14:54:22 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
14:54:22 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/07/20-did-irc
14:57:31 <burn> present+
15:00:42 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
15:01:00 <brent> brent has joined #did
15:01:06 <TallTed> present+
15:01:18 <dlongley> present+
15:01:27 <shigeya> present+
15:01:29 <markus_sabadello> present+
15:01:30 <cel> present+
15:01:41 <burn> rrsagent, make logs public
15:02:04 <burn> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:02:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/07/20-did-minutes.html burn
15:02:27 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
15:03:05 <manu> present+
15:03:24 <drummond> drummond has joined #did
15:03:30 <drummond> present+
15:03:33 <JoeAndrieu> present+
15:03:54 <brent> scribe+ JoeAndrieu
15:04:30 <justin_r> justin_r has joined #did
15:04:43 <justin_r> present+
15:04:51 <JoeAndrieu> brent: today's agenda. press release. implementation feedback. options for allowing recommendations to be updated, proposed recommendation, next steps
15:05:06 <JoeAndrieu> ...maybe extra time for did spec registries
15:05:31 <JoeAndrieu> joe: I'd like to propose something about the rubric
15:05:34 <JoeAndrieu> brent: ok
15:05:51 <brent> topic: Content for a Press Release
15:06:16 <JoeAndrieu> brent: w3c, recognizing we are close to a recommendation, would like to create a press release about it
15:06:23 <JoeAndrieu> ... they are seeking content for the press release.
15:06:37 <JoeAndrieu> ... quotes from implimenters, user stories, projects
15:06:49 <JoeAndrieu> ... We have approximately a week or two
15:06:56 <agropper> agropper has joined #did
15:07:05 <JoeAndrieu> ... anyone who would like to provide content for an official release, please contact the chairs
15:07:06 <bumblefudge> bumblefudge has joined #did
15:07:10 <agropper> present+
15:07:20 <JoeAndrieu> ... Any other questions?
15:07:25 <JoeAndrieu> ... Ok. Moving on.
15:07:29 <brent> topic: Status of Implementation Feedback
15:07:41 <JoeAndrieu> manu: Hi.
15:07:56 <dbuc> dbuc has joined #did
15:07:59 <dbuc> present+
15:08:00 <JoeAndrieu> ... Great news! All the features seem to be implemented. We're in good shape.
15:08:08 <manu> https://w3c.github.io/did-test-suite/
15:08:17 <JoeAndrieu> ... Here's the current report.
15:08:38 <JoeAndrieu> ... For those that haven't been tracking Github, Drummond and Markus got two implementations in. I confirmed they are from two separate code bases
15:08:53 <JoeAndrieu> ... You can test and see results. We have a solid two implementations for that feature
15:08:54 <dbuc> Good job Markus/Drummond
15:09:10 <drummond> Thanks. Markus is a hero.
15:09:15 <JoeAndrieu> ... The other items we were waiting for test results, we show we have good implementations for everything.
15:09:27 <JoeAndrieu> ... Everything survived.
15:09:36 <JoeAndrieu> ... Everything we put in the spec has been appropriately implemented.
15:09:43 <drummond> Woohoo!
15:09:43 <JoeAndrieu> ... We are ready to go to proposed Rec
15:09:50 <dlongley> great work, everyone!
15:09:57 <JoeAndrieu> Brent: I'm just going to let that sink in
15:10:04 <JoeAndrieu> ... You guys are amazing. Thanks, Manu
15:10:07 <brent> topic: Options for Updating the Recommendation
15:10:25 <JoeAndrieu> ... The WG had agreed to follow "Process 2020"
15:10:28 <Geun-Hyung> Geun-Hyung has joined #did
15:10:36 <JoeAndrieu> ... This may not mean a lot, but it does change our process slightly
15:10:39 <Geun-Hyung> present+
15:10:48 <JoeAndrieu> ... for example, it changed how we did CR (with snapshots)
15:11:10 <JoeAndrieu> ... Another thing it gives us is the option to add an indication in the spec that "new features may be added to it"
15:11:46 <JoeAndrieu> ... New features may be shown to the community and reviewed, then the maintenance working group will have the option to add this to the spec
15:11:52 <JoeAndrieu> ... There are reasons for and against
15:12:00 <manu> q+
15:12:01 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:12:03 <JoeAndrieu> ... we have a few minutes
15:12:04 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:12:07 <brent> ack manu
15:12:07 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/787/files
15:12:14 <drummond> q+
15:12:17 <JoeAndrieu> manu: real quick. the text is simple
15:12:32 <JoeAndrieu> ... Digital Bazaar is very supportive of this
15:12:52 <JoeAndrieu> ... This will allow us to keep pace with the market while at the same time protecting the specification
15:13:01 <JoeAndrieu> ... thanks to existing process
15:13:08 <JoeAndrieu> ... W3C can protect against break changes
15:13:12 <brent> q+ to say why this is valuable even if we have a registry
15:13:18 <JoeAndrieu> ... This has a lot of positive upsides and very few negative downsides
15:13:28 <brent> ack markus_sabadello
15:13:54 <JoeAndrieu> markus_sabadello: I was a little concerned when I first heard.
15:14:09 <JoeAndrieu> ... there may be features that could cause problems or conflict with decisions we made
15:14:17 <JoeAndrieu> ... For example, matrix parameters
15:14:29 <burn> This is only about whether a new WG with a new charter would be needed in order to add features, or whether it could be done under the existing charter.
15:14:29 <JoeAndrieu> ... we looked at that and decided no. Someone could reintroduce it.
15:14:53 <JoeAndrieu> ... The problem is that the people who cared may not be part of the group when it gets added later
15:14:56 <brent> q?
15:15:01 <JoeAndrieu> ... Net net, the positive outweight the negative.
15:15:18 <JoeAndrieu> ... We also have the DID spec registries, so we would need to figure that out as well
15:15:25 <dlongley> scribe+
15:15:30 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:15:46 <rhiaro> present+
15:16:11 <dlongley> JoeAndrieu: I'm opposed to this. Pretty strongly. I think if we look at just the number of people on this call, 17, we have dwindled as we've gotten over the core work of figuring out how this will work. Many of my core concerns didn't make it and some did.
15:16:38 <justin_r> +1
15:17:22 <brent> ack drummond
15:17:30 <dlongley> JoeAndrieu: There were arguments over privacy and so on. Not everyone will be able to be here to give the same amount of consideration, debate, and time to figure out what to do about new features and it could undermine the independence of this architecture we've created. I'm good with a maintenance mode, with errata and so on. Having an extension registry is good too. Having another WG handle this blessed by WG is ok, but otherwise seems like a
15:17:31 <dlongley> mistake.
15:17:35 <JoeAndrieu> drummond: yes, its one of those rare situations where I'm not in full alignment with joe
15:17:44 <JoeAndrieu> ... my concern is what Joe articulated
15:17:54 <brent> q+ to share details about what the process requires
15:17:58 <JoeAndrieu> ... One of the reasons W3C enabled it is for specs that cut new ground
15:17:59 <dlongley> s/blessed by WG/blessed by W3C/
15:18:14 <JoeAndrieu> ... the ability to make a change based on market feedback is more of an asset than a liability
15:18:21 <JoeAndrieu> ... I share Joe's fear. There are downsides.
15:18:40 <JoeAndrieu> ... But as one member of the group. I plan to stay involved with monitoring any proposals for features or changes
15:18:47 <JoeAndrieu> ... I hope others on this call feel the same way.
15:18:59 <JoeAndrieu> ... What I've heard about the process. You have to go through the same process.
15:19:14 <dbuc> Propose that we create a Joe-Batsignal, and any new proposals require shining it into the sky for 48 hours before concluding discussions
15:19:18 <brent> ack drummond
15:19:18 <JoeAndrieu> ... The power of a recommendation, once you have anything that "changes" it will get a significant scrutinity
15:19:22 <brent> ack brent
15:19:22 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to say why this is valuable even if we have a registry and to share details about what the process requires
15:19:58 <JoeAndrieu> brent: one reason to support this is that features  that go into the spec have to undergo wide review and they have to be shown to have at least two independent implementers
15:20:11 <JoeAndrieu> ... the Requirements are a higher bar than just getting something into the registries
15:20:47 <JoeAndrieu> ... The other thing to share. When a maintenance group wants to add a change, they propose a rec change with a 60 day review period
15:20:52 <dlongley> +1 to acknowledge that there are risks, but I also think that dangerous features will get a bright light shone on them and attention drawn bringing people in to review (and Brent is mentioning a long review period to allow for that)
15:21:04 <justin_r> q+
15:21:16 <brent> ack justin_r
15:21:18 <JoeAndrieu> ... All liasons must be contacted and have two months to say everything they hate. And if there isn't enought support, they don't go in
15:21:32 <JoeAndrieu> justin: While I appreciate the effort to raising the bar for things like this
15:22:00 <JoeAndrieu> ... it genuinely makes me question what's the point of an extensibility of a spec if we can still just add new features to sneak changes in
15:22:13 <JoeAndrieu> ... If we believe we did extensibility right, this should not be a necessary function
15:22:32 <JoeAndrieu> ... Any additions beyond errata should be handled by a newly chartered working group to do just that
15:22:44 <JoeAndrieu> ... Other groups, like IETF, this proposal would never fly.
15:23:16 <manu> q+ HTML5 and many WebAPIs work this way -- to note formal objections become more prevalent for new features.
15:23:18 <JoeAndrieu> ... Having a bis document immediately after publishing (w/in years), that's just signaling that you don't think you got it right this time.
15:23:21 <manu> q+ to say HTML5 and many WebAPIs work this way -- to note formal objections become more prevalent for new features.
15:23:31 <JoeAndrieu> ... I share the previously stated concerns about people not paying attention any more
15:23:41 <brent> ack manu
15:23:41 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to say HTML5 and many WebAPIs work this way -- to note formal objections become more prevalent for new features.
15:23:43 <JoeAndrieu> manu: Joe and Markus and Justin are making good points.
15:23:49 <drummond> I don't agree with Justin that this "signals that we didn't think we got it right". W3C adopted the new process specifically to allow this option.
15:24:02 <JoeAndrieu> ... One other note: the web platform, especially HTML5 already works this way
15:24:17 <justin_r> aruably the web was already broken and this is a response to that
15:24:21 <JoeAndrieu> ... big fight between W3C and the other group [WWG?]
15:24:32 <dlongley> And acknowledging the potential for imperfections is not a bad thing. That's not one of the risks with this concept, the risks are that features people don't want would get in.
15:24:37 <justin_r> s/WWG/WHATWG/
15:24:38 <JoeAndrieu> ... The other point is that when these new revisions are made, formal objections can be a useful tool.
15:24:48 <JoeAndrieu> ... If we formally object now, we don't get a spec
15:25:02 <JoeAndrieu> ... With this, it will be far less socially bad to formally object.
15:25:16 <JoeAndrieu> ... Because all you are objecting to is the particular amendment
15:25:27 <JoeAndrieu> ... We shouldn't take this decision likely
15:25:38 <JoeAndrieu> brent: proposal
15:25:39 <brent> PROPOSAL: The DID WG will allow new features to be added to the DID Specification after is has become a recommendation
15:25:44 <manu> +1
15:25:46 <JoeAndrieu> -1
15:25:47 <justin_r> -1 this feels like a sneaky way to get around the agreed upon extension mechanisms
15:25:47 <burn> s/likely/lightly/
15:25:50 <drummond> +1
15:25:50 <brent> +1
15:25:51 <dlongley> +1
15:25:55 <cel> +0.5
15:25:59 <shigeya> -1
15:26:00 <markus_sabadello> +0.5
15:26:04 <burn> +0
15:26:04 <TallTed> +1
15:26:23 <JoeAndrieu> brent: The proposal is not passing
15:26:27 <agropper> -1
15:26:36 <JoeAndrieu> ... next topic
15:26:47 <brent> topic: Transition to Proposed Recommendation
15:26:47 <drummond> Bingo ;-)
15:26:56 <JoeAndrieu> No. It wouldn't be.
15:27:23 <JoeAndrieu> brent: I would like to say at this point, to outline processwise what is happening
15:27:36 <JoeAndrieu> ... manu has created a static version of the DID specification
15:27:40 <JoeAndrieu> ... link, manu?
15:27:43 <manu> This is the Proposed Recommendation DRAFT: https://w3c.github.io/did-core/PR/2021-07-29/
15:27:47 <JoeAndrieu> ... This is the document we are voting on today
15:28:00 <JoeAndrieu> ... Our process requires 7 days for folks to object to a past resolution
15:28:16 <JoeAndrieu> ... This document does not have anything feature-wise that was not already present in last candidate recommendation
15:28:43 <JoeAndrieu> ... All of these changes from CR have been editorial
15:29:13 <JoeAndrieu> ... We hope that it is unlikely that anyone who voted for the transition (today) would change their mind, but one could
15:29:21 <JoeAndrieu> ... we are going to combine the window to a single week
15:29:48 <JoeAndrieu> manu: that should cover it.
15:29:53 <JoeAndrieu> brent: I think that's good.
15:30:19 <JoeAndrieu> dan: yep. The publication date is the key thing. The question is if someone objects between the 29th and ...
15:30:37 <JoeAndrieu> ... we might need to say that any objections received will invalidate...
15:31:08 <JoeAndrieu> [discussion of proposal text]
15:31:37 <JoeAndrieu> dan: director is going to ask, Were there any objections?
15:31:50 <JoeAndrieu> brent: text looks good to me. any other suggested changes?
15:32:01 <JoeAndrieu> dan: before we run it...
15:32:16 <JoeAndrieu> ... this is *it*. Proposed Recommendation is the last stage at which the group actually does anything.
15:32:22 <JoeAndrieu> ... After this, we don't touch it again.
15:32:33 <manu> PROPOSAL: Publish the DID Core specification at https://w3c.github.io/did-core/PR/2021-07-29/ as a Proposed Recommendation on July 29th 2021 with a review period that ends on August 26th 2021. Any objections from DID WG members before July 27th 2021 will require the group to rerun the proposal.
15:32:35 <drummond> Agreed, we are ready for that.
15:32:38 <manu> +1
15:32:39 <agropper> +1
15:32:39 <dlongley> +1
15:32:40 <markus_sabadello> +1
15:32:40 <JoeAndrieu> +1
15:32:41 <brent> +1
15:32:41 <shigeya> +1
15:32:41 <burn> +1
15:32:42 <drummond> +1
15:32:44 <TallTed> +1
15:32:48 <cel> +1
15:33:09 <rhiaro> +1
15:33:14 <Geun-Hyung> +1
15:33:18 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #did
15:33:31 <brent> RESOLVED: Publish the DID Core specification at https://w3c.github.io/did-core/PR/2021-07-29/ as a Proposed Recommendation on July 29th 2021 with a review period that ends on August 26th 2021. Any objections from DID WG members before July 27th 2021 will require the group to rerun the proposal.
15:33:38 <drummond> Woohoo!!!
15:33:42 <JoeAndrieu> brent: No opposition. We are resolved!
15:33:47 <JoeAndrieu> ... We did it!
15:33:57 <JoeAndrieu> ... We made a spec! Whew!
15:34:00 <markus_sabadello> we DID it
15:34:04 <dlongley> lol.
15:34:14 <JoeAndrieu> ... Amsterdam seems like just yesterday
15:34:22 <drummond> Yeah, it's actually 5, but who's counting? ;-)
15:34:25 <brent> topic: Next Steps for DID WG?
15:34:27 <JoeAndrieu> ... next topic
15:34:59 <JoeAndrieu> ... a few options: start chartering another version or "Nah, we're done"
15:35:16 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:35:23 <manu> q+ to suggest maintenance and some DID Methods -- did:key and did:web...
15:35:25 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:35:43 <dlongley> JoeAndrieu: I want to propose something for the rubric.
15:36:32 <dlongley> JoeAndrieu: In particular, we are still finding that there's lots of work to be done there. There's good criteria that hasn't made it in and some that doesn't really work for all methods. For example did:web has a different architecture and it doesn't work well with some of the criteria for other DID methods with consensus mechanism.s
15:36:53 <dbuc> Consensus for did:web: whoever a social media company hasn't cancelled yet
15:37:01 <dlongley> JoeAndrieu: I'm working on writing up DID registry rules but it seems to me that we don't know all the DID criteria now and we're still learning that. I'd like, in a structured way, to be able to add new examples and criteria moving forward.
15:37:03 <brent> ack manu
15:37:03 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to suggest maintenance and some DID Methods -- did:key and did:web...
15:37:17 <JoeAndrieu> manu: +1 to what Joe said, that seems like good work
15:37:22 <brent> q+ to ask if republishing rubric is sufficient
15:37:29 <justin_r> @dbuc so exactly the same as any owned data network. :)
15:37:31 <JoeAndrieu> ... Also a maintenance working group for errate and non-normative text
15:38:06 <JoeAndrieu> ... It would be good to have some exemplar DID methods out there, did:key, did:web
15:38:06 <burn> q+
15:38:25 <JoeAndrieu> ... Also, we are starting the linked data group. that's moving towards charter.
15:38:34 <brent> ack brent
15:38:34 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to ask if republishing rubric is sufficient
15:38:35 <JoeAndrieu> ... keeping the spec aligned with that may be a useful thing to do
15:38:54 <rhiaro> s/linked data/linked data integrity
15:38:58 <JoeAndrieu> brent: because the maintenance working group would be to republish
15:39:05 <JoeAndrieu> ... would updating the note sufficient
15:39:13 <JoeAndrieu> ... be sufficient?
15:39:26 <JoeAndrieu> ... which way is the best option
15:39:40 <JoeAndrieu> ... where as updating the note is less overhead
15:39:44 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:39:51 <brent> ack burn
15:40:05 <JoeAndrieu> burn: at a minimum the group does need to be able to do maintenance on the core spec itself
15:40:31 <JoeAndrieu> ... when there are agreed upon bugs. That's needed. More than that seems dangerous
15:40:45 <JoeAndrieu> ... I see no problem with a maintenance charter, updating the context of registries
15:41:08 <JoeAndrieu> ... It's the rules changes that tend to be challenge
15:41:40 <JoeAndrieu> ... suggesting a charter that allows for bug fixes and non-normative corrections to the core spec.
15:41:57 <JoeAndrieu> ... additions or modifications to registry contents, not rules,
15:42:09 <JoeAndrieu> ... and updates to or creation of non-recommendation track notes
15:42:14 <drummond> +1 to Dan's proposal
15:42:21 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:43:00 <identitywoman> identitywoman has joined #did
15:43:06 <burn> s/be challenge/be challenging in terms of the IPR concerns that dominate charter discussions/
15:43:44 <dlongley> JoeAndrieu: I'd like a lightweight process. Instead of a note, I'd like to return it into a registry for the group.
15:43:52 <burn> q+
15:44:01 <brent> ack burn
15:44:10 <JoeAndrieu> brent: that works with Dan's proposal
15:44:35 <dlongley> s/return it into/turn it into/
15:44:54 <JoeAndrieu> dan: if a registry is created before the group ends, it works. Otherwise, I would suggest we don't put in.
15:45:13 <JoeAndrieu> brent: dan's proposal...
15:46:09 <JoeAndrieu> create a charter that puts in scope maintenance for bug fixes and editorials, managing registries (additions/modifications), and updates to existing notes.
15:46:25 <JoeAndrieu> ... also new notes could be created.
15:46:32 <JoeAndrieu> ... In part to support the ability to split notes.
15:46:35 <manu> q+ to ask about DID Methods
15:46:44 <JoeAndrieu> ... I think that's unlikely, frankly, but it's allowed in my proposal
15:46:52 <brent> ack manu
15:46:52 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about DID Methods
15:47:02 <JoeAndrieu> manu: asking directly, does the work like to standardize did:web and did:key
15:47:14 <JoeAndrieu> brent: to clarify, you mean create a standards track recommendation?
15:47:17 <JoeAndrieu> manu: yes
15:47:20 <burn> q+
15:47:25 <JoeAndrieu> brent: q if you want to discuss
15:47:25 <brent> ack burn
15:47:34 <JoeAndrieu> dan: I'm not against the work... you'll understand
15:47:49 <JoeAndrieu> ... my concern is calling it a maintenance charter and adding new recommendation track work items
15:47:56 <manu> I won't stand in the road on this -- just raising the question :)
15:48:03 <JoeAndrieu> ... that could include new IP scope that the group needs to handle
15:48:16 <JoeAndrieu> ... I don't want to stand against this, I'd just like to get a charter quickly
15:48:16 <brent> +1 to Dan's point. Fully support the work, but don't see it as part of maintenance work.
15:48:19 <manu> We can always up-charter :)
15:48:31 <JoeAndrieu> +1 same. good work, not maintenance though
15:48:34 <burn> Yes, we can abolutely up-charter
15:48:39 <bumblefudge> +1 to Dan B -- support the work AND support a quick maintenance charter
15:48:39 <shigeya> +1 too.
15:48:56 <drummond> +1
15:49:06 <JoeAndrieu> brent: next steps are drafitng a charter and sharing it with the community
15:49:13 <brent> topic: DID Spec Registries
15:49:44 <JoeAndrieu> brent: we had a number of very long detailed conversations about DID spec registries, how they should be outlined, rules, regulations, and made a bunch of resolutions
15:49:58 <brent> https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2021-05-11-did#resolution1
15:50:07 <JoeAndrieu> ... this is a link to resolutions about the registries
15:50:22 <JoeAndrieu> ... explicitly CDDL is no longer required and current CDDL will be removed
15:50:45 <JoeAndrieu> ... JsonSchema will no longer be required and will be removed (except for that in did-core)
15:51:16 <JoeAndrieu> ... There was some opposition. These were two resolutions that have been made, but not yet resulted in changes to the registries
15:51:31 <JoeAndrieu> ... Is there anyone in the group who is willing to raise PRs to address these resolutions?
15:51:38 <JoeAndrieu> ... Can we move this forward?
15:51:42 <manu> q+
15:51:47 <brent> ack manu
15:51:54 <drummond> Noting that Orie is not present on today's call.
15:52:16 <JoeAndrieu> manu: Markus, I'd like you to raise a PR. You had some concerns with Orie's proposal, so maybe you can find a path through
15:52:29 <JoeAndrieu> markus_sabadello: I'd be happy to do it
15:52:32 <manu> ty markus_sabadello :)
15:52:36 <JoeAndrieu> brent: Fantastic
15:52:42 <JoeAndrieu> ... we look forward to seeing that PR
15:52:49 <JoeAndrieu> ... Wow! We have 8 minutes left!
15:52:54 <JoeAndrieu> ... We're done.
15:53:00 <JoeAndrieu> ... We have a proposed recommendation forthcoming.
15:53:02 <manu> woo! The Chairs are amazing too!!!! :)
15:53:04 <drummond> Thank you Joe!
15:53:05 <manu> (and Ivan!)
15:53:08 <JoeAndrieu> ... Thanks for all your hard work.
15:53:13 <drummond> Thank you so much to the chairs.
15:53:14 <dlongley> thank you, Brent! for excellent chairing -- same to Dan! and thank you Ivan and Joe and all!
15:53:18 <JoeAndrieu> ... It's been a long, awesome two years.
15:53:21 <JoeAndrieu> ... See you need week
15:53:35 <markus_sabadello> :)
15:53:40 <shigeya> :)
15:53:40 <brent> lol
15:53:43 <dlongley> :)
15:54:05 <brent> rrsagent, make the logs public
15:54:05 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make the logs public', brent.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:54:33 <brent> rrsagent, make logs public
15:54:49 <brent> zakim, who is here?
15:54:52 <Zakim> Present: burn, TallTed, dlongley, shigeya, markus_sabadello, cel, manu, drummond, JoeAndrieu, justin_r, agropper, dbuc, Geun-Hyung, rhiaro
15:54:52 <Zakim> On IRC I see identitywoman, dmitriz, Geun-Hyung, dbuc, bumblefudge, agropper, justin_r, drummond, JoeAndrieu, brent, RRSAgent, Zakim, burn, TallTed, tzviya, dlehn, etropea73101,
15:54:52 <Zakim> ... Travis, faceface, dlongley, manu, hadleybeeman, bigbluehat, shigeya, ChristopherA, wayne, cel, rhiaro
15:55:04 <brent> present+
15:55:43 <identitywoman> present+
15:56:02 <brent> zakim, end the meeting
15:56:03 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been burn, TallTed, dlongley, shigeya, markus_sabadello, cel, manu, drummond, JoeAndrieu, justin_r, agropper, dbuc, Geun-Hyung, rhiaro, brent,
15:56:05 <Zakim> ... identitywoman
15:56:05 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:56:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/07/20-did-minutes.html Zakim
15:56:07 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, brent; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:56:11 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did
15:56:13 <brent> rrsagent, please excuse us
15:56:13 <RRSAgent> I see no action items