21:49:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
21:49:14 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/06/29-did-irc
21:49:25 <burn> rrsagent, draft minutes
21:49:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/06/29-did-minutes.html burn
21:49:31 <burn> rrsagent, make logs public
21:50:45 <burn> burn has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2021-06-29: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Jun/0011.html
21:52:06 <burn> present+
21:59:33 <cel> present+
21:59:55 <burn> present+ agropper
22:00:51 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
22:00:56 <shigeya> present+
22:01:50 <manu> present+
22:01:53 <markus_sabadello> present+
22:01:57 <TallTed> present+
22:02:58 <TallTed> automatic boot!
22:03:25 <TallTed> s/automatic boot!//
22:05:09 <Orie> Orie has joined #did
22:05:12 <Orie> scribe+
22:05:20 <Orie> present+
22:05:24 <burn> Topic: Agenda Review, Introductions
22:05:30 <Orie> Topic: Agenda
22:06:01 <Orie> burn: meeting reminders, IANA, implementation feedback, did rubric status, did core issues and PRs
22:06:21 <burn> Topic: No special topic call
22:06:21 <Orie> ... skipping introductions
22:06:39 <burn> Topic: Reminder of upcoming cancelled meeting
22:06:52 <Orie> ... Meeting on july 6 is canceled
22:06:59 <burn> Topic: Status of Implementation Feedback
22:07:11 <manu> q+
22:07:15 <Orie> ... manu summary?
22:07:19 <burn> ack manu
22:07:23 <manu> https://w3c.github.io/did-test-suite/
22:07:33 <Orie> manu: the current status on implementations is available at the URL
22:07:44 <Orie> ... the report is auto published
22:07:55 <manu> Status of implementations: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Jun/0012.html
22:08:00 <Orie> ... the mailing list email covered the status, see the link
22:08:35 <Orie> ... we need to make some decisions, see the summary, we will need to make some proposals / resolutions at the end of CR/2
22:09:03 <Orie> ... overall we are in good shape.... it can only get better from here... we appear to be able to get to REC.
22:09:29 <Orie> ... we good number of implementations, covering a good amount of features
22:09:46 <Orie> ... CR2 ends in .5 month.
22:09:55 <Orie> burn: questions?
22:10:17 <Orie> ... are there any areas where we need to push?
22:10:19 <drummond> drummond has joined #did
22:10:24 <drummond> present+
22:11:11 <Orie> manu: shigeya answers are good... some folks feel they have implemented things, some debate over how the implementations are proved....
22:11:30 <Orie> ... some need to coordinate on open concerns / issues
22:11:52 <Orie> ... implementers need to make changes, assertion is test suite is good
22:12:19 <Orie> shigeya: its good now, but there are modifications to the rendering needed to show parameters before end of CR
22:12:37 <Orie> manu: thanks for volunteering to do that
22:13:06 <Orie> burn: some minor discussion remains, any questions?
22:13:10 <burn> Topic: IANA Discussion
22:13:29 <manu> Murray got back to us -- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Jun/0009.html
22:13:32 <Orie> manu: they got back to us.....
22:13:36 <Orie> ... yay...
22:13:48 <Orie> ... eta 1 year before its done.
22:14:16 <Orie> ... we can't register the media type in time... but they are opening a WG called mediaman...
22:14:37 <Orie> ... the WG won't start for months or finish for a year... so we can't register our media type...
22:14:51 <Orie> ... the suggestion is to leave it hanging, and try to fix it later...
22:15:09 <burn> q+
22:15:20 <Orie> ... there are 18 implementations of the media type... so it seems like it won't break things...
22:15:46 <Orie> ... we should note that registering the media type will be done, once the mediaman wg has an official position.
22:15:52 <burn> ack burn
22:15:56 <Orie> ... we can put it out as advisory and go to rec
22:16:43 <Orie> burn: they can still argue against 18 implementations.... this won't effect our process, but we should not assume the outcome we want will happen.
22:17:09 <Orie> ... others should participate, if you want the outcome.
22:17:13 <Orie> ... questions
22:17:19 <burn> Topic: DID Rubric status/publication
22:17:36 <Orie> q+
22:17:36 <manu> q+
22:17:42 <burn> ack orie
22:17:58 <manu> orie: I believe the rubric is developing.
22:18:07 <burn> scribe+ manu
22:18:33 <manu> orie: I will continue to provide feedback on some methods to that rubric. There is also the rubric podcast thing, that will elaborate on the rubric and things described there in. I can see progress, nothing more official though.
22:18:33 <burn> ack manu
22:18:39 <Orie> manu: what orie said
22:18:57 <Orie> ... they are producing content, and are aware of the september deadline
22:19:27 <Orie> burn: we have had a conversation about it... you cannot assume that folks will say yes... we will see what we have.
22:19:35 <Orie> ... questions?
22:19:37 <burn> Topic: DID Core issues and PRs
22:20:07 <Orie> manu: regarding PRs...
22:20:19 <manu> This one is ready to go, I just need to merge it -- https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/764
22:20:41 <Orie> ... charles?
22:20:42 <manu> Charles added this one -- https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/771
22:20:45 <kdenhartog> kdenhartog has joined #did
22:20:58 <Orie> charles: adding descriptions to diagrams, as requested in issue 625
22:21:16 <Orie> manu: this is one of the major outstanding things
22:21:24 <Orie> ... this really helps, thank you
22:21:31 <markus_sabadello> See issue https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/625
22:21:59 <Orie> burn: excellent example of how these should be done, you just imagine that you are describing the thing over the phone...
22:22:17 <Orie> ... they are not hard, and a good opportunity for new contributors
22:22:39 <kdenhartog> present+
22:22:52 <manu> here are the issues that remain: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Adefer-v2+
22:22:53 <Orie> manu: we are down to a beautifully small number of issues
22:23:11 <Orie> ... wonder to almost get to nothing... 2 waiting on michael herman
22:23:17 <drummond> q+
22:23:29 <Orie> ... 3 waiting for confirmations, then 3 remaining issues
22:23:47 <Orie> ... 2 real issues, linking to use case, easy....
22:24:10 <Orie> ... the big one is from mark from the http wg, asking for an external security review...
22:24:12 <manu> This is the major one remaining that we need feedback on: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/768
22:24:49 <Orie> ... mark co-chairs http wg at IETF... he is asking us why we have not asked IETF or CFRG to do a security review
22:24:58 <Orie> ... we also asked TAG
22:25:17 <Orie> ... folks at IETF are asking why there is no sec review
22:25:42 <Orie> ... suggestion is to do it, even though it will annoy folks...
22:25:53 <Orie> ... still they may have comments
22:26:17 <Orie> ... I asked mark if he expects us to engage with CFRG, and the security area
22:26:25 <burn> ack drummond
22:26:42 <Orie> drummond: I was going to mention the ones that we are waiting on michael for, we have waited that out
22:26:56 <Orie> ... how long will a security review take?
22:27:09 <Orie> manu: 1 to N months to complete
22:27:25 <Orie> burn: we have done what we are required to do by process
22:27:38 <manu> q+
22:27:48 <Orie> ... while sec reviews are good, its not appropriate for it to be a gating factor
22:28:09 <burn> ack manu
22:28:39 <Orie> manu: agree, it should not be a gating factor for getting to REC, its a politics and optics issue
22:29:05 <Orie> ... its important to work with CFRG to address the concerns folks are raising.
22:29:57 <Orie> ... the responses from CRFG have not been great.... we will go into a maintence mode, we would like to start engauging on these items...
22:30:10 <agropper> agropper has joined #did
22:30:20 <Orie> ... when the WG is recharted / reconvened we can implement feedback gathered.
22:30:25 <agropper> present+
22:30:28 <drummond> I like that
22:31:06 <Orie> burn: part of the process has been implementations, its important to convey that this is not an opportunity to restart our process
22:31:28 <Orie> ... we are continuing our existing process, and look forward to addition reviews and feedback.
22:31:48 <Orie> manu: I will take an action to draft some language, and can put it to the group to review
22:32:20 <Orie> burn: reminder that we have a higher bar regarding consensus than IETF, we are way beyond "rough consensus and running code"
22:32:38 <Orie> ... folks have known about this for some time
22:33:04 <Orie> ... this will come up as we proceed to the next phase
22:33:23 <Orie> manu: I have the ball on a draft
22:33:35 <Orie> burn: anything else for issues?
22:33:46 <Orie> manu: if we have time, would like to talk about test suite
22:34:08 <manu> We have 3 questions the group needs to address here: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Jun/0012.html
22:34:25 <manu> #1: Are the hl, relativeRef, and service implementations independent enough?
22:34:45 <Orie> manu: question 1 are hashlink, relative ref and service independent enough
22:34:55 <Orie> ... kyle i think you did this implementation?
22:34:58 <markus_sabadello> q+
22:35:17 <kdenhartog> q+
22:35:22 <Orie> ... orie may have done one, markus may have done one...
22:35:24 <Orie> q+
22:35:28 <burn> ack markus_sabadello
22:35:53 <Orie> markus: I think we have an implementation of this, the way it is getting counted may be to blame
22:36:24 <manu> q+ if Markus implemented it, we have two implementations and all we need to do is get it to show up in the test suite.
22:36:28 <manu> q+ to note if Markus implemented it, we have two implementations and all we need to do is get it to show up in the test suite.
22:36:36 <Orie> ... hl, relativeRef, service ... we implemented them... maybe the test suite is testing the syntax, and not reporting the results fully?
22:36:45 <burn> ack kdenhartog
22:36:47 <shigeya> q+
22:37:19 <Orie> kyle: basically yeah... while we are not technically testing dereferencing, we have 2 implementations behaving similarly
22:37:58 <Orie> ... regarding did params, its hard to tell what is being tested... I was mostly looking at validation of the DID URLs...
22:38:06 <burn> ack Orie
22:39:08 <manu> Orie: IIRC, we each tackling the way we're testing these things differently -- writing implementation for dereferencer, or DID Method implementation, two places where they show up, not counting them in the same way, to kyle's point, what are we testing -- tend to agree with kyle, wrt. dereferencing, we just can test that DID URL conforms to syntax and output conforms to data.
22:39:22 <burn> ack manu
22:39:22 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note if Markus implemented it, we have two implementations and all we need to do is get it to show up in the test suite.
22:39:22 <manu> Orie: As long as you're providing input/ouput... input conforms, output conforms, not counting them consistently.
22:39:40 <Orie> manu: agreed, this would appear to be mostly a copying issue
22:39:55 <Orie> ... we can copy them from 1 place to another, to make them show up perhapse.
22:40:03 <kdenhartog> q+
22:40:24 <Orie> ... we might consider this easier to fix by just copying data from 1 place to another.
22:40:33 <markus_sabadello> Our Universal Resolver report with these parameters: https://github.com/w3c/did-test-suite/blob/main/packages/did-core-test-server/suites/implementations/universal-resolver-identifier-tests.json
22:40:42 <burn> ack shigeya
22:40:50 <Orie> ... i think hl, relativeRef and service have been implemented
22:41:38 <Orie> shigeya: the `it` blocks may not be covering the test suites, if the output is not in the table, its likely the statement does not run
22:41:52 <Orie> ... so its possible we are not actually testing the datat.
22:41:56 <burn> ack kdenhartog
22:42:24 <Orie> kdenhartog: I don't want to copy did params into our did implementations
22:42:45 <Orie> ... I can check the syntax, would that work?
22:43:13 <kdenhartog> sounds good, I'll update those files
22:43:25 <markus_sabadello> q+
22:43:32 <Orie> manu: action is for implementers for features, markus and kyle, look at your files, and figure out how to get your tests to show up.
22:43:34 <burn> ack markus_sabadello
22:44:14 <Orie> markus: it would be cleanest to submit implementations for the dereference suite and the implementation suite
22:44:23 <manu> q+ to agree and move on to 2nd question.
22:44:34 <Orie> ... show that you can both parse and dereferncce
22:44:37 <burn> ack manu
22:44:37 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to agree and move on to 2nd question.
22:44:51 <Orie> manu: i think we are done with q1
22:45:02 <drummond> no objections
22:45:24 <manu> The second question is ... #2: Are we letting the JSON serialization keep unimplemented features?
22:45:25 <Orie> ... question 2, we seem to need a resolution of some kind...
22:45:40 <drummond> q+
22:45:45 <Orie> manu: datetime, null, integer
22:46:21 <kdenhartog> q+
22:46:29 <Orie> ... we said all normative features must have at least 2 implementations before we exit CR... we want to keep the data model intact, even though nobody is using them currently
22:46:48 <Orie> q+
22:46:49 <burn> ack drummond
22:47:09 <Orie> drummond: I think we want to keep the model in ttact
22:47:16 <burn> ack kdenhartog
22:47:31 <Orie> kdenhartog: we can implement it
22:47:33 <burn> Yes please !!!
22:47:44 <burn> ack Orie
22:47:46 <manu> q+ to raise concerns about "just implement it"
22:48:00 <kdenhartog> Sounds good I can do that
22:48:12 <burn> ack manu
22:48:12 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to raise concerns about "just implement it"
22:48:26 <burn> q+
22:48:37 <Orie> manu: as long as those are "real implementations"
22:48:56 <kdenhartog> q+
22:49:14 <Orie> ... lets be careful
22:49:31 <burn> ack burn
22:50:06 <Orie> burn: I understand your concern, but remember we are testing the spec... the feature needs to be implemented, the example does not need to be "useable"
22:50:15 <Orie> ... the more complete the tests are the better
22:50:48 <burn> q?
22:50:51 <burn> ack kdenhartog
22:50:53 <Orie> ... our goal is to demonstrate that someone reading the spec could implement it
22:51:03 <Orie> https://did.actor/mike/
22:51:08 <Orie> ^ kyle
22:51:21 <burn> q?
22:51:26 <Orie> kdenhartog: I will try to make our example good
22:51:28 <manu> +1 to what Kyle just said, that's the right way to do it.
22:51:31 <manu> q+
22:51:33 <burn> ack manu
22:51:45 <burn> q+
22:52:43 <drummond> :-)
22:52:46 <Orie> burn: in response to drummond... folks have built implementations just to allow folks to meet the number... the requirement is not that folks use it, its that feature are implementable when you read the spec.
22:52:47 <burn> ack burn
22:53:11 <Orie> manu: action is on implementers to cover the remaining features
22:53:26 <Orie> q?
22:53:29 <kdenhartog> Sounds good, I should be able to get those in this week
22:53:32 <Orie> q+
22:53:41 <burn> ack Orie
22:54:23 <manu> Last question is #3: What are we going to do with deactivated, nextUpdate, and nextVersionId?
22:54:26 <kdenhartog> q+
22:54:32 <Orie> manu: what are we going to do with deactivated, nextUpdate and nextVersionId
22:54:50 <burn> ack kdenhartog
22:54:54 <Orie> ... I know some folks think they implemented these
22:55:21 <Orie> kdenhartog: I have seen evidence that they have been implemented
22:55:23 <manu> q+ this one is a little different... you need to actually get the data back.
22:55:26 <manu> q+ to this one is a little different... you need to actually get the data back.
22:55:26 <burn> ack manu
22:55:27 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to this one is a little different... you need to actually get the data back.
22:55:29 <Orie> ... but they appear not to be reported
22:55:42 <drummond> Before we run out of time, I will be on vacation all next week, so will miss any meetings next week. (Also the last week of July, just to provide plenty of advanced notice.)
22:55:53 <Orie> mnau: this appears to be different than the syntax tests
22:56:12 <Orie> ... we appear to need more functional tests for did methods that support this
22:56:25 <markus_sabadello> q+
22:56:30 <Orie> q+
22:56:34 <burn> ack markus_sabadello
22:56:39 <kdenhartog> q+
22:56:46 <Orie> markus_sabadello: these tests happen in did resolution
22:57:00 <manu> Yes, Markus is correct, apologies, I misspoke.
22:57:01 <Orie> ... you must submit reports for a resolver, NOT a did method
22:57:29 <Orie> ... some potential confusion over where did methods vs resolution vs dereferencing get tested
22:57:41 <Orie> ... maybe a shortcoming of the test suite
22:57:45 <kdenhartog> https://github.com/w3c/did-test-suite/blob/674a122d49da1ce80ee677412ab4faf7d118cac2/packages/did-core-test-server/suites/implementations/dereferencer-3-3box-labs.json#L25
22:57:53 <Orie> ... there should be enough
22:57:58 <burn> ack Orie
22:58:05 <burn> ack kdenhartog
22:58:11 <manu> q+
22:58:21 <burn> ack manu
22:58:29 <Orie> kdenhartog: you can see the implementation report,
22:58:44 <Orie> q+
22:58:48 <kdenhartog> q+
22:58:58 <markus_sabadello> q+
22:59:09 <Orie> q-
22:59:19 <Orie> burn: this will take extra time to resolve
22:59:26 <drummond> That would imply that the WG members know math ;-)
22:59:32 <Orie> ... please continue to work on issues and mailing list
22:59:36 <manu> +1 to moving discussion to issues/mailing list
22:59:36 <Orie> ... we are close
22:59:37 <kdenhartog> Would updated and created be the same for the first publishing?
22:59:39 <markus_sabadello> created and updated can be the same per the spec -> so it's a bug in the test suite
22:59:43 <drummond> +1
22:59:49 <manu> kdenhartog: it's not the first publishing :)
22:59:57 <Orie> ... remember next call in 2 weeks
23:00:21 <burn> rrsagent, draft minutes
23:00:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/06/29-did-minutes.html burn
23:00:28 <kdenhartog> Ahh I'm misunderstanding the implementation then. I can go look at his code because I understanding it's behaving as expected
23:01:01 <burn> rrsagent, draft minutes
23:01:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/06/29-did-minutes.html burn