the conversation now. 16:26:10 JoeAndrieu: herd privacy is about applying to ALL DIDs 16:26:19 ... so let's have a special topic call on this 16:26:21 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/58 16:26:28 q+ 16:26:39 brent: I believe this has been partially addressed. 16:26:39 ack manu 16:26:57 q+ 16:27:12 ack ivan 16:27:21 To be clear, herd privacy should to apply to all privacy-respecting DIDs for humans. To insist that it apply to all DIDs would be a major mistake. 16:27:27 ivan: on registry handling, I don't see anything here not solved by our resolutiion. 16:27:35 ... was about registries will be handled. 16:27:43 ... our resolution today explains this. 16:27:54 brent: can you please comment in issue, and close if happy? 16:27:57 ivan: will do 16:28:00 q+ 16:28:01 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/170 16:28:29 ack manu 16:28:35 brent: last action item needed here was for Mike to provide a PR for any text changes he beliveed were necessary. 16:28:55 manu: changes made based on the issue are clarifying that id is different from kid and ??. 16:29:15 ... orie has also put in multiple PRs to explain how they are different and how to set them. 16:29:27 ... clear now that they are different. 16:29:48 ... when will this isssue be resolved? 16:30:06 selfissued: does the issue contain links to all the PRs mentioned? 16:30:12 manu: let me know if note 16:30:20 s/note/not 16:30:34 selfissued: I will review the spec to see if this issue is still pertinent 16:30:52 ... I'll sign off or raise a PR. 16:31:03 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/518 16:31:45 ivan: I put in a PR recently about this. AKA uses lists instead of ordered set. Waiting on editors. 16:31:57 brent: if 522 is merged this can be closed? 16:31:59 ivan: yes 16:32:22 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/384 16:32:30 q+ 16:32:47 ack manu 16:32:49 manu: over the past few weeks have done top to bottom review of all normative statements in spec 16:33:04 ... there is one PR that finishes up tightening up the language 16:33:16 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/526 16:33:24 ... Amy has reviewed many times. At this point think the normative statements are in good shape. 16:33:34 q+ 16:33:35 ... PR 526 is the last one. 16:33:56 ... our spec is 125 pages, will get larger with appendix. 168 normative statements, which is a lot for a data model spec. 16:34:32 ... out of 168, about 90 are about core data model, 20 are about did methods, and remainder have to do with did resolutinon and dereferencing 16:34:53 ... good chunk of statements where it's questionable whether we should test them. 16:35:19 ack selfissued 16:35:21 ... overall in good shape, last remaining PR to approve, then possibly decide about testing the res and deref statements. 16:35:57 q+ to note on the "normative language in the spec" 16:36:12 selfissued: the language being used to describe normative statements is confusing. We explicitly state that the whole spec is normative unless marked otherwise. 16:36:30 ... so let's stop calling the 2119 language as the only normative statements. Everything else is testable 16:36:32 ack manu 16:36:32 manu, you wanted to note on the "normative language in the spec" 16:36:59 manu: while technically true, editors have worked hard to ensure that statements to be tested are written using the 2119 language 16:37:00 q+ 16:37:29 ... it's hard to pick up other language. if you want something tested, use 2119 language. makes it easy for group to understand exactly what will be tested. 16:37:45 ... easier for testing and communication. 16:38:25 selfissued: let's not use misleading language. talk about 2119 lang you intend to write tests for. Don't make "normative statements" be a subset of what they actually are. 16:38:33 ack phila_ 16:39:39 phila_: mike, you're correct about the boilerplate statement that's in all W3C specs. The way it is interpreted in all specs we are aware of is that we use the 2119 language to make clear what is to be tested as distinct from the intro text additionally included typically 16:39:40 q+ 16:39:45 ack Orie 16:40:27 Orie: we are arguing over what we test. As long as we are clear about how we make clear which statements are testable, I'm good. It shouldn't be every statement in the spec. 16:40:28 +1 to just following a simple rule: apply 2119 language to any normative requirement that needs testing. 16:40:30 q+ to note intent -- MUSTs will be prioritized for testing... then SHOULDs, then MAYs. 16:40:31 q+ 16:40:38 ack manu 16:40:38 manu, you wanted to note intent -- MUSTs will be prioritized for testing... then SHOULDs, then MAYs. 16:41:18 manu: some people may have missed the testing special call. Intent is to write tests for every RFC 2119 lanugage. If you don't see one you think is needed, propose it. 16:42:08 ... Also, there are never enough test writers, so we will prioritize MUST statements over SHOULDs over MAYs in our test development. 16:42:29 ... anything MUST that is testable by machine WILL be in the test suite. For others we'll see how far we get. 16:42:32 ack burn 16:42:37 scribe+ 16:43:16 burn: just wanted to chime in on 2119 language. this is common pattern in specs, to include informational text and all statements we want tested uses 2119 language. 16:43:24 q? 16:43:39 brent: review 526 16:43:57 ... if you feel language should be tested, propose RFC 2119 lanugage for that text 16:44:06 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/495 16:44:48 markus_sabadello: it's waiting for a PR from Shigeya. Just adding a clarification. 16:45:12 Topic: Priority 2 Issues 16:45:21 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Apre-cr-p2+sort%3Aupdated-asc 16:45:48 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/163 16:45:52 brent: this will be done just before CR; editorial 16:46:23 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/404 16:47:24 please review https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/528 16:47:37 identitywoman has joined #did 16:47:39 ivan: there were discussions on various PRs. Latest one has now been reviewed by Amy and Manu. PR 528. To make definitions clearer I gave an editorial revview that called out all the constraints in the text into a table. 16:47:50 present+ 16:48:00 ... don't know if editors agree. IF pulled in, then rest is not normative (needed before CR) 16:48:24 ... we still have to collect various ways of specifying vocab for different serializations, but that should not be normative 16:48:38 ... making a first version of a JSON Schema for core vocab 16:49:00 ... will not touch CBOR/CDDL. Also did something for JSON-LD version. Should be made publicly available somewhere. 16:49:15 ... If manu and other editors agree, this can be closed. 16:49:33 ... I raised two minor issues on some of the constraints. I leave to the editors. 16:49:59 brent: so next steps woul d be to review and merge 528, then create non-normative vocabs for the different representations? 16:50:01 ivan: yes 16:50:18 brent: ivan, can you please update issue with that status? 16:50:28 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/425 16:51:32 q+ 16:51:35 JoeAndrieu: shouldn't be assigned to me. I made the comment and Wendy Seltzer commented. She suggested looking at IANA protocol registries. There is a larger problem in that we don't have a mechanism. 16:51:46 ... not sure how to turn into spec text 16:51:46 ack manu 16:52:10 manu: the title threw me off. Now i understand. I volunteered to implement our resolutions from the related topic call. 16:52:25 ... we have clear resoltuions that need implementing. I volunteer to do that. 16:52:48 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/208 16:53:12 manu: Amy has done most of the work here, including a spec on how to deal with mime type suffixes, Ted has contributed. 16:53:28 q+ 16:53:38 ... qusetion is what to do with DID JSON-LD MIME type and what to do if we can't register it as we would like. 16:54:02 q+ 16:54:03 ack ivan 16:54:05 ... what happens at this point deepends largely on IETF. If they do nothing we have a plan B that is documented in the Features at Risk 16:54:15 ivan: there is a PR that needs to be merged. 16:54:21 manu: agreed. 16:54:57 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/524 16:54:59 ivan: also, I contacted PLH to be prepared for this. He is okay with the language we have added. 16:55:07 s/have added/are proposing/ 16:55:09 ack jonathan_holt 16:55:28 jonathan_holt: curious about process. Problem is concatenating three MIME types 16:55:41 ... what about CBOR-LD DID and others? 16:55:42 q+ 16:55:46 ack manu 16:56:24 q+ 16:56:31 manu: MIME types have to do with specific representation (byte serialization). No issue with DID-CBOR or DID-JSON. Problem is IETF has never given guidance on more than one + sign. 16:57:06 ack ivan 16:57:14 ... big unanswered qusetion. We are trying to answer it. Only the did+json+ld is an issue. 16:57:36 ivan: W3C has a mechanism to submit MIME types that are part of a Recommendation 16:57:38 phila_: Notes I am interested in the outcome here. I'd like to be able to use linkset+ld+json (i.e. two + symbols) 16:57:50 ... not sure when I need to do that, but will find out. 16:57:57 manu: phila, if we're successful here -- you can just do that... 16:58:09 ... no problem with did+json or did+cbor 16:58:10 manu: phila, if we're unsuccessful, you can use a profile= parameter 16:58:15 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/363 16:58:36 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/525 16:58:37 This may also be a problem for `did+dag+cbor`. 16:58:42 manu: submitted PR, waiting for PR to go through and original issue submitter to okay 16:58:54 brent: seems to be a comment to that effect. everyone, please review. 16:59:03 jonathan_holt: yes, that is exactly the same problem 16:59:04 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/463 16:59:07 manu: jonathan_holt -- yes, it would be a problem for did+dag+cbor 16:59:52 brent: we merged a number of PRs for data model and rep sections. Needed agreement on final terminology for rep-specific properties. 17:00:08 q+ 17:00:18 q+ to note something about issue processing over the next several weeks. 17:00:54 ack manu 17:00:54 manu, you wanted to note something about issue processing over the next several weeks. 17:00:55 ... please look at diagram and comment. Next step is whether we want to call @context a property. Not to reopen conversation, but to call rep-dependent and rep-independent things by different terms. 17:01:42 manu: if you are trying to get PRs in, we are trying to get to CR (ideally by end of this month). Now is the time to get PRs in. Theer will be a time when we decide to defer anything without PRs or consensus. 17:01:43 btw, for the record, after reviewing PR 480, I believe we need to reopen that discussion as it was merged without consent. 17:02:09 ... If you have an issue you care about and are not writing a PR, we will eventually ask to defer the issue. Ideally end of this month. 17:02:20 +1 17:02:33 Let's get to CR by the end of the month! 17:02:39 rrsagent, draft minutes 17:02:39 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/05-did-minutes.html ivan 17:03:44 zakim, end meeting 17:03:44 As of this point the attendees have been burn, ivan, brent, shigeya, agropper, dlongley, drummond, rhiaro, dmitriz, identitywoman, phila_, selfissued, manu, Orie, jandrieu, 17:03:48 ... ned_smith, Geunhyung_Kim, jonathan_holt, Eugeniu_Rusu, JoeAndrieu, charles_lehner, markus_sabadello, caballero_juan, justin_r 17:03:48 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 17:03:48 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/05-did-minutes.html Zakim 17:03:50 I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 17:03:53 Zakim has left #did 17:03:54 rrsagent, bye 17:03:54 I see no action items