21:52:02 RRSAgent has joined #did 21:52:02 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/04/27-did-irc 21:52:06 Zakim has joined #did 21:52:19 rrsagent, draft minutes 21:52:19 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/27-did-minutes.html burn 21:53:14 rrsagent, make logs public 21:54:10 present+ 22:00:03 present+ 22:00:23 regrets+ drummond, peacekeeper 22:01:17 dmitriz has joined #did 22:01:49 present+ 22:01:59 present+ 22:02:34 present+ 22:02:41 present+ 22:03:37 scribe+ 22:03:41 Topic: Agenda Review, Introductions, Re-introductions 22:04:16 Topic: Special Topic Call 22:04:17 burn: request for additions or modifications to agenda 22:04:46 burn: ... Special Topic Call will focus on DID Test suite 22:04:50 Orie_ has joined #did 22:04:52 ... End of this month: target chairs set for tests. 22:04:58 ... Need to have tests in by end of April 22:05:04 ... manu, Orie_ any comment of status of test suite? 22:05:13 present+ 22:05:14 manu: Sure, I can provide some input. 22:05:27 ... The test suite is testing all the major parts of the spec except for the cbor section and the json section. 22:05:33 There is a PR for the JSON section 22:05:34 https://github.com/w3c/did-test-suite/pull/71 22:05:42 ... We still need to go and doe an audit of tall the tests the test suite test and all the ... in the spec. 22:05:54 ... More or less we are are in good shape, except for the json and cbor sections 22:06:18 Orie_: Two open PRs need review for test suite. One for JSON representation section. Please get your reviews in for the tests. 22:06:32 burn: Down the wire. Chairs and editors will make a decision at end of month 22:06:36 ... and impact on the specification. 22:06:40 Topic: DID Core PRs 22:06:45 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pulls 22:06:50 q+ 22:07:12 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/720 22:07:16 ack manu 22:07:16 burn: Essentially editorial but need status update... ^ 22:07:45 manu: Heads up: I went through all PRs and all issues and categories everything as editorial or substantive. 22:07:57 ... It would be good to pull these PRs in. I would appreciate multiple reviews on the ones that are editorial 22:08:05 ... 720 we have discussed on previous call as nonsubstantive. 22:08:09 subtopic: @pr 720 22:08:23 ... Markus found a strangeness in the spec where we didn't explicitly say that equivalentId and canonicalId are optional. 22:08:41 ... What the PR does is explicitly state that. We don't think any implementations would have to change as a result. 22:08:48 ... If anyone disagrees, they should express that. 22:09:16 ... It changes a normative statement but in a way the group meant and we don't think implementations would have to change based on the update. 22:09:27 dbuc has joined #did 22:09:28 burn: Can you give a target when to expect it to be merged? 22:09:32 present+ 22:09:34 manu: Ideally anything older than 7 days would be merged. 22:09:48 ... Because editorial, and not substantive, suggestion is to merge anything. 22:09:58 ... We haven't merged anything since entering CR. First time merging. 22:10:18 ... Does anyone have any issues with merging things that have been out there, editorial/nonsubstantive? 22:10:30 ... If not, will merge after this call or latest by Sunday. 22:10:41 re #720 -- No implementation that included either/both would have to change to drop it/them. No implementation that didn't include either/both would have to change to add it/them. Inclusion and omission are all OK. So, no implementation impact. 22:11:00 burn: I'm not hearing any objections. People will have opportunity to read the minutes. 22:11:11 kdenhartog has joined #did 22:11:13 ... You are correct on our ability to move forward based on implementations and agreement on clarification. 22:11:26 ... Falls into uncommon category, "clarification". 22:11:37 ... No disagreement or dissent about it. 22:11:47 q? 22:11:47 ... Giving much more time than usual, to make absolutely sure. 22:11:53 Topic: DID Core issues 22:11:56 q+ 22:12:02 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc+-label%3Adefer-v2 22:12:30 ... Just removed the issues that are deferred 22:12:52 TallTed: throwing a flag on 720 22:13:33 Whic properties 22:13:35 ? 22:13:37 q+ 22:13:40 ack manu 22:13:43 ... Our interpretation works fine for generators, but it didn't matter whether they included or didn't include those properties. But consumers who read what we wrote will not be flummoxed by leaving them out. 22:13:51 q+ 22:14:04 manu: A previous implementor reading that ... It's not clear whether it always had to be there or not. 22:14:08 TallTed: Correct 22:14:14 No, it couldn't 22:14:24 q? 22:14:27 ... The previosly ambiguous language could have led someone to believe that was required... 22:14:30 manu: ... 22:14:40 ack dbuc 22:14:42 TallTed: It's a ... justification. Just want to make sure we are all on the same page ... 22:15:06 dbuc: note: before that text it says obviously not putting these in if not using these features. 22:15:23 TallTed: Not saying it's likely... but the sort of thing that has bitten folks in the past 22:15:25 dbuc: Makes sense 22:15:33 manu: You're okay with that justification? 22:15:43 TallTed: Yes 22:17:11 manu: (earlier missed comment) A consumer software that was implementing this normative statement previously would have read that the value of equivalentId must be a string. It wasn't clear at all whether that was optional or mandatory, so making a decision one way or the other wouldn't have been supported by the text. What we are doing now is going back and clarifying that we always meant it to 22:17:13 be optional. That is the justification for allowing it to be a nonsubstantive change to the spec. 22:17:18 s/bitten folks/bitten WGs/ 22:17:48 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc+-label%3Adefer-v2 22:17:50 manu: I went through all the issues and now marking them as cr-comment, to make easier for chairs/editors to round up all comments for transitioning to next phase. 22:18:00 ... One has been closed by the original issue submitter. 22:18:17 ... We are trying to highlight whether we believe they are editorial changes, whether they are ready for a PR or whether a PR exists. 22:18:54 ... once closed we will ask whether issuer submitter is happy with it. Once they give feedback, will tag if they are okay (agree to close) or did not respond (agreed implicitly), or disagree (keep talking). 22:18:57 @orie: about the PR on JSON production: I wasn't sure what exactly to do on the value tests - am I supposed to invoke JS typeof or something to prove it's a number, for example? 22:19:16 present+ 22:19:18 manu: First one up: 583 22:19:18 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/583 22:19:34 ... Editorial fix, needs PR 22:19:34 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/717 22:19:34 Like typeof didDoc.foo === 'string' ? 22:19:40 Kristina has joined #did 22:19:54 ... About equivalentId and canonicalId ... Markus raised issue, opened PR, we just talked about it and agreed to merge it, with rational 22:19:58 s/rational/rationale 22:19:58 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/625 22:20:03 Present+ 22:20:23 ... Diagrams ... editorial ... Expectation is Markus will. 22:20:25 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/708 22:20:55 ... verification IDs must contain fragment. Long discussion. He presumed that all keys have fragment identifiers. 22:21:03 ... Not clear if George is happy with it or need changes. 22:21:19 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/719 22:21:24 present+ jricher 22:21:26 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/718 22:21:36 manu: 719, 718: both assigned to Drummond. Both have to do with the appendix. 22:21:44 ... Drummond has volunteered to write appendix. 22:21:48 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/721 22:22:14 manu: 721: asked Charles if okay writing PR 22:22:46 cel: I'm not sure what to do at all with this. 22:23:22 q+ 22:23:29 manu: Do you feel like an explanation of what a storage attack is ... would be useful? 22:23:46 It could be more broadly described as a malicious resource consumption attack 22:23:52 or class of attacks 22:24:11 similar to smart contracts constructed to cause feedback loops that consume exessive CPU 22:24:12 ... I'll suggest... will assign myself 22:24:15 ack dbuc 22:24:35 dbuc: more broadly, malicious resource consumption... can happen with CPUs of smart contracts. 22:25:01 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/723 22:25:05 manu: 723: example 1 in the specification is not minimal. 22:25:21 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/707 22:25:24 ... There is a PR in for this, where we change word minimal to simple. We think this will address commenter's concern. 22:25:46 ... 707: Big one. Talks about replacing examples with multibase examples. It is substantive. Some are arguing it is not. 22:25:56 ... We put a statement before CR to say we may update it... 22:26:20 ... There is an at-risk statement talking about base58 to make this change, so we would not need to go through CR. 22:26:33 ... There seems to be quite a bit of support for publicKeyMultibase. 22:26:35 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/707#issuecomment-826382717 22:26:40 ... There have been some concerns raised. 22:26:47 ... I proposed steps forward and request feedback ^ 22:27:05 ... After 7 days we will execute on these steps. 22:27:29 ... Change to multibase, update to 2020 suite 22:27:39 ... We will not have to go through another CR to make these changes 22:27:51 ... Concerns, objections, comments? 22:28:36 q+ 22:28:45 ack manu 22:28:48 justin_r: Do changes to thse examples constitute a normative dependency ... 2. What is the standards-track status of the multibase specification that would be referenced here? 22:29:01 manu: All examples in W3C are non-normative. 22:29:15 ... Specifically in publicKeyMultibase we went out of our way to say non-normative. 22:29:27 ... The multibase spec is an ID (I'm the author) at IETF. 22:29:39 ... Probably nowhere near being adopted into a WG. But more-or-less done. 22:29:53 ... Multibase hit some stability with multiple implementations. 22:30:00 ... The table has been stable the same amount of time. 22:30:08 ... We would be referring to the ID in a non-normative way. 22:30:27 justin_r: I am uncomfortable referring to a non-standards-track ID even in examples. 22:30:43 ... it's important signalling for the W3C to do. It's not an IETF document. 22:30:57 ... I would be more comfortable if it were hosted on a web page somewhere rather than an ID. 22:31:06 ... Thank you for the clarification about removing the property names from Core. 22:31:24 ... Because it's informative, I think it's okay, but we should be careful of how we do it and how to refer to it. 22:31:45 manu: +1. If you have a couple spare cycles and want to review what we have in spec today, would appreciate it, to make sure it aligns with your expectations. 22:31:49 ... We're trying to walk a fine line. 22:32:35 q+ to note Wendy is IETF Liaison 22:32:56 ack manu 22:32:56 manu, you wanted to note Wendy is IETF Liaison 22:33:32 justin_r: I am not an official IETF Liaison but having worked in IETF, there is a lot drilled into our heads about referencing IDs in various states of developemnt from other specs, internally or externally. If W3C has an IETF liasion, this would be a good question to ask, if group is intending to reference an untracked, non-working-group ID, what the appropriate way would be to do that. The 22:33:34 appropriate way may be just to refer to a web page, to show it is not part of the IETF as an organization. 22:33:44 justin_r: Wendy is a good contact to help straighten this out. 22:33:47 https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/724 22:34:29 manu: 724: someone got confused about a DID and DID URL. Said a particular diagram threw them off; would have liked to see examples in the diagram. 22:34:34 ... shigeya made one. 22:34:50 ... ssstolk said strike the parenthesis 22:35:03 ... If you have an opinion on how to address, please weigh in. 22:35:41 ... Final one: a question that Oliver raised around the definition of a verification suite and a verification suite definition. 22:36:01 ... I think we got to the point where Oliver feels he can write a PR; has volunteered to do that; we are waiting for it to come in. 22:36:16 ... Those are the issues. Pretty good. No one has raised anything horrible or terrible yet. 22:36:25 ... We may find ... when more implementers engage. 22:36:57 q+ 22:37:02 ack manu 22:37:04 burn: At end of agenda. Anything else anyone wants to cover? 22:37:23 manu: General question for the group, aligning expectations. Next: close door on tests being written. 22:37:26 q+ 22:37:41 ... given Daniel put in ... just need CBOR... 22:37:52 ... Amy is preparing ... checklist to match every single test to the spec. 22:38:09 s/Daniel put in .../Daniel put in JSON/ 22:38:09 ... Once we do that, we may have a delta where we are missing tests. Expectation is editors will write them. 22:38:30 ... Worse thing is fine something put in that was not testable. Need to decide whether human-testable or machine-testable. 22:39:07 ... At that point, will have test suite, audited. Then get more implementations, tally features against implementations, make sure at least 2 independent implementations of each feature in spec. Then "Done" - major work of working group. 22:39:21 ... Editors still need to go through entire appendix and do non-normative changes. Editorial stuff. 22:39:36 ack dbuc 22:39:36 ... That's the full list. Other editors, did I miss anything? 22:40:08 dbuc: My PR... There is a giant section I commented out.. All the types... confused, do I use typeof? ... Make sure === string? Need help. 22:40:18 manu: More or less. Special Topic call this week on test suite stuff. 22:40:21 Will try! 22:40:21 ... 12pm Eastern 22:40:41 ... We can go through that. We may have to do thinking about exactly how to test for ordered sequence, set, boolean value... 22:40:45 ... Not supposed to be difficult to write. 22:41:04 ... But yes, that this the general thing (checking if string, etc.) 22:41:09 burn: Questions? 22:41:24 So easy that I was feeling dumb thinking of just typeof and Array.isArray testing lol 22:41:51 burn: Please join on Thursday or directly communicate with Orie or Manu. They need to get done now. 22:42:03 ... Please continue on implementations. Thanks to scribe. Thank you everyone. 22:42:27 rssagent, draft minutes 22:42:32 rrsagent, draft minutes 22:42:32 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/27-did-minutes.html burn 22:48:42 dlehn has joined #did