Meeting minutes
<ivan> Date: 2021-06-15
Brent: starting with agenda review
<burn> And congrats on publication of CR2!
brent: agenda modifications?
brent: 2nd CR for DID core has been published - no more changes - confeti in other chat from Juan.
<dbuc> Did the service param get dropped?
brent: until further notice no special topic calls
brent: upcoming meetings - canceled next week. Neither chairs nor staff content is avalibe.
brent: July 6th canceled - near to American 4th of July.
Status of Implementations
status of implementations
Brent: status of ipmlemetnation by Manu
manu: implementation report was just run
manu: we have marked almost everything - marked many of things at risk that are at risk - changes
manu: all of a sudden - reporting mechanism is broken - now counting exmaple implementations working with Chea on fixing that.
manu: if we see relative ref and service and HL might be removed because not implemented
manu: had a regression of some kind in test suite - two things not showing up - equivalent ID and connonical ID
manu: still remain a number of things in resolution and de-referencing and no one seems to be implementing so can't test everything in the syntax
manu: but other things insufficent implementations we will see things like the deactivated property doesn't have enough implementations.
<drummond> Aren't those essentially error messages?
manu: a couple of other ones - an invalid DID - not enough implementations.
<drummond> Don't we want to keep them?
Markus: talking about some of the missing things.
Manu: timeline?
Markus: if we have the next call then probably have them anything further then that will be problematic.
manu: couting on uinversal resolver to provide those implementations
Brent: anyone else providing resoultion and dereferencing features - will it be sufficient. Ceramic submitted own resolver implementation.
manu: are you using ceramic implementaiton
Markus: no
Manu: not sure how many other implementations exist outside of ceramic.
Publishing CBOR Note
brent: about publishing a note
Manu: an e-mail went out to the mailing list on saturday - saying there was a date stamped CBOR representation.
ManU: publication date is 29th of June
Manu: intro - words on conformance, IANA consideration rules, short and suite. Good example for the length of what a representation spec could look like. We still need to register this as a note.
Drummond: Manu has done a huge amount of work to turn this into stand alone document
seconded
<brent> ack
<manu> did-cbor-representation
Ivan: administrative, must have - short name must be part of resolution, other thing just to make life easier
<brent> PROPOSAL: We will publish The Plain CBOR Representation v1.0 as a WG Note with the shortname did-cbor-representation, use echidna to publish updates automatically, and register the CBOR representation in the DID Spec Registries.
<manu> +1
<drummond> +1
<burn> +1
<ivan> +1
<brent> +1
<cel> +1
<markus_sabadello> +1
<TallTed> +1
Resolution: We will publish The Plain CBOR Representation v1.0 as a WG Note with the shortname did-cbor-representation, use echidna to publish updates automatically, and register the CBOR representation in the DID Spec Registries.
Ivan: resolutions become resolved after a week. Is that the understanding.
Brent: yes this is my understanding.
Ivan: will submit official publication request a week from now.
<drummond> Totally agree -- Jonathan did a huge amount of work on this.
brent: next topic trying to do similar thing for rubric - none of the editors are ont eh call at this point.
Publishing Rubric Note
ivan: from my POV we can take the resolution if we feel the content is there. but why Manu has gone through trouble to get document publication ready
ivan: work to get document ready - uneasy to submit request to director - unease
Brent and manu share unease
<manu> https://
manu: have not had chance to review latest rubric - weary of publishing without them.
<drummond> We should see if the editors can attend a call and give us an assessment.
<burn> I agree. The editors did not prepare this before today, and have not prepped the group for a vote today.
Manu: two errors can be seen.
Brent: continue working with the editors
Next Steps for DID WG
<manu> ... and for the record, I think it's a really good document in concept, and probably close to in execution, it would be a real shame to not publish it.
Brent: next steps for DID working group - 20 min timebox conversation to explore options for continuing DID spec dev work developed. When this group ends in Sept of this year .
Brent: Q is open
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to suggest a six month rest period... maintenance... possibility of other items after.
Manu: I would like to not do did work until this is done - 6 months to a year.
Manu maybe extra work in VC credentials work - so we don't have capacity to run all the stuff in parallel.
Manu: Secure data store work in DIF.
Manu: natural for us to work on something like DID Key - potential standard we could all get bheind.
manu: could get behind DID:Web - methods that are non-controversal into perview.
Ivan: something that didn't exist when VC spec went to Rec - could be defined as "living standard" we must decide when we submit a proposed recomendation whether we want to empower the new working group to add substative new features to the spec without going down path of working draft. If we want that we have to declare when we move to prposed recomendation. Might be a good thing to have in this case. Doesn't mean we must jump to do t[CUT]
Ivan: we could say working group is dormant for a year.
Ivan: fait of rubric document - publish a note. We know that joe plans to do some other things - more complicated things which we don't have the time for in this working group - put something in charter further development on rubric is in-scope.
Ivan: have it part of a new charter
ivan: question for manu - did key and web that you would plan to publish these as recomendations or as separate notes.
manu: we would publish them as separate representations.
manu: as the DID working gorup we need some exampler DID methods as a review and did methods.
manu: something many different companies can get behind.
brent: option of doing nothing
brent: maintainace of registry
brent: full new working group defining resolution and DID methods
Brent: I'm not sure would it work to add DID methods to a maintainace type charter.
Ivan: to answer your question - maintainacne working group is not a specific thing - the only thing hte group does is maintain the recomendation
ivan: how we do the timeline - these are the things we develop - for first year we don't do anything we let thigns rest.
Ivan: we crate one liner charter - last for a year - then after that make a more complex charter.
ivan: that is answer to question.
ivan: yet another work item is possible. process 2021 - more formal notion of registry. Take up registry document as we have and turn it into a technical registry.
ivan: way we extend registry might be considered
Markus: I want to mention did resolution specification in CCG right now it is out of date and needs more work - and gaps in DID Core - define service - don't define did parameters and how to implement those.
Markus: somethings that are in did resolution that would help in long run.
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that "Living Standard" creates concerns of feature pressure... would like to stay that for a year.
<drummond> +1 for resolution spec
Manu: +1 for did resolution needs to be moved forward sooner rather then later - did key vs did web methods and resolution. could move forward in parallel.
Manu: living standard option that is good - if we move right to living standard would put feature presure on did standard - I don't think that is good.
manu: would like like to take breather for a year. Did key and core forward - people are spread thin.
<Zakim> ivan, you wanted to comment on doing nothing
ivan: better to have a group that exists that "does nothing" then nothing and start again.
ivan: work maintained at CCG - maintains IPR
DID Core issues and PRs
<brent> https://
<manu> https://
Manu: not need to do PRs first - was waiting for CR publication - need review 764
manu: everything else is ready to go in.
Diagrams need SVG and detailed description @issue 625
Brent: issue 625
markus: recomendation didn't work
Brent: other aspect of this issue - anyone can jump in and contribute.
<manu> If it were me, I'd just recreate everything in Google Draw :)
ivan: might be able to import from open office into google doc
Charles: also open to helping
<drummond> Fantastic
manu: to make job easier - all of the other issues already have PRs waiting - or have gone in.
Brent: PRs need reviews.
Add link to DID use cases document @issue 766
brent: 766 add link to DID use-cases document
Manu: Phil reminded me this morning - I have failed to put a link into it. will do it.
Brent: look at PR 764
docs: add notes to nudge implementors towards common DID URL patterns @pr 764
<brent> https://
Ted: review: simple changed a bunch of shoulds - non-normative texts
ted: he you DID implementor you should look at this thing to understand how resolution is going to happen so design DID to go along with it.
Markus: has non-normative pointer to did resolution
Markus: kyle wanted to add some of that to the language -
Markus: I think it is fine the way it is.
Brent: Thanks - see you all in two weeks - next week's meeting is canceled.
<drummond> thanks to Kaliya!
<by_caballero> thanks all! and kaliya extra