Meeting minutes
<ivan> Date: 2021-03-09
<ivan> present_ chriswinc
<dbuc> You can fight to scribe if you want, scribe fight in the doctagon
Agenda Review, Introductions, Re-introductions
burn: Unfortunately the agenda wasn't sent out until 10 minutes ago. So I will talk through it.
burn: The agenda is also linked here in IRC.
Agenda Review, Introductions, Re-introductions
burn: Today we have some people joining us for the first time. If you are joining for the first time, can you introduce yourself?
Kelsey Rhoda: I'm working with Spruce, working on DID methods.
burn: Anyone else joining for the first time?
ivan: I see "Jamesqu" on Zoom, not sure who that is? We should know who is around
burn: James can you remind us who you are?
ivan: This is the second or third time I see this name.
burn: James doesn't seem to be responsive.. Can the host remove the person?
burn: Everyone, please indicate presence by typing present+
ivan: I will re-join as host.
Notice of Daylight Savings Time
burn: The US changes to Summer Time this weekend. The chairs will send an email this week that reminds people of the time change.
<rhiaro> The calendar is also correctly timezoned now if anyone wants the subscription link
burn: Calls are scheduled according to US time. Therefore next week the times will change for those who are not shifting. Email will contain the details.
Special Topic Call
burn: The Special Topic Call will be on Thursday at noon ET (usual time). We will be discussing DID Spec Registries.
burn: We begin the discussion today and then continue on Thursday
Vote for Transition to CR
burn: This is a very special call. manu do you want to drop the link? Then talk about the document
<manu> Here is the prepared CR document: https://
manu: Here is a link to the prepared Candidate Recommendation document.
manu: The contents there are the same of what people have reviewed over the past week. The only changes are administrative (mark as CR, check links...). Fully prepared if the vote today passes.
manu: I fixed issues with links at the end of the document. This should be ready for publication.
burn: This link was sent to the member mailing list. All members should have received the document.
burn: This was sent to the member-only list, since some people already referred to it as "CR". But it is not actually a "CR" until it is officially approved and published.
burn: Any questions about what this document is?
burn: It would be good to talk about the date and the process that occurs from here.
manu: The date is March 18th. Typically there is a "transition request". Chairs, staff contact, and editors request that the document is published as CR. The W3C director will make sure we have done everything we were supposed to do (broad review, TAG, PING, etc. horizontal reviews, documentation of all changes, all issues addressed, etc.)
manu: People will have access to that. You can look at the transition request.
manu: The director will look at it to see if the document is ready.
manu: If that goes will, it will be published on March 18th as CR. Emails will be sent out to W3C members, requesting that companies implement this and give feedback.
manu: The CR phase will at a minimum 30 days until April 18th. It could last longer.
manu: Transition to PR will in reality take longer than that. We need to complete the test suite, get implementation feedback, etc.
manu: CR will continue depending on the feedback we get. We will have to make small editorial changes, that is expected.
manu: We may hit a point where a substantive big change is needed which changes implementations. In that case we need to go through another CR phase.
manu: Ideally we'd avoid that, but we have a complex specification, so we may not get it right the first time.
ivan: Not only members are notified, but there will also be an entry on the W3C website.
burn: The chairs, ivan, and editors have been working on the transition request. Once the vote occurs today, if it passes, the transition request will go out after the call.
burn: March 18th is not guaranteed, but an assumption if everything goes well.
burn: Any questions before the vote?
phila: Admission of failure.. It occurs to me DID Core doesn't seem to have a reference to the Use Cases document.
ivan: We do refer to the Use Case document in the transition request, mentioning that it's one of the nicest we have ever seen.
<drummond> Good point Phil! That's an editorial change we definitely need to make.
burn: This is one of the things that can be fixed later.
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to run the proposal
manu: Yes we totally forgot about this.
manu: Any changes to this proposal?
ivan: These days it should be called "Candidate Recommendation Snapshot"
<manu> PROPOSAL: Initiate the transition request to publish DID Core[1] 1.0 as a Candidate Recommendation Snapshot on March 18th 2021 - [1] https://
manu: One question, this is a member-only thing, right? So don't +1 or -1 unless you are a member. And only vote once per member.
<drummond> +1
<manu> +1
+1
<TallTed> +1
<shigeya> +1
<phila> +1
<dbuc> +1
<burn> +1
<chriswinc> +1
<jonathan_holt> +1
<agropper> +1
<cel> +1
<GeunHyung_Kim> +1
<identitywoman_> +1
<JoeAndrieu> +1
<dbuc> Whew, no one decided to be That Guy today
Resolution: Initiate the transition request to publish DID Core[1] 1.0 as a Candidate Recommendation Snapshot on March 18th 2021 - [1] https://
<JoeAndrieu> Congrats!
<phila> Congratulations all round, especially the editors
<JoeAndrieu> Good work!
<dbuc> Now on to world domination
burn: There is still plenty of work to do.. Please don't tell people yet it's "published"
burn: Good work everyone!
<drummond> Huge milestone
burn: It would be good to hold off on submitting issues and PRs until after publication.
burn: If the director looks at the transition request, it's helpful if there isn't a set of open issues.
burn: It's nice if there are 1-2 weeks to hold off, until publication.
burn: After that, we can go back to issues and PRs.
cel: Does that include work on the test suites?
burn: No, only DID Core spec. Please keep working on the test suite! And DID Spec Registries.
Upcoming DID Spec Registries work
<burn> https://
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note Orie's not here, man.
burn: I believe Orie wants to bring up a few topics.
manu: The ical invitation expired last week. Maybe some people didn't catch that
<dbuc> Orie is in Texas, so he'd be reallllly sleeping in
<manu> https://
<manu> https://
manu: Here are the issues for DID Spec Registries.
manu: The overall structure is pretty decent, we have nice categories and slots.
manu: But there are still some things we are still concerned about.
manu: E.g. there are many issues regarding DID method author contact information.
manu: The other set of concerns has to do with the process of registering.
manu: At the moment it's a process that many people have not participated in.
manu: You have to create a JSON-LD context, and a CDDL file. Feels like a high bar to do that. Therefore we have not received a lot of contributions
manu: So we need to talk about the requirements for registration.
manu: Another issue is we got a request for a single-character DID method. It's legal per DID Core, but we need to determine if we're okay with registration.
manu: The other issue is the process in general, what happens if someone registers a trademark in the registry? We decides about warnings that get added?
manu: The next special call is going to be about DID Spec Registries. We will try to address as many issues as possible.
manu: Another topic is the DID Core @context. What are the rules for getting something in there?
manu: The tests depend on that.
manu: There is disagreement about certain things, e.g. the cryptosuites, or LinkedDomains, or publicKeyMultibase.
burn: We discussed this, and this is one day where we are happy to let people go early, and work on tests. Or we can begin this conversation about any of the above DID Spec Registries items.
burn: Anyone wants to begin discussion about any of the items?
burn: Enjoy your time, thanks for coming and voting!
burn: Be prepared for the Special Topic call to talk about registries.