22:50:10 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
22:50:10 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/01/26-did-irc
22:50:19 <burn> rrsagent, draft minutes
22:50:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/26-did-minutes.html burn
22:51:12 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2021-01-26: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Jan/0022.html
22:55:33 <brent> brent has joined #did
22:56:45 <brent> rrsagent, draft minutes
22:56:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/26-did-minutes.html brent
22:56:52 <brent> rrsagent, make logs public
22:57:08 <brent> Meeting: Decentralized Identifier Working Group
22:57:19 <brent> Chair: burn
22:57:40 <brent> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Jan/0022.html
22:57:47 <brent> zakim, this is did
22:57:47 <Zakim> got it, brent
22:58:12 <brent> present+
22:59:56 <justin_r> justin_r has joined #did
23:00:05 <TallTed> present+
23:00:17 <agropper> agropper has joined #did
23:00:32 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
23:01:42 <shigeya> present+
23:01:51 <JoeAndrieu> present+
23:02:17 <brent> present+ justin_r
23:02:26 <manu> present+
23:02:29 <brent> present+ agropper
23:02:56 <jonathan_holt> jonathan_holt has joined #did
23:03:19 <jonathan_holt> present+ jonathan_holt
23:04:25 <dbuc> dbuc has joined #did
23:04:27 <drummond> drummond has joined #did
23:04:36 <drummond> present+
23:04:55 <dbuc> Manu: is that clean PR good?
23:05:15 <dbuc> present+
23:05:22 <manu> dbuc, haven't had a chance to look at it yet -- can do that now
23:05:25 <brent> scribe+ dbuc
23:05:33 <manu> s/Manu: is/Manu, is/
23:06:50 <brent> Topic: PR Deadline
23:06:50 <dbuc> Topic 1: PR Deadline
23:07:13 <dbuc> Sent out a notice a while back, you all should now have it
23:07:21 <dbuc> the PR deadline is Feb 9
23:07:42 <dbuc> Any PRs not raised by that day will be deferred to vNext
23:07:57 <dbuc> Topic 2: Special topic call
23:08:03 <dbuc> Will be this Thurs
23:08:25 <dbuc> Purpose of the call is for anyone writing PRs to get feedback, guidance, aid, etc.
23:08:57 <drummond> I am planning to have the revised Appendix (based on the current comments and any discussion today) ready to review on the special topic call on Thursday.
23:08:59 <dbuc> Noon EST, on Thurs
23:09:11 <Orie_> Orie_ has joined #did
23:09:14 <Orie_> present+
23:09:27 <dbuc> Hoping to do a quick roundtable about some of the Notes that are being written
23:09:34 <dbuc> Use cases is very nearly completely complete
23:09:43 <kdenhartog> kdenhartog has joined #did
23:09:48 <kdenhartog> present+
23:09:53 <JoeAndrieu> q+
23:10:02 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
23:10:21 <dbuc> Daniel Hardman and Joe are meeting each week to push it forward
23:10:31 <dbuc> Leveraging DHS/SVIP work
23:10:44 <dbuc> Rubric proposed by that group as a starting point
23:11:15 <dbuc> Will take the feedback in incorporate it into the Rubric
23:11:44 <dbuc> Test suite is the other major item
23:11:49 <burn> burn has joined #did
23:11:58 <dbuc> Orie threatens to refactor, then made good on his threat!
23:12:09 <manu> q+ to ask about multiple did methods for did:key
23:12:44 <dbuc> Open PR in test suite repo. Open issue as to whether the test suite is about DID Method conformance or other variety of conformance
23:12:48 <brent> ack manu
23:12:48 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about multiple did methods for did:key
23:13:00 <Orie_> https://github.com/w3c/did-test-suite/pull/19
23:13:12 <dbuc> Manu with a quick question: about DID Key, there may be multiple companies submitting implementations
23:13:16 <dbuc> How should that work?
23:13:50 <dbuc> Orie has no solution, but proposes two tracks: everyone implements same features for a given method
23:14:15 <manu> q+ to raise concern w/ forcing the entire ecosystem for what one organization does.
23:14:33 <dbuc> or track 2: different implementations, but limited to implementation tests, which may be less strict
23:14:40 <TallTed> implementation should be focus of test suite; that will deliver on method conformance/feature-coverage as a bonus
23:14:40 <TallTed> method as focus will not deliver on implementation conformance
23:14:50 <by_caballero> by_caballero has joined #did
23:15:01 <dbuc> Brent: daniel, do better with nics for scribing
23:15:07 <brent> ack manu
23:15:07 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to raise concern w/ forcing the entire ecosystem for what one organization does.
23:15:38 <dbuc> Manu: Ted said it in IRC - thinks it is going to be problematic if we don't focus on implementation-wide focus for testing
23:15:39 <Orie_> q+ to propose test stuff
23:15:58 <GeunHyung_Kim> GeunHyung_Kim has joined #did
23:16:11 <dbuc> Manu: With DID Key we're seeing disjoint implementations, and the design decisions have been very different
23:16:18 <by_caballero> @JoeAndrieu - I made a thingy for the DID-Rubric to help out Eric Welton at the DIF F2F last week - not sure if it's useful but ping me when the cohort gets around to discussing did methods again? https://github.com/bumblefudge/blotter/blob/main/did-rubric-strawmen.md
23:16:45 <brent> ack Orie_
23:16:45 <Zakim> Orie_, you wanted to propose test stuff
23:16:48 <dbuc> Manu: Let us know how hard it's going to be to focus the testing on cross-implementation conformance
23:16:53 <burn> present+
23:17:05 <GeunHyung_Kim> present+
23:17:15 <brent> present
23:17:57 <dbuc> Orie: can support different implementations, but when we try to add up the coverage across many implementations, the reports will be spotty, given the different support across method implementations
23:18:26 <manu> q+ to note typically, it's there is no ONE
23:18:26 <dbuc> Orie: will there be a single set of test vectors per implementations all implementations will be judged by?
23:18:34 <brent> ack manu
23:18:34 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note typically, it's there is no ONE
23:18:55 <dbuc> Manu: typically no one true set of vectors for an implementation
23:19:15 <dbuc> Manu: just looking for at least two implementers implemented a feature
23:20:05 <dbuc> Dan: next topic is the Implementation Guide
23:20:14 <drummond> q+
23:20:25 <burn> ack drummond
23:20:53 <manu> +1, thank you Orie!
23:20:57 <dbuc> Orie: we should adjust the test suite until it does what Manu said
23:21:14 <dbuc> Drummond: I was assigned, but will not have time to do it
23:21:30 <dbuc> Drummond: I am busy vaccinating the world
23:23:11 <dbuc> Dan: Notes in process become the priority as we move to CR
23:23:25 <dbuc> Dan: Chairs are leaning toward no Implementation Guide
23:23:33 <burn> Topic: Issues
23:23:34 <dbuc> Dan: next topic: Issues
23:23:53 <manu> q+
23:23:59 <burn> ack manu
23:24:19 <dbuc> Manu: Good news is we have many PRs
23:24:36 <dbuc> Manu: heads up: check your PRs regularly
23:24:49 <dbuc> Manu: lolly lolly lolly get your PRs in
23:25:15 <dbuc> Manu: Two questions on Appendix and Persistence PRs
23:26:07 <burn> q?
23:26:11 <dbuc> Drummond: Joe's new PR on Persistence is good, and please review, over to Joe for details
23:26:28 <dbuc> Joe: Did see the comments, not sure how URNs apply here
23:26:46 <dbuc> Joe: URNs don't do the thing they were brought in for
23:27:21 <dbuc> Drummond: think we need 1/2 paragraphs that have generations of specs around the issue of URNs and the relationship to them
23:27:42 <dbuc> Drummond: think we need 1/2 paragraphs around the issue of URNs and the relationship to them
23:28:35 <dbuc> Manu: please take a look at that PR
23:29:01 <dbuc> Drummond: we should shoot for Thursday, and give it a go ahead
23:29:50 <dbuc> Manu: those are PRs 457 and 460
23:30:14 <dbuc> Manu: going to PR about DagCBOR
23:31:16 <dbuc> Brent: A section of text was moved by Manu as part of an editorial cleanup. Wasn't a violation, but we need to move the text back
23:31:18 <jonathan_holt> q+
23:31:33 <brent> zakim, who is here?
23:31:33 <Zakim> Present: brent, TallTed, shigeya, JoeAndrieu, justin_r, manu, agropper, jonathan_holt, drummond, dbuc, Orie_, kdenhartog, burn, GeunHyung_Kim
23:31:36 <Orie_> lets just see the PR, and object to the PR
23:31:36 <Zakim> On IRC I see GeunHyung_Kim, by_caballero, burn, kdenhartog, Orie_, drummond, dbuc, jonathan_holt, JoeAndrieu, agropper, justin_r, brent, RRSAgent, Zakim, TallTed, tzviya,
23:31:36 <Zakim> ... bigbluehat, ChristopherA, dlehn, shigeya, faceface, hadleybeeman, wayne_, cel, Travis_, dlongley, manu, rhiaro
23:31:37 <dbuc> Manu: will move the text back, but objections will likely result
23:32:19 <burn> q?
23:32:23 <burn> ack jonathan_holt
23:32:24 <dbuc> Dan: we will treat this as a new set of objections for discussion
23:32:53 <burn> q+
23:33:14 <brent> present+ by_caballero
23:33:16 <dbuc> Jonathan: notes issues with DagCBOR, knows about need for more eyes-on, but mostly concerned with the overarching CBOR representations, and thinks it needs to be reflected in the spec
23:33:59 <dbuc> Jonathan: pulled much of the text from the canonicalizaton text from other spec, by this is a good approximation of a deterministic representation
23:34:00 <burn> q+ to explain "at risk" again to put it to bed
23:34:19 <dbuc> Jonathan: this was my attempt to create one such implementation of the representation
23:34:48 <Orie_> isn't this entire debate about did+dag+cbor ? pretty sure did+dag+cbor != did+cbor != did+ld+cbor
23:35:02 <dbuc> Jonathan: I think we can get to some synergy where this is hardened and secure for the CBOR representation s
23:35:11 <manu> q+
23:35:24 <dbuc> Dan: let's not talk about At-Risk
23:35:31 <burn> q- later
23:35:36 <burn> ack manu
23:35:36 <dbuc> Manu: let's have that discussion on Thurs
23:35:49 <dbuc> Manu: on CBOR canonicalization, DabCBOR
23:36:13 <dbuc> Manu: background is in Issue 551
23:36:18 <jonathan_holt> q+
23:36:19 <Orie_> See https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/551
23:36:25 <burn> q- later
23:36:30 <burn> ack jonathan_holt
23:36:59 <dbuc> Jonathan: in absence of Jim Shad and Carsten, I am not an expert, but this was an attempt to get to an approach that would work
23:37:32 <burn> ack burn
23:37:32 <Zakim> burn, you wanted to explain "at risk" again to put it to bed
23:38:13 <dbuc> Dan: At-Risk is marked because there is a concern that there may be insufficient implementations for a given feature
23:38:54 <dbuc> Dan: risk of not having two implementations is the one and only thing that At-Risk is meant to convey
23:39:13 <dbuc> Dan: it is an editor/chair decision
23:39:13 <manu> q+ to go through other PRs
23:39:29 <dbuc> What about the testable risk?
23:39:42 <dbuc> I always see things being testable, not testable
23:40:10 <dbuc> Dan: Manu, you fall on this sword
23:40:46 <dbuc> Manu: we have made a pass to identify testable statements. Some are clear, others are unclear how/if the WG can test things
23:41:55 <dbuc> Manu: All tests should be in RFC language, and we need to look at ever normative statement, and ask ourselves, do we feel testable? Well, do we, punks?
23:42:03 <burn> s/you fall on this sword/you take a shot at explaining testability and how we handle it/
23:42:39 <dbuc> Manu: we expect normative statements to be testable by a machine
23:42:56 <jonathan_holt> q+
23:43:12 <burn> ack jonathan_holt
23:43:27 <dbuc> Dan: if the editors feel something is not testable, you must throw down the gauntlet with a test
23:44:25 <dbuc> Jonathan: if it's one big number vs another big number, how to you handle errors in the test code/vectors?
23:45:04 <dbuc> Dan: we have an errata process, and if it's a small bug, we correct it. We are more concerned with whether the issue is one that would occur outside of simple spec dev mistakes
23:45:53 <dbuc> Manu: we need to do this cleanly, else our charter time could run out, and we could get canned by the W3C
23:46:17 <dbuc> Manu: ideally we should have multiple conforming implementations now, before CR
23:46:17 <justin_r> q
23:46:20 <Orie_> q+ to ask for the latest list
23:46:27 <burn> ack Orie_
23:46:27 <Zakim> Orie_, you wanted to ask for the latest list
23:46:47 <dbuc> Orie: as i was updating some of the tests, I was looking around for all the testable statements
23:47:00 <dbuc> Orie: is there some tool or process to help divvy up work
23:47:17 <TallTed> q+
23:47:24 <dbuc> manu: we don't have a plan, but Amy has a normative statement extraction tool
23:47:32 <kdenhartog> q+
23:47:35 <burn> ack TallTed
23:47:37 <dbuc> Manu: we will set aside a special call to go through those
23:48:02 <dbuc> Ted: GH has a feature called a Draft PR, could be of use for this
23:48:07 <burn> ack kdenhartog
23:48:07 <manu> q-
23:48:09 <burn> q+
23:48:28 <dbuc> Kyle: can we use Amy's tool and work on them now, or do we feel they will change?
23:48:29 <burn> ack burn
23:48:46 <dbuc> Manu: brace yourself for change, CR-winter is coming
23:49:39 <manu> q+ to keep going through PRs
23:49:40 <dbuc> Dan: we will start requiring a test if you submit a PR that could affect a test, and we use this as a natural PRDDoS mechanism
23:49:45 <burn> ack manu
23:49:45 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to keep going through PRs
23:50:11 <dbuc> Manu: Orie, I know you resubmitted revocation/rotation PRs, how good do you feel about them?
23:50:29 <dbuc> Orie: meeting with D. Hardman, and we're getting there
23:51:01 <dbuc> Orie: section on revocation is something everyone should get eyes-on. I am surprised by the position he takes
23:51:51 <Orie_> See the PR on revocation https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/570
23:52:09 <dbuc> Manu: any issues you concerned about not being resolved?
23:52:31 <manu> q+
23:52:33 <JoeAndrieu> q+
23:52:39 <manu> q+ to ask about resolution being concrete
23:53:04 <burn> dbuc: I have a concern.  relative paths.  if controller is a blank string.
23:53:06 <identitywoman> identitywoman has joined #did
23:53:26 <burn> ... Is it a DID URI?  have to walk back and forth.  Seems hazy.
23:53:34 <Orie_> q+ to talk about relative paths
23:53:47 <burn> ack Orie_
23:53:47 <Zakim> Orie_, you wanted to talk about relative paths
23:53:51 <Identitywoman__> Identitywoman__ has joined #did
23:53:53 <Orie_> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/337
23:53:54 <manu> q-
23:53:56 <dbuc> Orie: relative pathing is confusing
23:53:57 <manu> q+ to ask about resolution being concrete
23:53:57 <burn> scribe+
23:53:59 <Identitywoman__> Present+
23:54:13 <dbuc> Orie: open issues exist about derefing, frags, base, etc.
23:54:30 <dbuc> Orie: if you care about how these are handled in the spec, please look at Issue 337
23:54:44 <dbuc> Orie: there are multiple ways relative refs can be formed
23:55:04 <dbuc> Orie: Shares the concern about relative pathing
23:55:22 <dbuc> Orie: please contributed to those examples if you want to de-FUDify
23:55:23 <shigeya> I share similar feeling on relative path. it's also to related to the relationship of resolver and method, I think.
23:55:33 <burn> q?
23:55:39 <burn> ack JoeAndrieu
23:56:17 <burn> ack manu
23:56:17 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about resolution being concrete
23:56:19 <dbuc> Joe: I still have on my plate to read through 100 pages regarding herd privacy, and I am hoping to get through it
23:56:31 <kdenhartog> q+
23:56:40 <dbuc> Manu: we need to make resolution more concrete, and bring more specifics into our scope
23:57:11 <burn> ack kdenhartog
23:57:26 <dbuc> Manu: We can no longer operate on the notion that the first rule of Resolution Club is that we don't talk about Resolution Club
23:57:40 <burn> q?
23:58:01 <dbuc> Dan: anything else for this wonderful Tuesday?
23:58:38 <brent> present+ Identitywoman__
23:58:47 <brent> zakim, who is here?
23:58:47 <Zakim> Present: brent, TallTed, shigeya, JoeAndrieu, justin_r, manu, agropper, jonathan_holt, drummond, dbuc, Orie_, kdenhartog, burn, GeunHyung_Kim, by_caballero, Identitywoman__
23:58:51 <Zakim> On IRC I see Identitywoman__, identitywoman, GeunHyung_Kim, by_caballero, burn, kdenhartog, Orie_, drummond, dbuc, jonathan_holt, JoeAndrieu, agropper, justin_r, brent, RRSAgent,
23:58:51 <Zakim> ... Zakim, TallTed, tzviya, bigbluehat, ChristopherA, dlehn, shigeya, faceface, hadleybeeman, wayne_, cel, Travis_, dlongley, manu, rhiaro
23:59:02 <burn> rrsagent, draft minutes
23:59:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/26-did-minutes.html burn
23:59:39 <brent> zakim, end the meeting
23:59:39 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been brent, TallTed, shigeya, JoeAndrieu, justin_r, manu, agropper, jonathan_holt, drummond, dbuc, Orie_, kdenhartog, burn, GeunHyung_Kim,
23:59:42 <Zakim> ... by_caballero, Identitywoman__
23:59:42 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
23:59:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/26-did-minutes.html Zakim
23:59:44 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, brent; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
23:59:49 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did
23:59:58 <brent> rrsagent, please excuse us
23:59:58 <RRSAgent> I see no action items