21:55:29 RRSAgent has joined #did-topic 21:55:29 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/03/16-did-topic-irc 21:55:49 Meeting: Decentralized Identifier Working Group Special Call 21:56:04 Chair: brent 21:56:12 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Mar/0009.html 21:56:34 rrsagent, draft minutes 21:56:34 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/16-did-topic-minutes.html brent 21:56:45 rrsagent, make logs public 22:03:10 kelseyr has joined #did-topic 22:03:59 scribe+ 22:04:14 Orie has joined #did-topic 22:04:17 present+ 22:04:17 brent: Welcome everyone, DID Special Topic Call -- I will be chairing 22:04:24 Chair: Brent 22:04:34 brent: Rough agenda -- DID Spec Registries -- DID Method Registration 22:04:42 present+ 22:04:44 brent: Add yourselves to the queue -- let's get going. 22:04:48 present+ 22:04:52 q+ 22:04:54 present+ 22:04:58 ack Orie 22:05:04 Topic: DID Spec Registries 22:05:31 Orie: Last time we talked, covered a couple of items... remove the schema requirements from registration process, talked about process of registering incredibly short DID Methods on first-come-first-served basis 22:06:00 Orie: What we need to talk about today is the process of managing the registry entries and their conformance to the requirements as they are now. 22:06:34 Orie: The requirements have changed, so we're in the process where we need to clean up the registry and a clear list on meeting latest registration conformance requirements and people that have registered previously... that and registry governance are primary areas for discussion today. 22:07:10 brent: Ok, primary topics -- previously registered and registered w/ updated items -- let's jump into those topics - propose and agree to some resolutions. 22:07:46 q+ 22:07:50 brent: Recommendation to Orie -- as Editor of NOTE, lay out how you'd like things to proceed as a proposal, and we'll get feedback from the group. 22:07:54 ack Orie 22:08:14 Orie: I will do my best -- first proposal is that we establish a new category of registered DID Methods to correspond to meaning of latest registration requirements. 22:08:23 Orie: We had talked about possible words before... some issues open 22:08:32 https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/266 22:08:35 Orie: Would like to drop some of these issues into meeting minutes 22:08:58 Orie: Today we have term "PROVISIONAL"... what's beyond provisional? 22:09:03 by_caballero has joined #did-topic 22:09:31 brent: Accepted? What goes after Provisional. 22:09:40 legit 22:09:40 Permanent? 22:09:41 "Formal Registration" is the term drummond used 22:09:42 q+ 22:09:45 2legit 22:09:46 https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/uri-schemes.xhtml 22:09:54 agropper has joined #did-topic 22:09:56 scribe+ 22:09:57 ack manu 22:10:21 By_caballero_ has joined #did-topic 22:10:41 manu: we should talk about the next item... some of the proposals , like testable implementation... there is a perceived thing... we will be putting folks in a bad position.... 22:10:50 ... some of the language is problematic 22:11:08 ... we need to avoid words that create arguments... we need objective criteria for registration 22:11:26 ... -1 for the registry maintainers to determine "next status" 22:11:41 Conformant-v1 ? 22:11:44 ... smaller words for "confirms to registration 1.0" registration criteria. 22:12:09 ... we need something that allows up to deprecate or move things to the bottom of the doc 22:12:20 ... lets focus on one word for the next stage 22:12:29 q+ 22:12:35 ack brent 22:12:42 brent: What if we just say -- v1.0 as the label? 22:13:11 q+ 22:13:30 manu: Who watches the watchers? 22:13:42 ack Orie 22:13:44 brent: Maybe that means with each version of the DID Spec, DID Methods will need to come and re-register. 22:14:05 Orie: We should motivate people to come and register... 22:14:18 q+ to support brent suggestion. 22:14:51 Orie: We could put DID Core TR v1.0 Conformant... instead of provisional... those DID Methods met registration requirements... those registration requirements can change after v1.0 changes... 22:15:04 ack manu 22:15:04 manu, you wanted to support brent suggestion. 22:15:05 Orie: Tricky to figure out how to change this in a way that makes everyone happy. 22:15:59 +1 to the addition of a date when initially registered 22:16:25 or when last registered 22:17:04 manu: What if we captured "last updated date"? 22:17:32 manu: For example, what if we say "the last time the registration was updated was March 2021"? Then we see things fall to the bottom of the list if they're not maintained... and it has the added upside of 22:17:45 manu: knowing that they passed the registration procedures as of X date, at least. 22:17:58 brent: So question on that -- last updated instead of a label? 22:18:00 q+ 22:18:05 q+ 22:18:10 ack Orie 22:18:32 Orie: We could do provisional as of YYYY-MM.... 22:18:56 Orie: We could come up with something later... PROVISIONAL as of YYYY-MM, that would give us a better indication of age, last time registered/reviewed. 22:19:01 ack manu 22:20:06 manu: I like the idea of keepin provisional and sorting by year month date.... 22:20:11 q+ to suggest also adding language that says new labels may be added by the registry maintainers 22:20:20 .... and we can kick the can on "what comes next" after provisional 22:20:20 ack by_caballero 22:20:26 ack brent 22:20:26 brent, you wanted to suggest also adding language that says new labels may be added by the registry maintainers 22:20:32 Sorry q- 22:21:02 brent: I like that -- I'd like it more if we could add language that says at any point, maintainers of registry may determine new labels -- provisional with date, but at any point, we can add new labels. 22:21:03 q+ 22:21:05 manu: +1 to brent 22:21:09 ack Orie 22:21:27 q+ to respond 22:21:51 Orie: I don't know if we need to do to get what you're asking for Brent -- registry notes is that we can update this document over time, we could change registration requirements after WG is done, we can change status of provisional, we could do anything, which is dangerous... but we have a tremendous amount of opportunity about changes we could make. 22:22:12 ack brent 22:22:12 brent, you wanted to respond 22:22:16 orie: I don't think we need to set UID higher to privileges than we have... as long as there are enough people that are reviewing proposal changes, registry should be fine. 22:22:25 brent: Under current registry setup, I think you're right. 22:23:14 brent: Formal W3C Registry process defined as part of process 2021 -- might stipulate things otherwise... I think you're right and we're probably good, trying to avoid what's happening with VC Maintenance work... because we didn't specify that we didn't say Maintenance group couldn't add new features... maitnenance can't add new features. 22:23:19 yeah, big +1 to what brent is saying 22:23:31 q? 22:23:32 manu: also agree w/ what brent is saying 22:23:40 brent: Better safe than sorry and be clear about what we want. 22:24:06 brent: We could add to your proposal Orie, or add a new proposal 22:24:28 PROPOSAL: change provisional to "Provisional. + YYYY-MM" so that date of registration can be used to sort 22:24:40 manu: +1 22:24:43 +1 22:24:44 +1 22:24:44 +1 22:24:45 +1 22:24:46 +1 22:25:23 RESOLVED: change provisional to "Provisional. + YYYY-MM" so that date of registration can be used to sort 22:25:25 q+ to discuss when the registration date is 22:25:32 ack Orie 22:25:32 Orie, you wanted to discuss when the registration date is 22:26:14 Orie: Previously, Manu had mentioned that we could use git blame/praise to figure out when it was originally registered.... concerned about that... having an old date vs. newer date in here -- might be worth thinking out loud about an old date vs. newer date. 22:26:42 Orie: If process of reviewing registry entry is stamp of approval for meeting latest conformance guidelines... if it's about your title to a really short DID Method string, first one is more valuable. 22:26:49 q+ to speak to "which date is important" 22:27:16 Might be better to keep the date out of the "status" and put it somewhere else in the registration of whatever... 22:27:33 Orie: Worth remembering that registration guidelines can change, so if we backdate all of registered entries, we'll backdate to time when it was registered, w/o guidelines we have today -- might make all starting dates today, let them go stale by themselves. 22:27:42 ack manu 22:27:42 manu, you wanted to speak to "which date is important" 22:28:25 manu: what are we trying to do with the registry? we want to see what other have done, it would be nice to see features and health... but thats probably another things job 22:28:41 ... the main problem we are trying to solve is staleness 22:29:10 ... we don't have contact info for registered methods... some websites are stale / down.... how will we deprecate... etc... 22:29:30 ... we don't want registry to be filled with dead stuff 22:29:58 q? 22:30:13 ... we should stay away from indicators other than this is fresh / old.... even that gives hints we may not want. 22:30:22 ... what problem are we trying to solve? 22:30:36 ... we need too push stale stuff to the bottom 22:30:54 untouched for years doesn't necessarily mean dead... e.g., my business email hasn't changed in 20 years 22:31:01 ... git blame is easy... but we did restructurings... 22:31:26 ... -.5 to starting as today... and trying to do an older date 22:31:41 ... we need to set a date for CR.... 22:31:49 ... something far in the past 22:31:52 but squatting remains an issue. failure to contact seems a justification for de-provisionalizing 22:31:57 q+ 22:32:03 ack Orie 22:32:27 Orie: When the thing was registered is not an indication of if it's alive or not... best effort of first registration date -- seems like a piece of information that's useful. 22:33:06 Orie: People have said... let's not overload the PROVISIONAL thing... let's just do a registration date -- best effort first registration date... do we want to go beyond that -- best effort most recently updated date. 22:33:44 Orie: That would be something like -- I've registered many DID Methods, maybe I update the spec for them, then ask for another review to make sure latest spec meets conformance requirements... old date for when I registered, then new date for when latest conformance was done. 22:33:49 manu: +1 to what Orie just said. 22:34:14 Orie: I think we get the best of both worlds there... staleness vs. very reliable DID Methods registered years ago -- you'll be biased against those entries for most recently updated 22:34:18 manu: +1 for two dates 22:34:25 Has https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7595 "URI Scheme Guidelines" been considered for research and/or inspiration? It includes for Provisional, Historical and Permanent status 22:34:31 `last updated` would let users retrieve new details to replace the old details they had "on file", but what does it mean? contact details of maintainer/registered "owner", vs something material in the method or whatever, vs ??? 22:34:37 Orie: First registered date, then last updated date. 22:34:40 q? 22:35:07 brent: I wonder if it'd be worthwhile for a new table for new DID Methods registered after the spec becomes a spec... vs. from some time before. 22:35:45 will need clear definition of "last reviewed" 22:35:49 brent: This would replace the last proposal -- any changes to language? 22:36:13 brent: What is the definition of last revieweed? 22:36:54 Orie: The process that I follow to review -- look at DID Method registration... look at DID Syntax, supported DID Operations, defines privacy/security -- if it has any reasonable entries, I have to approve it. 22:37:05 q+ 22:37:10 ack TallTed 22:37:12 Orie: In order to update, date change, review spec, update date -- that's part of the normal process. 22:37:41 TallTed: If I'm registering a thing, and the registration is a pointer to an external place, I'm not going to have any real incentive to change XYZ unless there is some benefit that I get from it -- or non-benefit from not getting it. 22:38:10 certs expire, we could make did method registration expire too :) 22:38:20 TallTed: For example, a domain name -- first registered 20 years ago doesn't give you much... maybe some cache, first registration, what's the incentive... disincentive of not touching things for a period of time... 22:38:26 q+ for graveyard 22:38:29 yeah, I agree there will be an incentive to touch your spec regularly 22:38:38 ack manu 22:38:38 manu, you wanted to discuss graveyard 22:39:04 manu: we need a graveyard... for things not updated within 5 years, etc... 22:39:24 ... people should assume things will get moved to the graveyard 22:39:48 ... we need to give ediors the ability to interpret the registry.... 22:40:10 ... maybe the graveyard needs to only support methods 22:40:24 ... how do we move things into a category of deprecated 22:40:53 TallTed would love a proposal form you :) 22:40:57 q+ 22:41:04 we need help :) 22:41:15 TallTed: Here be dragons -- how do we know if people are using things? 22:41:17 q+ 22:41:24 ack shigeya 22:41:32 yeah, I agree this is tough 22:42:19 shigeya: I agree with Ted, this is a big issue -- wonder if it's possible to at least -- know if part of spec maintained by someone -- if Apple is trying to make things and not touch the spec, they're fine with it, we may want to know who is maintaining the registered spec... static but maintained. 22:42:30 q+ to wonder out loud about a keep alive 22:42:47 ack manu 22:42:47 manu, you wanted to wonder out loud about a keep alive 22:42:48 shigeya: We want to know if someone is maintaining the registry -- and if it has no maintainers, it's moved to the graveyard. 22:43:21 manu: +1 to what others have said... maybe there is a simple keep alive.... 22:43:53 ... some automation system for keeping the spec status updated? 22:44:02 ... we would need automation... 22:44:09 registry maintainer has to ping (email, phone, https URI, ?) the person/company/whatever that registered the whatever every n months? potentially hefty burden 22:44:11 Need a definition of "maintaining" but it may include maintenance of documents external to registry. 22:44:12 on multiple sides 22:44:13 q+ 22:44:26 ack Orie 22:44:43 Orie: Back to the original proposal of two dates and a status -- there is an incentive to update, but that can be managed by people... Editors can ignore people that abuse the process. 22:45:30 Orie: I'm less worried about people gaming the system... I'm more worried about a simple systems that anyone can take over and manage... two dates and a status are about as simple as you get... if we add 1.0 table to the mix, we've got everything... in absence of a better proposal, let's work toward that. 22:45:45 brent: no one on the queue, I agree with Orie, avoiding complexity is good. 22:46:30 TallTed: I'm clear enough on it... needs to be written up clearly. 22:46:40 PROPOSAL: Update the registration table to include, status, first registered date, last reviewed date 22:46:44 +1 22:46:46 manu: +1 22:46:49 +1 22:46:52 +1 22:46:53 +1 22:46:59 +0.5 I'm still concerned about potential burdens, but won't block 22:47:22 RESOLVED: Update the registration table to include, status, first registered date, last reviewed date 22:47:37 PROPOSAL: create a new table for 1.0 conformant table for methods registered after spec is published 22:48:33 manu: +1 22:48:35 +1 22:48:41 PROPOSAL: create a new table for 1.0 conformant methods registered after the spec is published 22:48:43 +1 22:48:44 +1 22:48:44 me +1 22:48:50 +1 22:48:50 manu: +1 22:48:53 +1 22:48:56 s/me +1// 22:48:56 +1 22:49:13 RESOLVED: create a new table for 1.0 conformant methods registered after the spec is published 22:49:14 And move all pre-registered methods to the new table if they re-register 22:49:30 Just to be explicit :) 22:49:32 yep 22:49:35 q? 22:49:37 q+ to note template 22:49:47 ack manu 22:49:47 manu, you wanted to note template 22:50:34 manu: we should use the checklist for 1.0 and only create that new table once we have an easy process 22:50:44 +1 to having a template for DID Method registration 22:50:54 Is ccing the ccg list recommended or required to get extra eyes on it ? 22:51:00 manu: we need an issue / template for the PR, etc... 22:51:11 hmm 22:51:17 brent: I don't think it would hurt 22:51:19 I guess lots of people watch that repo 22:51:25 brent: Depends on how maintenance of registries is set up 22:51:29 q+ 22:51:41 ack manu 22:51:55 manu: concerned about too much noise... 22:52:09 Fair fair! Was just asking. And +1 to github template 22:52:09 ... there are fairly basic issues with most registrations 22:52:32 q+ 22:52:38 ack Orie 22:52:46 Did:tk 22:53:09 Orie: We need to have this conversation with larger people -- basic stuff that editors of registry are doing, great to have pool of 10 people and only need 2 people .... 22:54:25 Orie: Big +1 for simple template checklist, registry editors can't be responsible to make sure you put sentences in the right places, not going to scale beyond that -- larger pool of people being able to do it is critical... 2 people doing it is not going to give you same kind of review as 10 people... that one person that says "no, you need to do more" -- having extra eyes reviewing things is good. Don't think having that from CCG list... but we 22:54:25 could have CODEOWNERS in there, bigger list, rotate people out that don't do work. 22:54:43 Q? 22:54:46 -1 to CCs to CCG or any similar list. a role address that bursts to all maintainers of the registry might be useful; probably better to be a ticketing system because 7 people reviewing every registration isn't going to be good, while splitting work over 7 people (or 3 teams of 2, or the like) would be a bonus 22:55:07 brent: Anything else we want to cover today? 22:55:21 brent: We've been able to establish some commond ground on a number of things. 22:55:21 q+ 22:55:27 ack Orie 22:55:34 s/commond/common/ 22:55:40 Orie: This is a special topic call, our resolutions are non-binding -- need to run proposals by bigger WG. 22:56:13 brent: If they were controversial things... informing the group that these resolutions happened and then letting group members see and object is the process... so, technically, no, we don't need to run these again 22:56:19 brent: We should present these things on the calls. 22:56:29 Orie: At some point, we do need to lasso out a few more folks to do reviews. 22:56:52 brent: Ok, can get that on the agenda for the next call. 22:57:04 Yeehaw! Feel free to tag me for review on that github template 22:57:27 brent: Do we need to redefine registration process itself? 22:57:27 q+ 22:57:29 q+ 22:57:39 ack manu 22:58:05 ack Orie 22:58:10 manu: I think we're good with process in document. 22:58:29 Orie: We need to remove stuff about schemas, might update process in future, the sooner we can get PRs in, the better. 22:58:39 Orie: Worst case scenarios, the Editors will do it. 22:58:56 Thanks all! Sorry for text only 22:59:03 thanks all! 22:59:14 brent: Thanks for coming, participating, thanks Orie and Manu for scribing, looking forward to seeing all folks on call next week. 22:59:24 brent: We are official now, we are in Candidate Recommendation! 22:59:35 rrsagent, draft minutes. 22:59:35 I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft minutes.', manu. Try /msg RRSAgent help 22:59:39 rrsagent, draft minutes 22:59:39 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/16-did-topic-minutes.html manu 22:59:44 zakim, who is here 22:59:44 brent, you need to end that query with '?' 22:59:47 zakim, who is here? 22:59:47 Present: Orie, shigeya, cel, brent 22:59:49 On IRC I see By_caballero_, agropper, by_caballero, Orie, kelseyr, RRSAgent, Zakim, brent, TallTed, cel, dlongley, manu, ChristopherA, wayne, shigeya, rhiaro 22:59:56 present+ 22:59:57 oops 23:00:00 present+ manu 23:00:09 present+ Orie 23:00:22 rrsagent, draft minutes 23:00:22 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/16-did-topic-minutes.html manu 23:00:31 present+ kelseyr 23:00:43 present+ by_caballero 23:00:52 present+ agropper 23:00:58 zakim, who is here? 23:00:58 Present: Orie, shigeya, cel, brent, TallTed, manu, kelseyr, by_caballero, agropper 23:01:00 On IRC I see By_caballero_, agropper, by_caballero, Orie, RRSAgent, Zakim, brent, TallTed, cel, dlongley, manu, ChristopherA, wayne, shigeya, rhiaro 23:01:10 zakim, end the meeting 23:01:10 As of this point the attendees have been Orie, shigeya, cel, brent, TallTed, manu, kelseyr, by_caballero, agropper 23:01:13 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 23:01:13 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/16-did-topic-minutes.html Zakim 23:01:16 I am happy to have been of service, brent; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 23:01:21 Zakim has left #did-topic 23:01:23 rrsagent, please excuse us 23:01:23 I see no action items