14:47:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
14:47:07 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/08/03-did-irc
14:47:10 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:47:10 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:47:19 <ivan> Meeting: DID WG Telco
14:47:23 <justin_r> justin_r has joined #did
14:47:29 <ivan> Date: 2021-08-03
14:50:08 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #did
14:58:32 <ivan> present+
14:58:54 <ivan> present+ justin_r
14:59:37 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
15:00:58 <cel> present+
15:01:13 <brent> present+
15:01:20 <drummond> drummond has joined #did
15:01:29 <drummond> present+
15:01:44 <ivan> present+ rhiaro
15:02:23 <ivan> present+ markus_sabadello
15:02:35 <ivan> present+ manu
15:02:37 <manu> present+
15:02:51 <rhiaro> scribe+
15:02:54 <ivan> present+ agropper
15:03:07 <markus_sabadello> present+
15:03:16 <ivan> present+ joe
15:03:30 <TallTed> present+
15:03:30 <rhiaro> brent: agenda review
15:03:37 <rhiaro> ... talk about the press release we've mentioned before
15:03:41 <rhiaro> ... spend time looking at DID rubric
15:03:51 <rhiaro> ... presenting it to the group and bringing a resolution to publish as a note
15:03:57 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
15:04:04 <rhiaro> ... spend the bulk of the meeting talking about draft for next DID WG charter
15:04:11 <rhiaro> ... as time permits we will spend some time with DID spec registries
15:04:22 <rhiaro> ... Any questions or anything to add or change?
15:04:49 <rhiaro> Topic: Announcements
15:04:56 <rhiaro> brent: DID v 1 is now a PR
15:05:04 <rhiaro> ... All to ping your AC rep to vote on it
15:05:10 <rhiaro> ... (hopefully positively)
15:05:25 <brent> Topic: Content for a Press Release
15:05:46 <agropper_> agropper_ has joined #did
15:05:53 <rhiaro> manu: usually when w3c creates a rec there's some amount of press involved
15:05:55 <ivan> q+
15:05:59 <agropper_> present+
15:06:05 <rhiaro> ... we spoke with some w3c management folks who were interested in seeing a bit more
15:06:31 <rhiaro> ... this means we need to 1) get in touch with coralie, the communications director at w3c and let her know that we would like to coordinate on the press release
15:06:46 <rhiaro> ... typically in a press release what w3c tends to look for are statements of adoption
15:06:54 <rhiaro> ... good signs that the standard is being picked up by industry
15:07:01 <rhiaro> ... the larger the pickup and broader deployment better
15:07:13 <rhiaro> ... the ideal is to show large deployments, signals of deployments using the technology
15:07:30 <rhiaro> ... government quotes would be good for DIDs
15:07:37 <rhiaro> ... other things are industries, airline, healthcare, retail
15:07:47 <rhiaro> ... Those are the big quotes that we're looking for
15:07:50 <drummond> Industry association quotes, e.g., ToIP Foundation, Decentralized Identity Foundation, Linux Foundation
15:07:51 <ivan> -> Example for a recent, similar press release: https://www.w3.org/2021/06/pressrelease-webaudio.html.en
15:07:57 <rhiaro> ... organisations or industries saying they are deploying it into pilot and productions ettings
15:08:12 <rhiaro> ... Second tier of support are large orgs or groups of organisations
15:08:17 <rhiaro> ... DIF, trust over IP foundation
15:08:21 <rhiaro> ... anything like that
15:08:24 <shigeya> present+
15:08:28 <rhiaro> ... industry verticals
15:08:37 <rhiaro> ... member orgs saying they're deploying it is also good
15:08:53 <rhiaro> ... The third tier, still important, are member companies themselves are saying it is helping them
15:09:03 <rhiaro> ... anything you can say about w3c and DIDs and how it's helping yoru company is a good thing
15:09:20 <rhiaro> ... Markus found some good previous press releases, if you're unsure about what quote to get you can get an idea
15:09:42 <ivan> -> Another Press Release example https://www.w3.org/2021/01/pressrelease-webrtc-rec.html.en
15:09:44 <drummond> q+ to ask: What is the schedule? Getting quotes from companies and foundations is always a deadline-driven process.
15:09:44 <rhiaro> ... When the press release goes out any of us that have contacts in the broader press ecosystem should try and work with them to do interviews and amplify the w3c press release
15:10:03 <rhiaro> ... government verticals do press releases, individual companies can do their own and time it with the w3c one
15:10:21 <rhiaro> ... we're going to coordinate with coralie, and ideally each of us is going to work with companies and orgs that we know to get quotes out of them that we can put in the w3c press release
15:10:29 <rhiaro> ... then we're going to amplify the w3c press release
15:10:31 <brent> ack ivan
15:10:45 <rhiaro> ivan: yes the testimonials are an integral part
15:10:55 <rhiaro> ... but somebody has to give text to coralie with the core part of the press release
15:11:02 <rhiaro> ... I've put two recent examples from this year
15:11:11 <rhiaro> ... somebody must have the pen and I don't know who that is
15:11:15 <rhiaro> ... we have to decide
15:11:52 <rhiaro> ... Also we have to realise that in the old days when we were young and foolish every w3c rec was accompanied by a press release. That's gone, it's unmanageable. We have to contact coralie today becuase she has to plan for it, it's not automatic at all
15:11:57 <rhiaro> ... probably brent is best to do that
15:12:00 <rhiaro> ... and discuss details
15:12:17 <rhiaro> ... The schedule - what happens is that the goal is to publish the press release when the recommendation is published
15:12:27 <rhiaro> ... we can count the end of the PR is at the end of the month, 31 August
15:12:42 <rhiaro> ... we have to count two weeks to get the recommendation out provided there is no problem with the votes
15:12:47 <rhiaro> ... there might be small things, editorial things
15:12:50 <rhiaro> ... two weeks is secure
15:12:55 <rhiaro> ... means press release is about mid september
15:13:00 <rhiaro> ... however the press release must be translated
15:13:06 <rhiaro> ... to chinese, japanese and french, the four languages of w3c
15:13:11 <rhiaro> ... and translating such a text is never easy
15:13:15 <rhiaro> ... we have to be prepared to review it
15:13:33 <rhiaro> ... usually the comms folks do the translation but looking at it is important
15:13:46 <rhiaro> ... I presume shigeya can look at the japanese, I can look at the french, someone needs to look at the chinese
15:13:49 <rhiaro> ... and translation takes time
15:13:52 <shigeya> Sure.
15:13:57 <rhiaro> ... don't have to translate the testimonials, just the core text
15:14:13 <rhiaro> ... I would think that having the text ready from our point of view, the core parts ready, we should head for the third week of august, which is not far away
15:14:17 <rhiaro> ... whoever has the pen has to sit down and use it
15:14:25 <rhiaro> ... as for the testimonials, they can come in up to the last moment
15:14:29 <brent> ack drummond
15:14:29 <Zakim> drummond, you wanted to ask: What is the schedule? Getting quotes from companies and foundations is always a deadline-driven process.
15:14:35 <rhiaro> drummond: you answered the questions
15:14:54 <rhiaro> ... Every time I've done this (frequently with different foundations) every company and executive needs to know what's the deadline on the quote
15:15:00 <rhiaro> ... large companies want several weeks
15:15:11 <rhiaro> ivan: I'd propose to set the quote date, knowing some will be late, to 5th Sept
15:15:15 <rhiaro> drummond: sounds good
15:15:27 <rhiaro> brent: I can reach out to coralie
15:15:40 <rhiaro> ... I'd like to talk to manu and get understanding of conversations already had
15:15:46 <rhiaro> ... Do we hvae a volunteer to write the text for the press release?
15:16:09 <rhiaro> manu: I'm happy to chat, and to help support, perhaps a google doc and people can jump in?
15:16:20 <rhiaro> ... might be overwhelming for someone to write by themselves, but there needs to be a clear lead
15:16:21 <drummond> +1 to a Google doc. i will help with it too.
15:16:22 <rhiaro> ... i can't be the lead
15:16:44 <rhiaro> ivan: ducks are in a row
15:16:52 <brent> Topic: DID Rubric
15:17:19 <rhiaro> brent: all of the pubrules checking has been done to create a static version of the rubric?
15:17:20 <rhiaro> JoeAndrieu: no
15:17:27 <rhiaro> brent: what is our status?
15:17:37 <rhiaro> JoeAndrieu: we thought we were there. We had that one bit with getting the citation correct took help from ivan
15:17:49 <rhiaro> ... In reading it through we realsed a bunch of the new criteria in security and privacy have placeholder text
15:17:54 <rhiaro> ... Daniel is working on getting a first pass at fixing that
15:18:02 <rhiaro> ... Some were example methods of did:foo etc
15:18:05 <rhiaro> ... cleaining up this week
15:18:17 <rhiaro> brent: assuming as those PRs come in we'd like review as soon as we can so we can get the first version of the note published?
15:18:20 <rhiaro> JoeAndrieu: yes, stil our next goal
15:18:35 <ivan> q+
15:18:43 <rhiaro> ... we have a number of other things still trying to get done around putting an option for turning it into a registry on the table for the group to consider
15:18:47 <rhiaro> ... first we're going to get a publication
15:18:50 <rhiaro> ... PRs for that this week
15:18:55 <brent> ack ivan
15:19:06 <rhiaro> ivan: you said PR not TR right?
15:19:20 <rhiaro> ... What we have to account for is going to /TR/ takes at least a week
15:19:34 <rhiaro> ... I have to start the procedure to ask for a fpwd publication, get a green light etc, go through admin
15:20:02 <rhiaro> ... more complicated, we were 'lucky' yesterday but usually I don't work monday so if it's set on tuesday it needs to all be ready by the friday before, or we settle on thursday publication
15:20:04 <rhiaro> JoeAndrieu: sounds good
15:20:39 <rhiaro> ... I'll work with Daniel to get the PR in to address the did:foo kind of problems
15:20:50 <rhiaro> ... hopefully we'll get to something we submit for consideration as TR. WG has to vote on that
15:20:53 <rhiaro> ivan: exactly
15:21:05 <rhiaro> brent: as soon as there is a static version that can go to TR send the group that link for review
15:21:10 <rhiaro> ... so when we have a meeting we can vote
15:21:16 <rhiaro> ... to publish as a note
15:21:23 <rhiaro> JoeAndrieu: what are the magic incantations to go from respec to static?
15:21:32 <rhiaro> manu: button on the top right
15:21:56 <rhiaro> ... then create a directory to put it in, with the date
15:22:18 <rhiaro> ivan: be careful to set the date correctly
15:22:25 <rhiaro> ... and the publication type
15:22:32 <rhiaro> ... which is note-fpwd or something, see the respec manual
15:22:51 <brent> Topic: Next DID WG Charter
15:23:01 <brent> https://w3c.github.io/did-wg-charter/
15:23:13 <rhiaro> brent: this is draft text for a proposed charter
15:23:20 <rhiaro> ... for the WG in maintenance mode
15:23:39 <ivan> q+
15:23:47 <rhiaro> ... Set right now to be a 2 year charter with maintenance of the DID spec, editorial changes are in scope and bug fixes are in scope
15:24:02 <rhiaro> ... the only substantive changes allowed are 'class 3' changes which are in response to a bug in the spec, a correction
15:24:15 <rhiaro> ... becuase we do not have text in the spec that allows for new features to be added, the maintenance wg cannot put that in scope
15:24:21 <rhiaro> ... other things in this propposed charter as in scope are
15:24:29 <rhiaro> ... maintenance of the registries, the rubric and the cbor representation notes
15:24:42 <rhiaro> ... and also in scope are any other notes that the group may wish to publish
15:24:45 <manu> q+
15:24:50 <rhiaro> ... if th emaintenance wg wants to publish an implementation guide that would be in scope
15:25:02 <rhiaro> ... everything out of scope is everything out of scope for this group plus any new features or substantive additions to the spec
15:25:04 <brent> ack ivan
15:25:10 <rhiaro> ivan: for this one I have the pen
15:25:23 <rhiaro> ... I will need some input because I copypasted something from the old charter that may not be relevant any more
15:25:37 <ivan> https://w3c.github.io/did-wg-charter/#coordination
15:25:39 <rhiaro> ... in particular if you look at this section ^
15:25:44 <rhiaro> ... this is on coordination with other groups
15:25:46 <rhiaro> ... I copypasted
15:25:55 <rhiaro> ... the CCG is okay, the JSON-LD WG I shouldn't have left there
15:26:05 <rhiaro> ... the web authn wg I don't know if we want that
15:26:10 <rhiaro> ... or if we want with other groups
15:26:19 <rhiaro> ... and most importantly, for external organisations, we have to have some things there
15:26:30 <rhiaro> ... manu had a discussion on reaching out to the ietf group
15:26:31 <rhiaro> ... should be listed
15:26:41 <rhiaro> ... for section 4 I would really like to get PRs from somebody who is more in the communityi
15:26:57 <rhiaro> ... the other part, please get me PRs or issues
15:26:58 <brent> charter repository: https://github.com/w3c/did-wg-charter
15:27:05 <rhiaro> ... the timing is relatively long
15:27:12 <rhiaro> ... complex admin of new charters
15:27:21 <rhiaro> ... we have to submit for review in the strategy team
15:27:24 <rhiaro> ... this charter is short and simple
15:27:29 <rhiaro> ... so don't expect major things, but who knows
15:27:37 <rhiaro> ... in parallel to that I think it has to be submitted to the AC
15:27:41 <rhiaro> ... as a preview of a charter
15:27:45 <rhiaro> ... not as a something to vote
15:27:47 <rhiaro> ... Then it goes to vote
15:27:51 <rhiaro> ... I think the charter is usually two months
15:27:56 <rhiaro> ... I don't think it can be significantly compressed
15:27:59 <rhiaro> ... which is end of september
15:28:04 <rhiaro> ... that's our current date of the current charter running out
15:28:05 <brent> q?
15:28:19 <rhiaro> ... bottom line, I would like to be positioned to get this to the strategy team at the en dof this week or early next week
15:28:22 <rhiaro> ... they meet every tuesday
15:28:28 <brent> q+ to ask if the charter is something the wg votes on
15:28:29 <rhiaro> ... so by tuesday with luck they can start their procedure
15:28:31 <rhiaro> ... so I'm aiming for asap
15:28:40 <brent> ack manu
15:29:01 <rhiaro> manu: I can try to make a pass over coordination but might find it difficult this week
15:29:14 <rhiaro> ... THe other thing I wanted to make sure I didn't prevent us from working on is notes on did key and did web at a minimum
15:29:17 <ivan> q+
15:29:19 <rhiaro> ... right now it's out of scope to work on specific did methods
15:29:22 <rhiaro> ... or protocols specs
15:29:27 <rhiaro> ... I think we should put did key and did web in scope
15:29:30 <rhiaro> ... for development as notes
15:29:40 <rhiaro> ... that's the only thing that jumps out as we should really try and fix that
15:29:50 <brent> ack bigbluehat
15:29:53 <brent> ack brent
15:29:53 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to ask if the charter is something the wg votes on
15:30:02 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to ask about Notes for did:web and did:key
15:30:05 <drummond> +1 for the maintenance group should be able to work on Notes
15:30:16 <brent> ack ivan
15:30:24 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #did
15:30:42 <rhiaro> ivan: its good to have a resolution, but process wise the charter is the responsibility of the team. Id prefer to go ahead if this week I get a green light
15:31:22 <rhiaro> ... I think the simplest thing is look at out of scope to see if things are still out of scope - there is one which says did method specs or protocols - I would be happy to remove that line but you should look and put it in an issue
15:31:26 <rhiaro> ... that was there in the original WG charter
15:31:36 <rhiaro> ... avoiding work which is recommendation track along these lines
15:31:43 <rhiaro> ... on the other hand the scope says you can produce any wg note as necessary
15:31:52 <rhiaro> ... so if this is not explicitly out of scope than a note on any did method should be okay
15:32:17 <rhiaro> ... I realise that the scope, and I got a comment from Dan, that the scope should make a very clear that what is in scope is class 3 changes only
15:32:19 <TallTed> q+ to ask whether a non-normative NOTE on a DID method makes sense
15:32:25 <rhiaro> ... that would avoid a did method recommendation, but that is out of scope in any case
15:32:26 <rhiaro> ... is that okay?
15:32:30 <rhiaro> manu: I think so.. I'll raise a PR
15:32:37 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:32:37 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to ask about Notes for did:web and did:key
15:32:45 <rhiaro> JoeAndrieu: curious about this mechanism of using a note this way
15:32:58 <justin_r> +1 to JoeAndrieu
15:33:11 <rhiaro> ... I'm a fan of did:web and did:key and I'd love to see them move to standards. But a note isn't normative. Shouldn't we be getting them into standards track? Are we risking anythign by publishing a note for something that should be a rec ultimately?
15:33:20 <rhiaro> ivan: this WG decided to go for a maintenance WG
15:33:29 <rhiaro> ... this meant that we do a very short and quick thing that does not define new recommendations
15:33:43 <rhiaro> ... now the WG may decide to go beyond that but thsi charter becomes more complicated becuase we define rec track document
15:33:48 <rhiaro> ... which requires more information and background
15:33:58 <brent> ack TallTed
15:33:58 <Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to ask whether a non-normative NOTE on a DID method makes sense
15:33:59 <rhiaro> ... I'm not saying I don't want to do the work, but Iw ent along the lines of what the WG decided
15:34:09 <rhiaro> TallTed: on the same thread about a non normative note fo ra normative did method
15:34:13 <manu> q+
15:34:25 <rhiaro> ... I don't think that the w3c process wants things to go note and then to rec track?
15:34:29 <rhiaro> ivan: that's perfectly fine
15:34:47 <rhiaro> ... you define a note when the situation is not yet finished, when you don't have implementation experience, when technically you are not sure it's something to become a rec
15:34:55 <rhiaro> ... later if things are stable you can turn it into a rec, that's fine
15:34:57 <rhiaro> TallTed: then I misread something
15:35:08 <justin_r> +1 to TallTed
15:35:10 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:35:10 <rhiaro> ... it still doens't feel right to be doing normative work going into a non-normative document
15:35:10 <brent> ack manu
15:35:19 <rhiaro> manu: this is one mechanism that we have
15:35:22 <rhiaro> ... beyond incubation
15:35:29 <rhiaro> ... if you're purely incubating something experimental, that's what CGs do
15:35:35 <rhiaro> ... but did:key and did:web are beyond that, they're being deployed
15:35:41 <rhiaro> ... people want to see this stuff ideally go to rec asap
15:35:45 <ivan> q+
15:35:47 <rhiaro> ... but they're more than experiements, more than incubation
15:35:56 <JoeAndrieu> +1 for did:key and did:web being more than incubation stage
15:35:56 <rhiaro> ... but not to the place where we want to charter a wg to standardise it
15:36:12 <rhiaro> ... publishing a note is a perfectly reasonable way to say the wg is headed towards wanting to take this rec track
15:36:29 <rhiaro> ... without making it a huge lift to recharter the WG to work on those did methods just yet
15:36:31 <JoeAndrieu> q?
15:36:37 <rhiaro> ... we've used this mechanism before and it's worked well
15:36:41 <rhiaro> ... doesn't lead to any kind of confusion
15:36:46 <brent> ack markus_sabadello
15:36:55 <rhiaro> markus_sabadello: I'm in favour of working on did:key and did:web as notes
15:37:04 <rhiaro> ... wonder if this is something that we want also for additioanl did methods, and for how many
15:37:08 <rhiaro> ... we've seen the number is growing
15:37:20 <rhiaro> ... it's easy for did:key and did:web to argue for them
15:37:27 <rhiaro> ... but is this something we want for any did methods in future?
15:37:31 <manu> q+ to note that we don't want this for /any/ DID Method.
15:37:35 <rhiaro> ... to work on them as notes in the wg?
15:37:50 <rhiaro> ... could lead to a sense of having two classes of did methods, those done by the WG and those done outsides which may be percieved as less important or usable
15:37:51 <brent> q+ to say that if folks actually show up to write a note, then I'm not opposed to it
15:37:56 <brent> ack ivan
15:38:15 <rhiaro> ivan: if we did a WG rec for these two methods, what are the consequences for the whole landscape of did methods?
15:38:18 <rhiaro> ... I don't know
15:38:33 <rhiaro> ... We may end up getting ourselves into a whole series of work on requests coming in to put loads of methods as recs
15:38:37 <rhiaro> ... I don't know how many are out there
15:38:39 <rhiaro> ... double digits
15:38:44 <rhiaro> ... we have to be careful with what it means
15:38:49 <rhiaro> ... not sure that we would be prepared to do that long term
15:39:13 <justin_r> q+
15:39:15 <rhiaro> ... that being said, if we decided to go for a recommendation then that means we have to have a clear way of saying how we would test them
15:39:24 <rhiaro> ... whole CR period as with the core spec etc
15:39:30 <rhiaro> ... it's not just a different document type
15:39:32 <rhiaro> ... it's much more than that
15:39:35 <rhiaro> ... we have eseen what it means
15:39:45 <rhiaro> ... I would be careufl about getting into recommendation with these methods right away
15:39:50 <justin_r> s/eseen/seen/
15:39:55 <rhiaro> ... one thing is I set the dates to two years becuase that's the usual timing
15:40:11 <justin_r> s/careufl/careful/
15:40:19 <rhiaro> ... but we could without too muchp roblem decide in a year if work is continuing on those two methods that yeah now we are feeling more confident and we want to recharter the wg to get these published to rec
15:40:30 <rhiaro> ... I think that would be probably more cautious but I would be more cautious about this
15:40:32 <brent> ack manu
15:40:32 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that we don't want this for /any/ DID Method.
15:40:45 <rhiaro> manu: a simple answer for how we prevent everyone rushing to standardise did methods
15:40:51 <rhiaro> ... this is a decision the group has to make to work on it
15:40:56 <rhiaro> ... you need someone to do the work, some people to review
15:41:11 <rhiaro> ... the only reason I'm suggesting did:key and did:web is theyre broadly useful - not one company, one dlt, one community
15:41:16 <rhiaro> ... that's the first thing
15:41:29 <rhiaro> ... if I were to suggest lets work on did veres one, I'd expect pushback. Understandably.
15:41:33 <rhiaro> ... the way we deal with each one is case by case
15:41:40 <TallTed> Maybe these DID method specs should be CCG Work Items?
15:41:41 <markus_sabadello> Agree, did:key and did:web are broadly useful and "neutral"..
15:41:41 <brent> ack brent
15:41:41 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to say that if folks actually show up to write a note, then I'm not opposed to it
15:41:42 <rhiaro> ... right now we're considering did:web and did:key. If soething else comes up we'll discuss as a wg
15:41:51 <rhiaro> brent: agree
15:42:14 <rhiaro> ... as chair of the vc maintenacne group, if folks showed up saying they'd written this thing for the wg to review and wanted it published as a note and had done the work I'd be trhilled
15:42:18 <rhiaro> ... taking this case by case makes sense
15:42:26 <rhiaro> ... wouldn't want wording in the charter that limits what we can publish
15:42:38 <rhiaro> ... all we're proposing is getting rid of that single line in out of scope that says specific did method specs
15:42:39 <brent> ack justin_r
15:43:12 <rhiaro> justin_r: none of this matters because the core document explicitly says that reference to registered did methods and tying those to their defining specs is a non normative action
15:43:20 <rhiaro> ... the entire registry mechanism is non normative type of thing
15:43:34 <rhiaro> ... anyway so theonly way any of this will ever work at all is if everybody just agrees that's how it's going to work anyway
15:43:52 <rhiaro> ... as much as I think that having a maintenance wg work on intended normative but actually non normative docs is a bad look, but functionally it doesn't matter
15:43:59 <ivan> +1 to justin_r
15:44:10 <rhiaro> brent; anything more on this topic?
15:44:17 <ivan> s/;/:/
15:44:41 <rhiaro> Topic: DID Spec Registries
15:44:45 <manu> q+
15:44:54 <ivan> q+
15:44:55 <brent> ack manu
15:44:56 <rhiaro> brent: new w3c process talks about building and maintaining registries. Do we need something in the charter about that?
15:45:04 <rhiaro> manu: yes, doesn't hurt to mention what we're intending to do
15:45:06 <brent> ack ivan
15:45:10 <rhiaro> ivan: not against it
15:45:20 <rhiaro> ... only problem is how to put it into the document when the process is still not existing
15:45:27 <rhiaro> ... but it will exist in a few weeks or months
15:45:32 <rhiaro> ... we can try
15:45:41 <rhiaro> ... will be hadnwaving
15:45:51 <rhiaro> ... "if the new process allows..."
15:46:01 <rhiaro> ... don't know if that will fly with internal reviews
15:46:10 <rhiaro> ... Will I get a bunch of issues and PRs for everything i have to do?
15:46:15 <rhiaro> ... prefer that..
15:46:33 <rhiaro> brent: manu  has volunteered to do a PR for coordination
15:46:39 <rhiaro> ivan: a todo list in issues is good enough
15:46:52 <rhiaro> brent: i'll raise an issue for the registries thing
15:47:02 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc+-label%3Aneeds-contact-info+
15:47:49 <rhiaro> brent: issue 83
15:47:54 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/83 @issue did-spec-registries 83
15:48:06 <rhiaro> ... explanation on did methods in registries document, raised by ivan
15:48:09 <rhiaro> ivan: more than a year ago
15:48:32 <rhiaro> ... the last comment is from orie saying i have tried to addressed, I acknowledged it.. seems like this issue should have been closed a long time ago
15:48:44 <rhiaro> manu: the PR, there was a massive permathread in it and it got closed, never went in
15:49:12 <rhiaro> ivan: vaguely remember when I raised it registration of terms and methods and they looked different from one another but dont' know what happened since then
15:49:21 <rhiaro> brent: The PR that tried to address the issue was closed rather than merged
15:49:29 <rhiaro> manu: this was orie and markus goign back and forth over normative language in did core...
15:49:40 <rhiaro> ... my expectation is something got into did core and it was potentially resolved
15:49:46 <rhiaro> markus: i can't check right now but will look later
15:50:38 <brent> subtopic: @issue did-spec-registries#160
15:50:44 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/160
15:51:02 <rhiaro> manu: this has not been done
15:51:12 <rhiaro> ... it should be
15:51:24 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/143
15:51:51 <brent> subtopic: @issue did-spec-registries#143
15:51:55 <rhiaro> brent: can we add date added / deprecated to track addition of properties
15:51:55 <manu> q+
15:52:03 <rhiaro> ... raised by kyle, some conversation
15:52:04 <brent> ack manu
15:52:10 <manu> We have an example of this here:  https://w3c.github.io/did-spec-registries/#publickey
15:52:11 <rhiaro> manu: we have an example of this for publicKey
15:52:29 <rhiaro> ... it wold probably be useful ot have something a bit more blinky to really warn that the thing has been deprecated
15:52:34 <rhiaro> ... and for ethereumAddress as well
15:52:42 <rhiaro> ... we should probably have some kind of marker beside the property
15:52:44 <rhiaro> ... that is the concrete thing
15:53:00 <brent> subtopic: @issue did-spec-registries#149
15:53:10 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/149
15:53:10 <rhiaro> brent: management process after the WG ends..
15:53:26 <rhiaro> ... proposals, discussed, resolution
15:53:29 <rhiaro> ... anything more?
15:53:40 <rhiaro> manu: can close
15:53:51 <rhiaro> ivan: charter text is along the line of this resolution
15:53:56 <brent> subtopic: @issue did-spec-registries#244
15:54:00 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/244
15:54:07 <manu> q+
15:54:09 <rhiaro> brent: spec required for resource parameter
15:54:13 <brent> ack manu
15:54:20 <rhiaro> manu: we still don't have a spec, there's no normative definition, we need to leave this open
15:54:48 <brent> subtopic: @issue did-spec-registries#253
15:54:55 <manu> q+
15:54:56 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/253
15:55:00 <rhiaro> brent: appication/did+yaml needs a spec
15:55:01 <brent> ack manu
15:55:07 <rhiaro> manu: we still don't have one, we should
15:55:12 <rhiaro> ... we should start removing things that don't have spec URLs
15:55:39 <rhiaro> ... they were made at a time when people thought surely we'll have a spec by the time the wg ends. But we're at the end here.. we should set a deadline. If there's no spec by the time the middle of sept rolls aorund we should remove these from the registries until a spec appears
15:55:45 <rhiaro> ... we can go through the process to register it then
15:55:52 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to ask about contact details
15:55:58 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:55:58 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to ask about contact details
15:56:11 <rhiaro> JoeAndrieu: did we ever state that we need contact information for these entries?
15:56:29 <rhiaro> ... that should be a req if we're going to filter out methods thatdon't measure up because they dont' have a spec not being able to contact them is pretty important
15:56:40 <rhiaro> manu: it's not a part of the process, it's a good idea though
15:56:42 <rhiaro> JoeAndrieu: how do we do that?
15:57:02 <rhiaro> brent: raise an issue to say in order for someone to register they need contact info
15:57:04 <rhiaro> JoeAndrieu: we did that
15:57:13 <rhiaro> ... I think it didn't get the attention of the group
15:57:21 <rhiaro> ... i'll resurrect that
15:57:41 <rhiaro> manu: I'd suggest adding something to a PR that changes the first part of the registration process baout humanr eadable description - with contact info for author
15:57:49 <rhiaro> ... be very explicit and say with an email address
15:57:55 <rhiaro> brent: I'd like to see that PR as well
15:57:59 <rhiaro> JoeAndrieu: I'll move that forward
15:58:05 <drummond> +1
15:58:10 <rhiaro> brent: At time. Still quite a bit of work to do on registries
15:58:22 <rhiaro> ... now we have a proposed rec we're going to be focussing more and more on this
15:58:31 <rhiaro> ... familiarise yourselves with the issues as things that need resolving come up
15:58:37 <rhiaro> ... raise PRs
15:58:50 <rhiaro> ... thanks for coming
15:58:59 <drummond> Amy, you are awesome!
15:59:15 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:59:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/03-did-minutes.html ivan
16:01:10 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
16:01:10 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been ivan, justin_r, cel, brent, drummond, rhiaro, markus_sabadello, manu, agropper, joe, TallTed, agropper_, shigeya
16:01:13 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:01:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/03-did-minutes.html Zakim
16:01:15 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:01:16 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has left #did
16:01:20 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did
16:01:20 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
16:01:20 <RRSAgent> I see no action items