14:02:12 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
14:02:12 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/08/17-did-irc
14:02:14 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:02:15 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:03:14 <ivan> Meeting: DID WG Telco
14:03:14 <ivan> Chair: brent
14:03:14 <ivan> Date: 2021-08-17
14:03:14 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Aug/0011.html
14:03:14 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2021-08-17: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Aug/0011.html
14:31:44 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #did
14:51:27 <justin_r> justin_r has joined #did
15:00:00 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
15:00:10 <ivan> present+
15:00:15 <brent> present+
15:00:16 <JoeAndrieu> present+
15:00:23 <shigeya> present+
15:00:28 <ivan> present+ orie
15:00:30 <Orie> Orie has joined #did
15:00:36 <Orie> present+
15:00:37 <drummond> drummond has joined #did
15:00:42 <ivan> present+ justin_r
15:00:43 <drummond> present+
15:00:59 <ivan> present+ TallTed
15:01:12 <justin_r> present+
15:02:00 <ivan> present+ manu, markus
15:02:01 <drummond> I can't scribe today unfortunately -- must multitask
15:02:19 <dlongley> present+
15:02:30 <cel> present+
15:02:55 <manu> present+
15:03:10 <Geun-Hyung> Geun-Hyung has joined #did
15:03:18 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
15:03:21 <markus_sabadello> present+
15:03:26 <ivan> present+ identitywoman
15:03:28 <markus_sabadello> scribe+
15:03:34 <identitywoman> identitywoman has joined #did
15:03:36 <ivan> present+ Geun-Hyung
15:03:37 <identitywoman> present+
15:03:45 <markus_sabadello> brent: We begin with an agenda review.
15:04:23 <markus_sabadello> brent: We'll talk about press release, next charter, DID Rubric, Implementation Guide, then covering issues+PRs for DID Spec Registries.
15:04:32 <markus_sabadello> brent: Anything else folks want to talk about?
15:04:43 <ivan> present+ agropper
15:04:47 <markus_sabadello> manu: One announcement about historical PR, want to get some ideas on it.
15:04:50 <markus_sabadello> brent: We'll get to that.
15:05:01 <markus_sabadello> brent: Any introductions from the group?
15:05:11 <Geun-Hyung> present+
15:05:23 <agropper> agropper has joined #did
15:05:26 <ivan> present+ by_caballero
15:05:32 <agropper> present+
15:05:48 <manu> q+
15:05:55 <markus_sabadello> brent: We are working with W3C public relations to work on press release, which will be about DID specification announcement, plus next steps.
15:06:29 <markus_sabadello> brent: We will be reaching out directly to you and some companies regarding contributions, when we have a draft press release (probably end of this week)
15:06:30 <brent> ack manu
15:07:14 <markus_sabadello> manu: I'm working on coordinating some testimonials from groups outside of W3C. We should speak holisticly on DIDs + VCs, rather than separately. Speak about concrete deployments rather than just how great it is.
15:07:26 <ivan> +1 to manu about deployment
15:07:29 <markus_sabadello> brent: I second all of that.
15:07:43 <markus_sabadello> topic: Charter of the next DID WG.
15:07:54 <ivan> -> charter https://w3c.github.io/did-wg-charter/
15:07:54 <markus_sabadello> brent: This has been sent to the W3C strategy group.
15:08:27 <markus_sabadello> ivan: There have been a number of reviews that the charter has to go through. I think I got all of them signing off on the charter.
15:08:55 <markus_sabadello> ivan: I've also sent a note to the strategy team on issuing an advanced notice to the AC, 3 or 4 hours ago. I presume they will look at it and it will go to AC today or tomorrow.
15:09:23 <markus_sabadello> ivan: I don't expect the vote to officially start before mid-September, which means we will have to formally extend this WG after September.
15:09:58 <markus_sabadello> ivan: So far, everything is going as it should.
15:10:23 <markus_sabadello> ivan: There is one small addition for the charter that Brent and Joe and I are discussing, but otherwise the charter text seems stable.
15:10:28 <markus_sabadello> brent: Any questions about the draft charter?
15:10:29 <manu> q+
15:10:33 <drummond> Nope, great job on it Ivan.
15:10:57 <brent> ack manu
15:12:29 <markus_sabadello> manu: We are discussing relations with other groups.
15:13:08 <brent> Topic: historical PR
15:13:09 <markus_sabadello> brent: Anything else on this topic?
15:13:34 <markus_sabadello> brent: Manu has written a PR about the historical context of the DID spec
15:13:39 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/790
15:13:47 <ivan> scribejs, pr 790
15:14:06 <manu> q+
15:14:21 <markus_sabadello> brent: It's to acknowledge past work, people, and efforts.
15:14:49 <brent> ack manu
15:14:49 <markus_sabadello> brent: Please review if you want to tweak this and add suggestions
15:15:12 <markus_sabadello> manu: It's currently written as the editors writing this, I'd like to upgrade it to the WG writing it.
15:15:24 <bumblefudge> bumblefudge has joined #did
15:15:27 <JoeAndrieu> +1 for speaking "from the WG"
15:15:28 <bumblefudge> present+
15:15:35 <markus_sabadello> manu: I don't think there is anything controversial, we'd like to acknowledge the work before there was a DID WG.
15:15:44 <bumblefudge> +1
15:16:01 <identitywoman> I went back and looked up past IIW Sessions that forshadow the group - they are there in 2015 - https://iiw.idcommons.net/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=blockchain&go=Go
15:16:12 <markus_sabadello> manu: We'd like to give people an understanding that this work started long ago.
15:16:35 <ivan> q+
15:16:35 <drummond> +1 to that change.
15:16:41 <markus_sabadello> manu: Would anyone object to change this from "the editors acknowledge" to "the WG acknowledges", or similar
15:16:50 <dlongley> +1 to "The Working Group acknowledges"
15:16:51 <brent> ack ivan
15:17:02 <manu> agree, Ivan -- the only reason we put "Editors" is to avoid process objections...
15:17:06 <markus_sabadello> ivan: It's more appropriate if it says "the WG" rather than "the editors"
15:17:09 <manu> whatever those might be
15:17:10 <TallTed> +1 spread the love to as many of the shoulders on which we stand as we can recall
15:17:14 <cel> +1
15:17:21 <markus_sabadello> +1
15:17:26 <ivan> q+
15:17:31 <brent> ack ivan
15:17:36 <manu> q+ to ask for a proposal?
15:18:07 <brent> ack manu
15:18:07 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask for a proposal?
15:18:10 <markus_sabadello> ivan: This is only editorial, so I don't think anyone would object from a process point of view.
15:18:22 <markus_sabadello> manu: Should we document a WG resolution, to make absolutely sure?
15:19:11 <markus_sabadello> brent: Any changes to the proposal?
15:19:15 <brent> PROPOSAL: The WG will add editorial text to the acknowledgements section of the Proposed Recommendation that gives some historical context for the work and thanks those who were involved.
15:19:18 <manu> +1
15:19:18 <drummond> +1
15:19:19 <brent> +1
15:19:19 <shigeya> +1
15:19:19 <dlongley> +1
15:19:20 <agropper> +1
15:19:22 <JoeAndrieu> +1
15:19:26 <ivan> +1
15:19:28 <ivan> q+
15:19:28 <markus_sabadello> +1
15:19:34 <identitywoman> +1
15:19:36 <Orie> +1
15:19:37 <TallTed> +1
15:19:48 <brent> RESOLVED: The WG will add editorial text to the acknowledgements section of the Proposed Recommendation that gives some historical context for the work and thanks those who were involved.
15:19:53 <brent> ack ivan
15:20:08 <markus_sabadello> ivan: Do we say somewhere in the document that all appendices are non-normative?
15:20:26 <markus_sabadello> ivan: If not, then we should mark acknowledgements as being explicitly non-normative.
15:20:44 <markus_sabadello> manu: It doesn't say that, I can add it. We have it for all other sections.
15:21:05 <drummond> Yes, Appendix A says non-normative explicitly.
15:21:26 <markus_sabadello> manu: I'm going to raise an issue.
15:21:43 <markus_sabadello> brent: Anything else on this topic?
15:21:50 <brent> Topic: DID Rubric
15:22:03 <markus_sabadello> brent: Status update from Joe?
15:22:10 <JoeAndrieu> https://w3c.github.io/did-rubric/
15:22:14 <markus_sabadello> JoeAndrieu: We have a draft that is ready for publication.
15:22:17 <drummond> Whohoo!!
15:22:21 <JoeAndrieu> https://github.com/w3c/did-rubric/blob/main/FPWD/2021-08-26/index.html
15:22:30 <markus_sabadello> JoeAndrieu: This is the static version
15:22:46 <markus_sabadello> JoeAndrieu: Targeting Aug 26th, does that work?
15:23:16 <markus_sabadello> ivan: I have to issue a Transition Request today, which I can do. That should work.
15:23:48 <ivan> q+
15:23:49 <markus_sabadello> JoeAndrieu: I sent a note to the group that we will propose to transition this to a Registry.
15:24:25 <markus_sabadello> brent: I think it would be appropriate today that we want to publish this static copy as a note, combing the "objection week" with the "review week", to move the process forward, if folks are not opposed to that.
15:24:39 <markus_sabadello> brent: I'd love to put a proposal forward if process allows us to do that.
15:24:46 <manu> +1 to publish as a NOTE today
15:24:49 <brent> ack ivan
15:25:12 <markus_sabadello> ivan: This group is usually very formal about it. If we vote today, does the vote mean that the WG instructs me to send the request for transition to the management today?
15:25:26 <markus_sabadello> ivan: Or is it a vote that says the WG wants to publish.
15:25:28 <manu> You can view the FPWD Rubric here -- https://w3c.github.io/did-rubric/FPWD/2021-08-26/
15:25:52 <markus_sabadello> ivan: For Recommentations, usually the 1 week cooling period is better. Not sure if it's necessary for a Note.
15:26:01 <markus_sabadello> brent: If anyone thinks this is necessary, let us know.
15:26:20 <markus_sabadello> JoeAndrieu: If anyone has a concern, please speak up. This has been worked on for a while, hopefully concerns have been voiced.
15:26:34 <markus_sabadello> ivan: The resolution should make it clear.
15:26:45 <markus_sabadello> ivan: Has the final document cross-checked with pubrules?
15:26:45 <markus_sabadello> JoeAndrieu: No
15:26:53 <markus_sabadello> ivan: Then please do it as quickly as possible.
15:27:24 <markus_sabadello> ivan: I usually speed up thing.. I ask the webmaster to do a preliminary check so it doesn't get done at the last minute
15:27:30 <markus_sabadello> JoeAndrieu: I need some guidance on how to do that.
15:27:39 <markus_sabadello> manu: I can help, Joe just ping me.
15:27:48 <Orie> JoeAndrieu see https://github.com/w3c/did-imp-guide/issues/10
15:27:56 <markus_sabadello> ivan: The same will be true for the other Nore.
15:28:09 <markus_sabadello> s/Note/Note/
15:28:12 <markus_sabadello> s/Nore/Note/
15:28:34 <markus_sabadello> brent: Anything needs to be added to the proposal? Manu, Ivan?
15:28:42 <markus_sabadello> ivan: It's fine
15:28:44 <brent> PROPOSAL: the WG will ask W3C to transition the DID Rubric (https://w3c.github.io/did-rubric/FPWD/2021-08-26/) to a WG Note, and set up echidna for automatically updating the Note.
15:28:47 <manu> +1
15:28:48 <TallTed> +1
15:28:50 <ivan> +1
15:28:50 <Orie> +1
15:28:50 <JoeAndrieu> +1
15:28:51 <brent> +1
15:28:53 <markus_sabadello> +1
15:28:53 <agropper> +1
15:28:56 <cel> +1
15:29:10 <shigeya> +1
15:29:32 <markus_sabadello> JoeAndrieu: Thanks to Daniel Hardman, he put a lot of work into this.
15:29:35 <dlongley> +1
15:29:35 <drummond> +1
15:29:41 <brent> RESOLVED: the WG will ask W3C to transition the DID Rubric (https://w3c.github.io/did-rubric/FPWD/2021-08-26/) to a WG Note, and set up echidna for automatically updating the Note.
15:29:47 <drummond> Joe, you and Daniel both rock for completing this.
15:30:01 <markus_sabadello> brent: Anything else on this topic?
15:30:07 <brent> Topic: Implementation Guide
15:30:14 <Orie> q+
15:30:17 <Orie> See https://w3c.github.io/did-imp-guide/FPWD/2021-08-26/
15:30:23 <markus_sabadello> brent: Orie can you give us a status update?
15:30:43 <brent> ack Orie
15:30:44 <markus_sabadello> Orie: There has been an Implementation Guide for some time. Recently, there have been some contributions.
15:30:59 <markus_sabadello> Orie: We have run pubrules on a static version, there are still some pubrules errors.
15:31:15 <markus_sabadello> Orie: I thought Respec was supposed to deal with those, I'm now working on fixing them.
15:31:32 <markus_sabadello> Orie: It's ready for review, still being contributed to do on the editorial side, and pubrules side.
15:31:45 <markus_sabadello> brent: Sounds like similar cleanup as the DID Rubric work, getting ready for publication.
15:31:50 <markus_sabadello> brent: Any comments or questions?
15:32:06 <drummond> Sounds great
15:32:36 <markus_sabadello> brent: Any recommendations for changes to the proposal?
15:32:41 <brent> PROPOSAL: the WG will ask W3C to transition the DID Implementation Guide (https://w3c.github.io/did-imp-guide/FPWD/2021-08-26/) to a WG Note, and set up echidna for automatically updating the Note.
15:32:44 <markus_sabadello> +1
15:32:46 <Orie> +1
15:32:47 <shigeya> +1
15:32:47 <ivan> +1
15:32:49 <cel> +1
15:32:49 <TallTed> +1
15:32:51 <manu> +1
15:32:52 <JoeAndrieu> +1
15:32:54 <agropper> +1
15:32:57 <drummond> +1
15:32:57 <dlongley> +1
15:32:58 <brent> +1
15:33:12 <brent> RESOLVED: the WG will ask W3C to transition the DID Implementation Guide (https://w3c.github.io/did-imp-guide/FPWD/2021-08-26/) to a WG Note, and set up echidna for automatically updating the Note.
15:33:13 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to discuss pubrules result for the rubric
15:33:38 <Orie> thanks for all the folks to contributed to it
15:33:52 <markus_sabadello> brent: I believe that there is more work that could be done in the Implementation Guide.
15:34:01 <markus_sabadello> brent: This also helps to set up the next WG, so that they can maintain the Notes.
15:34:03 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:34:03 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to discuss pubrules result for the rubric
15:34:23 <markus_sabadello> JoeAndrieu: We ran pubrules, there were no errors, only warnings.
15:34:35 <markus_sabadello> brent: Anything else on these topics?
15:34:40 <brent> Topic: DID Spec Registries
15:34:53 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc+-label%3Aneeds-contact-info+
15:35:01 <manu> q+
15:35:04 <markus_sabadello> brent: We'll spend the remaining time going through issues
15:35:08 <brent> ack manu
15:35:27 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:35:36 <markus_sabadello> manu: I think I requested that we close all the issues that say "needs contact information", because we have a solution to that.
15:35:36 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:35:47 <manu> Can we close all "needs-contact-info" issues -- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Aug/0013.html
15:36:02 <Orie> q+
15:36:09 <markus_sabadello> JoeAndrieu: Yes let's close them all. They were created by Daniel and I to solicit input for the Rubric. I think it served its purpose.
15:36:11 <brent> ack Orie
15:36:31 <markus_sabadello> Orie: There's language about an email address that is a recommendation, not a requirement.
15:36:43 <markus_sabadello> Orie: I created a PR for label mechanisms.
15:37:12 <markus_sabadello> Orie: If we will have a label "needs contact info", then it would be helpful to keep the issues open.
15:37:34 <brent> subtopic: did-spec-registries @pr 29
15:37:38 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/329
15:38:25 <markus_sabadello> Orie: I was absent from the call when we discussed labels, but my understanding is we want to support labels in registry entries.
15:38:28 <ivan> s/29/329/
15:39:16 <markus_sabadello> brent: Any opinions on this?
15:39:26 <markus_sabadello> brent: No opposition to this plan.
15:39:37 <markus_sabadello> Orie: I will open a PR to apply these labels to all the DID methods.
15:39:38 <JoeAndrieu> great. Thanks, Orie
15:40:03 <markus_sabadello> brent: Should we go through issues, or PRs, what is more valuable now?
15:40:04 <markus_sabadello> Orie: Issues
15:40:32 <brent> subtopic @issue did-spec-registries#156
15:40:38 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/156
15:41:05 <markus_sabadello> brent: Anyone on the call can let us know what needs to be done to address this issue?
15:41:21 <manu> q+
15:41:21 <markus_sabadello> brent: I believe some work was done for this, but I may be mistaken.
15:41:28 <brent> ack manu
15:41:51 <markus_sabadello> manu: I believe we did add unacceptable things as examples in the registration criteria.
15:42:09 <markus_sabadello> manu: E.g. no racist language, etc.
15:42:24 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:42:31 <markus_sabadello> manu: I'll cite the exact text that addresses it.
15:42:45 <manu> We added it in step 3 here -- https://w3c.github.io/did-spec-registries/#the-registration-process
15:42:48 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:43:13 <markus_sabadello> JoeAndrieu: I think this language is great. This was originally an issue I raised because we didn't have any process, so we were open to abuses. I think this addresses my concerns.
15:43:22 <drummond> I agree with Joe.
15:43:32 <markus_sabadello> ivan: I think we discussed this in staff, and we were fine with it.
15:43:34 <JoeAndrieu> +1 to close it
15:44:04 <brent> subtopic @issue did-spec-registries#267
15:44:11 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/267
15:44:26 <markus_sabadello> brent: I raised this issue, regarding future changes
15:44:31 <ivan> s/subtopic/subtopic:/
15:45:00 <TallTed> q+
15:45:07 <markus_sabadello> brent: If people think this is a good idea, I can create a PR to address this. It means a maintenance group can make changes to the registration process.
15:45:08 <brent> ack TallTed
15:45:29 <markus_sabadello> TallTed: I think the general idea is good, but I'd prefer to have something about ratification by the larger group.
15:45:33 <ivan> q+
15:45:37 <brent> ack ivan
15:46:09 <markus_sabadello> ivan: The maintenance group is a WG. Any change we propose to do must go through the same process as any other WG.
15:46:32 <manu> This is the new Registries process -- https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/#registries
15:46:51 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to ask if the maintenance charter address this
15:47:02 <markus_sabadello> ivan: If any process changes, in the future it will be more stringent in the sense that the registry maintenance policy must have some vote through AC.
15:47:09 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:47:09 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to ask if the maintenance charter address this
15:47:43 <markus_sabadello> JoeAndrieu: Does the maintenance WG charter address this, is the WG empowered to change the rules?
15:48:19 <markus_sabadello> brent: I do not believe that the wording would enable the editors to unilaterally change the registration process.
15:48:22 <drummond> IMHO the maintenance WG should be the ones to make any changes to the registration process.
15:48:43 <markus_sabadello> JoeAndrieu: So I think this would be covered by the language in the charter. The WG can change the registration process.
15:48:45 <markus_sabadello> ivan: correct
15:49:31 <ivan> q
15:49:36 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to normative
15:49:45 <ivan> q+
15:49:47 <markus_sabadello> brent: Part of my concern was that.. We've been treating the registration process as fundamentally normative. In order to normatively add something to the specification, we would have to explicitly add language to the specification. The WG voted against that.
15:49:50 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:49:50 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to normative
15:50:10 <brent> ack ivan
15:50:11 <markus_sabadello> JoeAndrieu: Since this is a Note, I'm not sure if the distinction normative/non-normative applies here;
15:50:39 <markus_sabadello> ivan: Yes, but exactly this point that brent was taking is the reason why the new process establishes a new type of document (Registry Document). It's somewhere in between.
15:51:09 <markus_sabadello> ivan: I think it is exactly what brent is looking for. The registry process is as stable as if it was a Recommendation, but the registry contents of course change.
15:51:34 <markus_sabadello> brent: If we can make necessary changes, then I'm good and I will close this. Thanks for feedback.
15:52:01 <brent> subtopic @issue did-spec-registries#272
15:52:25 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/272
15:52:35 <markus_sabadello> brent: I think this is just to track work, Orie what can you tell us?
15:53:14 <markus_sabadello> Orie: We had some resolutions a while ago on how we want to label older DID methods. My understanding of this issue is that we had a resolution to create a new table after the spec is published.
15:53:43 <markus_sabadello> Orie: Subsequently I saw comments that tables are hard to use, and labels are preferable. Therefore the resolution is no longer to be implemented in its current wording.
15:53:57 <markus_sabadello> brent: Should we have another resolution that labels are preferred?
15:54:05 <markus_sabadello> ivan: Shouldn't matter so much
15:54:10 <drummond> Editor's choice
15:54:42 <cel> thanks ivan
15:54:42 <brent> subtopic @issue did-spec-registries#271
15:54:50 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/271
15:55:04 <markus_sabadello> Orie: Similar scenario, this was about status and dates
15:55:15 <markus_sabadello> Orie: We can do status with labels, not sure what to do about dates
15:55:28 <manu> q+ to wonder if dates are useful.
15:55:34 <markus_sabadello> Orie: Either we need new proposals for handling dates, or decide that we will not implement the resolution
15:55:34 <brent> ack manu
15:55:34 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to wonder if dates are useful.
15:55:55 <markus_sabadello> manu: We have a resolution for first registered date, and last reviewed date
15:56:08 <markus_sabadello> brent: Seemed like a good idea at that time
15:56:16 <markus_sabadello> manu: Not sure if this is very useful
15:56:19 <drummond> q+
15:56:26 <brent> ack drummond
15:56:44 <TallTed> q+
15:56:47 <markus_sabadello> drummond: I still think "first registered" is a good idea, but "last reviewed" doesn't seem to make sense
15:56:51 <brent> ack TallTed
15:56:59 <markus_sabadello> This can be reconstructed from Git history?
15:57:02 <Orie> q+ to propose using git for managing dates
15:57:14 <markus_sabadello> TallTed: This is also overtaken by events.
15:57:33 <brent> ack Orie
15:57:33 <Zakim> Orie, you wanted to propose using git for managing dates
15:57:44 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to suggest a note about link permanence
15:57:44 <markus_sabadello> TallTed: We registered DID methods before we had even finalized the requirements for DID methods.
15:57:58 <markus_sabadello> Orie: We should just use Git, and resolve to not implement this resolution
15:58:02 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:58:02 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to suggest a note about link permanence
15:58:35 <markus_sabadello> JoeAndrieu: The link that people click on may not be the one that was reviewed (unless we use hashlinks)
15:59:03 <markus_sabadello> brent: There was a lot of conversation on liveness, and how up-to-date DID methods are.
16:00:10 <brent> PROPOSAL: We are not going to add dates in a table to the DID Registry
16:00:15 <ivan> +1
16:00:18 <manu> +1
16:00:20 <brent> +1
16:00:21 <drummond> +1
16:00:21 <Orie> +1
16:00:22 <cel> +1
16:00:22 <dlongley> +1
16:00:24 <shigeya> +1
16:00:25 <markus_sabadello> +1
16:00:39 <brent> RESOLVED: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/271
16:00:42 <TallTed> +1
16:00:51 <brent> RESOLVED: We are not going to add dates in a table to the DID Registry
16:01:24 <drummond> Thanks Brent. Big high five to Joe and Daniel and also Orie.
16:01:25 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:01:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/17-did-minutes.html ivan
16:01:26 <markus_sabadello> brent: Thanks everyone, we got through a lot of items. Cu next time.
16:01:52 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has left #did
16:02:11 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
16:02:11 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been ivan, brent, JoeAndrieu, shigeya, orie, justin_r, drummond, TallTed, manu, markus, dlongley, cel, markus_sabadello, identitywoman,
16:02:14 <Zakim> ... Geun-Hyung, agropper, by_caballero, bumblefudge
16:02:14 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:02:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/17-did-minutes.html Zakim
16:02:16 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:02:19 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
16:02:19 <RRSAgent> I see no action items