14:36:55 RRSAgent has joined #did 14:36:55 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/08/10-did-irc 14:36:58 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:36:59 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan 14:37:25 Meeting: DID WG Telco 14:37:25 Chair: burn 14:37:25 Date: 2021-08-10 14:37:25 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Aug/0008.html 14:37:25 ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2021-08-10: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Aug/0008.html 14:54:46 burn has joined #did 14:56:21 present+ 14:59:50 present+ 15:00:16 present+ shigeya 15:00:45 present+ drummond 15:00:59 markus_sabadello has joined #did 15:01:20 present+ markus_sabadello 15:01:24 drummond has joined #did 15:01:30 present+ 15:01:35 brent has joined #did 15:01:49 present+ manu 15:01:51 present+ justin_r 15:01:59 present+ brent 15:02:31 present+ 15:02:43 scribe+ 15:02:44 justin_r has joined #did 15:02:57 present+ 15:03:02 I can't today either. 15:03:02 present+ 15:03:11 scribe+ 15:03:35 JoeAndrieu has joined #did 15:03:37 Topic: Agenda Review, Introductions 15:03:44 present+ 15:04:06 present+ agropper 15:04:08 burn: we'll talk press release, next charter, then update on Rubric, then bit of time on implementation guide, then remaining time on registries 15:04:14 ... any additions or changes? 15:04:29 Topic: Press Release 15:05:07 manu: brent and I met with Coralie yesterday, she is in charge of communications for W3C 15:05:17 present+ 15:05:20 ... came up with a general strategy and what the press release should say. 15:05:47 ... but broader: decentralized identifiers, but also how the rest of what we do folds into the rest of W3C stuff, particularly web of data 15:06:14 ... we talked about getting testimonials: people inside and outside of W3C who are deploying DIDs 15:06:38 ... next step is Coralie will chat with Ivan and the internal team about what they want the messaging to be 15:06:56 ... hope to have a draft in 1-2 weeks, which we can show to people we want testimonials from 15:07:19 ... particularly from government work that is happening, compnaies that are involved here, as well as anyone else 15:07:22 present+ dmitri 15:07:34 ... Hoping to time press release with DID spec going to rec 15:07:57 ... this means that if we're slow on the press release, we may want to delay announcement of the rec 15:08:06 present+ identitywoman 15:08:07 +1 to making the highest impact release we can. 15:08:11 ... targeting early-mid september, but may need to delay 15:08:42 present+ cle 15:08:52 s/cle/cel/ 15:09:02 ... did I miss anything? 15:09:14 burn: think that's right, any questions? 15:09:49 manu: Kaliya, would it be possible for linux foundation/good health pass to make a statement? 15:10:00 q+ 15:10:03 kaliya: I think I can take this to them 15:10:15 q+ 15:10:16 manu: we'll have a draft in a couple of weeks 15:10:23 ack drummond 15:10:24 kaliya: I'll pass it to Brian 15:10:30 Geun-Hyung has joined #did 15:10:40 q+ to wonder if we should collect these things in a single document? 15:10:46 q+ 15:10:53 ack ivan 15:10:55 drummond: Trust Over IP Foundation and DIF should both provide quotes 15:11:03 ivan: who collects the testimonials? 15:11:09 ack manu 15:11:09 manu, you wanted to wonder if we should collect these things in a single document? 15:11:19 present+ 15:11:56 manu: excellent question, I suggest we put a google doc together where people can add their testimonials, along with a template so we get points of contact and see who added things through change tracking 15:12:05 +1 to a Google doc 15:12:15 ivan: may want to ask Coralie first 15:12:27 manu: +1 15:12:40 ... I will take an action to contact Coralie about this 15:12:51 ack markus_sabadello 15:13:20 markus_sabadello: I have been in touch with DIF, they are already preparing a statement. Also the EU Comission. I will add this to the google doc 15:13:20 Excellent, thanks Markus. An EU Commission quote would be fantastic. 15:13:26 burn: anything else? 15:13:29 Topic: Next Charter 15:13:48 -> new charter draft https://w3c.github.io/did-wg-charter/ 15:13:54 brent: We have a draft of a new charter ^^^ 15:14:26 brent: We have done our best to reflect the consensus of this group as it was established over a series of conversations, the charter specifies that at most we can do substantive changes in response to bugs in the specification. 15:14:31 identitywoman has joined #did 15:14:38 present+ 15:14:49 brent: It also states that if W3C process supports registries, we can transfer from NOTE to REGISTRY and mentions rubric and plain cbor rep as notes. 15:14:54 q+ 15:15:02 brent: It also states that the WG can deploy new notes, proposals of new features, etc. 15:15:24 brent: out of scope is class 4 features (or removing existing features)... keeps out of scope authentication/authz protocols, signing/crypto, etc. 15:15:24 q+ to clarify that group *can* update notes but is not required to 15:15:44 q+ 15:16:01 brent: In scope is DID Methods like did:key, did:peer, did:web, shoudl the maintenance group wish to publish notes to that effect... two year charter, starting in October... any comments/questions? 15:16:02 ack ivan 15:16:16 sorry got in here late can you post the link to it again please. :) 15:16:20 ivan: When I wrote this down, didn't realize implementation guide might be published as a note, if it's done, then I'll add it to the list. 15:16:29 https://w3c.github.io/did-wg-charter/ 15:17:07 ivan: We'll review for i18n and other things, I dont' expect a lot of feedback there. I don't know when they'll decide when to send out an advanced notice to the AC... out of my hands. I have ping'd Wendy that is head of strategy to get that done, but that's all I can do at this moment. 15:17:08 ack burn 15:17:08 burn, you wanted to clarify that group *can* update notes but is not required to 15:17:51 q+ 15:17:51 burn: Under scope, following notes WILL be maintianed, we should make it clear that the group MAY update... we might not have a rubric before that group starts. 15:18:03 burn: There isn't a requirement that we will make updates, there is an opportunity, but not a requirement. 15:18:05 ack JoeAndrieu 15:18:23 JoeAndrieu: I was surprised that the spcification registry isn't yet a registry 15:18:39 q? 15:18:41 ack ivan 15:18:45 ... my request is that the rubric also possibly transition to a registry 15:18:47 manu_irc: I'd be +1 to mentioning it. 15:19:14 ivan: first, to answer Joe. We can add that. It is essentially the same text as the previous entry 15:19:54 ... the new process gives a formal status to a W#C registry, which means that the policy part of the registry gets a higher status, the membership votes on it like it votes on a recommentation 15:20:01 q+ 15:20:30 ... that's what the new process envisages. 99% probability it will be part of the process, but the only way we can put it into the charter we need to have the handwaving 15:20:48 ... which is why they current registry isn't yet a Registry 15:20:56 TallTed has joined #did 15:21:21 ... to me maintain means we only touch the document if the community wants to touch it, doesn't mean we have to. Same goes for the spec. 15:21:27 q+ 15:21:33 ack JoeAndrieu 15:21:37 ... if no one wants to change it because it is perfect, then we won't 15:22:09 JoeAndrieu: right now we are treating the registry like a Registry, so calling it a Note feels off 15:22:13 ack bur 15:22:20 ivan: but it is a Note, 15:22:39 +1 to having it become an official W3C Registry if we can. 15:22:41 burn: my comment is that the charter should enable us to do things, but not require that we do things 15:23:17 ... this is the first group where folks have said "the charter says we will do something, why aren't we doing it?" 15:23:26 q+ 15:23:52 ack ivan 15:23:53 ... charters are for defining the normative text we'll publish. the non-normative stuff shouldn't matter, but I think it would be nice to be more careful with the wording 15:24:00 .. also fine if it stays the way it is. 15:24:25 ivan: I was careful to only list explicitly those that are only Notes already 15:24:37 ... plus hand-wavy text around possible new notes 15:25:04 ... I don't think there's any way to interpret it that way. But I am happy if you propose something specific 15:25:04 q? 15:25:18 burn., I will do that. Anything else? 15:25:22 Topic: DID Rubric 15:25:39 s/.,/:/ 15:26:09 JoeAndrieu: we've made some progress. Added a new category. added canonical numbering - easing into the registry idea 15:26:36 ... Daniel has updated the criteria that added did:foo as examples. Hopefully next week we'll have something to review. 15:26:54 ... we also have a google doc that comtains the second pass draft for possible registry rules. 15:27:06 burn: thank you. Any questions for Joe? 15:27:06 Topic: Implementation Guide 15:27:52 present+ TallTed 15:28:11 brent: The purpose of bringing this to the group today is to ask the question -- would we want to publish the implementation guide as a note, text as it is now, with possibility of updating note in the future... there is a fair amount of editorial work that would be needed to pass pubrules to get it to the point where we can publish as a NOTE w/o modifying content. 15:28:11 +1 to including the Implementation Guide in the revised charter. 15:28:22 brent: Do folks feel like that's worth it, who is going to help? 15:28:23 q+ 15:28:24 q+ 15:28:27 ack ivan 15:29:10 ivan: Drummond put a comment that was interesting... what we could do to make it explicit, we could put that in the re-charter, no urgency in this respect. 15:29:12 ack manu 15:29:17 ivan: Drummond put a comment in IRC which is intersting. If the group doesn't think the implementation guide should be published as a note, the other option is to make it explicit in the maintenance charter that we want to publish it there, so there may not be urgency 15:29:32 q+ 15:30:09 manu: +1 to Drummond and Ivan. Orie and Markus have done some work. If they commit to doing the editorial work to get it out, then I'm in faovr of publishing it, but otherwise not 15:30:30 ... there are sections that need a bfair bit of elaboration beofre it is ready to publish. 15:30:36 ack markus_sabadello 15:30:42 ... It hink we can pick it up in the recharter. 15:30:52 markus_sabadello: I've been contributing to implementation guide... on topic of representations and preserving @context. 15:31:03 +1 to including it in the recharter. 15:31:06 markus_sabadello: There is an open PR by Orie to add another opinion on how to do that, we should merge that. 15:31:07 q+ to suggest publishing now, even if imperfect 15:31:27 ack burn 15:31:27 burn, you wanted to suggest publishing now, even if imperfect 15:31:27 +1 to publish as Note before this WG ends *and* include it in new Charter. Just in case new Charter gets blocked, keeps Guide visible, and makes plain the intention to continue to improve it. 15:31:28 markus_sabadello: Other than that, I agree with Manu, a lot of content doesn't have context on where it comes from, don't have a strong opinion on if it should be published or not. 15:31:36 markus_sabadello: I have been contributing a bit on the implementation guide. And there is a PR from Orie adding a different viewpoint. Other than that, I agree that a lot of the content doesn't ahve good context, so I'm not sure if it should be published or not 15:31:48 burn: I think it's better to publish now 15:32:21 ... we won't have the same people in the maintenance group. I think it is important to put a stake in the ground and publish what we have now. 15:32:35 ... otherwise we risk not having a Note published at all 15:32:41 +1 to publishing a first version now. 15:33:33 q? 15:33:34 ... I think it would be better to publish the implementation guide before it is perfect. Same for the Rubric, we should have published it months ago as a first step 15:33:36 +1 excepting the did:foo fake references 15:33:54 the link to the rubric in the charter doesn't go to a real page 15:33:55 burn: any last comments on implementation guide? 15:34:41 agropper has joined #did 15:34:51 present+ 15:34:56 ... it looks like there is interest, but we need tsomeone who agrees to do the work. I think Manu has done more than enough for this group. Who would be a good person to tie up what we have? 15:35:29 ... I'm guessing Manu would be fully willing to advise someone 15:35:51 ... This is where "we" needs to become "you" or "I" 15:36:15 ... until we have that, sounds like the group is okay not going to publication 15:36:21 cel: I'm willing to help 15:36:34 burn: will you chat with Charles to get him started? 15:36:43 manu: happy to. Charles, send me an email 15:37:01 q+ 15:37:05 ack ivan 15:37:08 burn: Charles, if you could get the major part done in the next two weeks, that will give the group time to look at it. 15:37:40 ivan: forewarning. From the moment of voting on a working group call, it will take ten days to publish. We need to be careful with timing 15:37:46 it is not that far away. 15:37:54 it is not that far away.s/is/... it/ 15:38:01 September 16 is World Identity Day :) 15:38:25 burn: hopefully we will have time if the bulk is done by the end og August. 15:38:33 Topic: DID Spec Registries 15:38:33 ... aything else? 15:38:39 s/aything/anything/ 15:38:49 Really? World Identity Day? Wow, cool. 15:39:03 burn: is there anyone who has topics for this or would like to walk us through? 15:39:11 https://www.id-day.org/ 15:39:32 ((its also weirdly enough - my birthday)) 15:39:34 manu: let me try and suggest something. We have a number of issues that are "needs contact info" 15:39:37 q? 15:39:49 ... Joe, I'm not sure how you feel about that. Can we close these? 15:40:27 JoeAndrieu: for the outstanding issues, I'm happy to close them. I would still like to get the requirement that new additions have contact information 15:40:28 https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/174 15:40:41 ... that should be part of registry process? 15:41:04 manu: let's get that in there. We need a PR. Joe can you tqake that? 15:41:15 JoeAndrieu: yes, I can do that. 15:41:54 ... One question, I had initially stuck it in mentally, but that would mean for all properties, not just DID Methods. Do we want that? 15:42:04 q+ 15:42:15 manu: let's keep focused on just DId Methods, then we can expand it later if needed. 15:42:30 ack ivan 15:42:40 ... this would say "We need contact information for DID MEthod authors, at least an email." 15:43:02 q+ 15:43:05 ivan: there are quite a few of these without contact info. Does that mean we will remove those methods that haven't responded? 15:43:09 ack manu 15:43:47 manu: my suggestion, we have contact info, we have github handles, but we should say we need email addresses moving forward. 15:44:11 ivan: I don't have an opinion, but it should be clear. 15:44:40 JoeAndrieu: in my experience, a github handle is a porr way to communicate. There isn't even a claim of authorship 15:45:06 manu: we had also discussed marking them as "Unresponsive DID Method Author" 15:45:30 JoeAndrieu: some of these methods aren't compliant. Is there some process to remove those methods that aren't compliant. 15:45:43 q+ to note remove DID Methods, but rather mark them as "provisional", "non-compliant", etc. labels... 15:45:49 q+ 15:45:50 ack manu 15:45:50 manu, you wanted to note remove DID Methods, but rather mark them as "provisional", "non-compliant", etc. labels... 15:46:04 ... Daniel and I reached out to let them know about the Rubric. We didn't reach out about non-compliance. 15:46:31 manu: we are seeing that there is a need to deprecate things, like publicKey, 15:46:32 q+ 15:47:02 ... maybe we need labels for did methods as well. This is a provisional did method that isn't compliant with v1.0, and the author is unresponsive. 15:47:18 ack drummond 15:47:18 ... we can add labels that give people an idea as to the current state of things. 15:47:29 q+ 15:48:06 drummond: we had talked about actually separating the DID Methods, particularly due to the large number of them. A single step for DID Methods to self-attest compliance to the official spec. 15:48:36 manu_irc: +1 to separate tables for DID Methods that are "in a bad state" 15:49:03 ack ivan 15:49:06 ... that would be a filtering process that results in the tags Manu mentioned. I suggest separate tables. If we have methods that never respond and don't react. They would be in a separate table to indicate they never did what they needed to show they were in compliance. 15:49:09 -1 to a second table but a status or tag is less offensive 15:49:31 ivan: just noting there is already a mechanism in the table. did:git is withdrawn, it is crossed out 15:49:40 ... we should use that mechanism 15:49:54 ack markus_sabadello 15:49:56 ... what drummond said is doable as well, but that is a lot of work to separate them 15:50:34 markus_sabadello: I like the idea of labels. We also discussed a status field. We could also indicate whether a test suite has been submitted. 15:50:53 q+ to say sometimes deletion is appropriate, we should allow editors to decide 15:50:54 +1 to indicating if a test suite has been submitted. 15:50:57 maybe also a flag for whether it is mentioned in the DID Rubric? 15:51:08 ack JoeAndrieu 15:51:08 JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say sometimes deletion is appropriate, we should allow editors to decide 15:51:09 ... wanted to mention issue 83 is related to this. Registration process of methods vs process for other entries could be addressed by this discussion 15:51:55 manu_irc: We could always delete (offensive language) because it violates the registration rules. 15:52:06 JoeAndrieu: I agree with the general sense. deleting could leave holes, so keeping things around and adding labels makes sense. But we also need the power to delete things that are innappropriate. So the editors should have that power. 15:52:26 +1 to giving the DID Spec Registries editors the choice for how to maintain the registry (in concert with the guidelines) 15:53:04 manu: nest steps. Sounds like for 174 we're just going to have a label that says: "no contact information" or something like that. We need to say that an email address is necessary. We add that label to methods that don't have that. 15:53:27 +1 to a list of labels 15:53:33 ... more generally we need to come up with a list of labels that we believe we will be applying: deprecated, v1.0 compliant, etc. 15:53:34 +1 to giving editors choice here, with the reminder that "we prioritize end users over implementers, and implementers over spec writers" 15:53:41 q? 15:54:03 manu: going back to the issues. 15:54:19 ... I am scanning the rest of these to see what we need to discuss. 15:54:37 ... I recommend that the editors mark things as pending close that should be closed. 15:54:45 https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/265 15:54:49 subtopic: @issue 265 15:55:47 manu: let's pick up 265. This is Orie discussing old registration entries. Orie suggests separate tables, Justin -1 and says use labels. Concrete suggestion: we add labels as a first pass to address issue 265 15:55:50 q+ 15:56:02 ack drummond 15:56:06 adding labels that say they are wrong in some way but not remove them. 15:56:28 drummond: as a first pass indicates that we add labels, then decide later to move them into different tables? 15:56:32 manu: yes 15:56:37 drummond: I am in favor of that 15:57:00 manu: any objections? we label everything them decide later if we want to do more? 15:57:06 burn: sounds like agrement 15:57:31 manu: do we have a volunteer to attempt a first round of labelling? 15:57:38 +1 label, then decide about segregation (too bad we still have no table sort in respec) 15:57:45 drummond: I don't want to be the only volunteer, but I am one volunteer 15:58:16 manu: my expectation is that Joe will be doing a chunk of that work as well for the DID Methods 15:58:20 JoeAndrieu: okay 15:58:59 burn: we are at the end of the meeting 15:59:07 ... any last comments? 15:59:16 cheers, folks! 15:59:17 ... thank you everyone, thanks to scribes, bye all 15:59:23 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:59:23 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/10-did-minutes.html ivan 16:00:14 zakim, end meeting 16:00:14 As of this point the attendees have been burn, ivan, shigeya, drummond, markus_sabadello, manu, justin_r, brent, JoeAndrieu, agropper, cel, dmitri, identitywoman, cle, Geun-Hyung, 16:00:17 ... TallTed 16:00:17 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:00:17 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/10-did-minutes.html Zakim 16:00:19 I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 16:00:23 Zakim has left #did 16:00:27 rrsagent, bye 16:00:27 I see no action items