22:01:00 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
22:01:00 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/08/31-did-irc
22:01:35 <brent> rrsagent, make logs public
22:01:42 <brent> rrsagent, draft minutes
22:01:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/31-did-minutes.html brent
22:01:54 <drummond> drummond has joined #did
22:01:57 <brent> Meeting: Decentralized Identifier Working Group
22:02:01 <drummond> present+
22:02:04 <brent> Chair: Brent Zundel
22:02:36 <brent> brent has changed the topic to: DID WG Agenda 2021-08-24: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Aug/0021.html
22:02:52 <cel> present+
22:02:56 <brent> brent has changed the topic to: DID WG Agenda 2021-08-31: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Aug/0021.html
22:02:59 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
22:03:10 <brent> present+
22:03:19 <shigeya> present+
22:03:23 <brent> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Aug/0021.html
22:03:31 <TallTed> present+
22:03:46 <drummond> scribe+
22:04:56 <brent> Topic: Agenda Review, Introductions
22:05:43 <drummond> brent: agenda is press release, DID Core, notices for TPAC, plan for the next meeting, next charter, DID rubric, and DID Spec Registries
22:06:03 <brent> Topic: Press Release
22:06:36 <drummond> brent: Work is underway. Coralee is working on draft text but not quite ready yet. Should be available for our next meeting.
22:06:44 <brent> Topic: Upcoming SRI Report on DID Core
22:07:13 <drummond> ...our next meeting will include the report from SRI. They were waiting until they had approval to release openly.
22:07:27 <drummond> ...there was an email with the documents.
22:07:37 <drummond> ...ACTION: Brent will send the report again.
22:08:01 <drummond> ...they will not have time to go over all the material before the call, so please read beforehand, so the bulk of the call can be Q&A.
22:08:05 <brent> Topic: Short videos for TPAC
22:08:19 <brent> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2021/Demos_and_Group_updates#Best_Practices_for_Recording_Videos
22:08:40 <drummond> ...W3C has asked us if we want to prepare a short video for TPAC
22:09:00 <drummond> ...it should demonstrating use of the spec, examples, etc.
22:09:09 <drummond> ...if anyone is interested, reach out to the chairs for more info.
22:09:14 <brent> Topic: Notice about vote for Recommendation on 7th
22:09:50 <drummond> ...we are operating under process 2020 that has a change in procedure. Previously WGs voted on PR and that was it.
22:10:17 <kdenhartog> kdenhartog has joined #did
22:10:24 <drummond> ...the process has changed so that now, once the PR goes through the call for review, the WG still votes on moving to a final recommendation.
22:10:40 <drummond> ...so this is just a heads up that this will be done at the next meeting.
22:10:57 <drummond> ...the soonest the public announcement is planned is Sept 23.
22:13:17 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to talk about PROVISIONAL
22:13:39 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
22:13:39 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to talk about PROVISIONAL
22:14:14 <agropper> agropper has joined #did
22:14:19 <kdenhartog> present+
22:14:22 <drummond> q+
22:14:34 <brent> ack drummond
22:16:17 <brent> Topic: Next DID WG Charter
22:16:30 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-wg-charter/issues
22:16:46 <drummond> brent: the reason this is a longer topic is due to issues that have been raised that we should discuss
22:17:06 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-wg-charter/issues/11
22:17:17 <drummond> ...the goal is to go through them briefly, then I encourage WG members to respond in the issues
22:17:43 <drummond> ...the first issue is "one foundational key representation please" from Microsoft.
22:18:04 <drummond> ...this has received extensive discussion in the WG already
22:18:43 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-wg-charter/issues/12
22:18:46 <drummond> drummond: folks are still encouraged to reply in the issue, especially with citations to our earlier discussions of those topics.
22:19:19 <drummond> brent: Microsoft is recommending non-normative guidance on cross-compatibility between JSON and JSON-LD
22:19:43 <drummond> ...this sort of non-normative guidance would, in Brent's opinion, be in scope under the new charter
22:19:55 <drummond> ...but would also retrod well-trodden ground
22:20:04 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-wg-charter/issues/13
22:20:40 <drummond> ...Microsoft would also like the WG to take the challenge to define a universal, mandatory-to-implement DID method
22:20:58 <drummond> ...this would take the WG out of maintenance mode
22:22:13 <kdenhartog> q+
22:22:17 <drummond> JoeAndrieu: There was a proposal to include did:web and did:key in the charter, but that was not done in order to keep it a maintenance WG
22:22:18 <brent> ack kdenhartog
22:22:24 <drummond> ...so this could be a chance to do that
22:22:40 <brent> q+
22:23:01 <TallTed> q+
22:23:15 <brent> ack brent
22:23:26 <drummond> kyle: did:key could work, but worried that did:web would derail the conversation
22:23:34 <drummond> ...and not sure what would be the third
22:24:07 <drummond> brent: The question of what DID methods could reach concensus would be challenging
22:24:16 <brent> ack TallTed
22:24:22 <drummond> ...did:peer might also be a candidate that could reach consensus
22:24:55 <drummond> TallTed: Going through the exercise of determining which DID methods could become normative could be a work item for the W3C Credentials Community Group
22:25:13 <drummond> ...but the DID Rubric might be a better tool for evaluating this
22:25:15 <drummond> q+
22:26:10 <brent> ack drummond
22:28:10 <kdenhartog> scribe+
22:28:18 <drummond> drummond: likes the idea of looking at the DID Rubric and taking an evolutionary path
22:28:22 <brent> Topic: DID Rubric
22:28:46 <JoeAndrieu> https://github.com/w3c/did-rubric/pull/49
22:29:18 <drummond> JoeAndrieu: This is the PR that has the proposed registry rules for the DID Rubric registry
22:29:32 <drummond> brent: is there a link to this presentation?
22:29:45 <drummond> JoeAndrieu: I will share a link with the mailing list
22:30:05 <drummond> ...and I will share my screen to convey the key points
22:31:06 <drummond> ...the slide deck first covered what has been done
22:31:27 <drummond> ...then an evaluation of the rubric was done on the Veres One method
22:31:39 <drummond> ...this report was then shared with the community
22:32:02 <drummond> ...next they are evaluating did:web and did:ion. Both of these will be published when they are ready.
22:32:24 <drummond> ...SBA research also did some evaluations
22:32:39 <drummond> ...the main points we learned is that the Rubric is still in its infancy
22:33:09 <drummond> ...some questions were too academic
22:33:37 <drummond> ...also, structure-variable questions are needed
22:34:04 <drummond> ...also, enforcement was needed
22:34:23 <drummond> ...design was also not included
22:34:40 <drummond> ...implementations may also need to be evaluated separately
22:34:58 <drummond> ...and adversaries need to be evaluated
22:35:05 <TallTed> These changes are glorious.  I'm very happy about how you have been doing this, and the direction Rubric things are going!
22:35:17 <drummond> ...all of these were gaps in the Rubric
22:35:27 <drummond> ...we also need better tools for community engagement
22:35:44 <drummond> ...we also need more discussion about these criteria
22:36:10 <drummond> ...the Rubric also proposes that each evaluator essentially create their own custom rubric with the criteria they need
22:36:37 <drummond> ...shared evaluations also would help
22:37:06 <drummond> ...the Rubric also needs permalinks and persistent identifiers so that references to the Rubric criteria will not break
22:38:06 <drummond> ...the proposal is to turn the Rubric into a registry where criteria can be added, updated, and curated
22:38:14 <drummond> ...updates can be done with a simple PR
22:38:50 <drummond> ...the desire is that the current DID Rubric authors recommend a starting set of rules
22:39:23 <drummond> ...so the net net is that it becomes a mechanism for continuing to improve the criteria for evaluating DID methods
22:39:56 <drummond> ...there are a number of questions about how to proceed
22:40:30 <drummond> brent: RE deadlines, as a WG, we have 4 more WG meetings that we can use to have this conversation
22:40:48 <drummond> ...there is a possibility the WG could be extended to address any objections
22:41:15 <drummond> ...so the last opportunity is by the end of Sept for the existing WG to approve the Note to be taken on by the new WG
22:41:41 <drummond> ...please review the proposed rules
22:42:09 <drummond> JoeAndrieu: The proposal follows the template of the DID Spec Registries doc
22:42:22 <drummond> ...criteria must be identified and versioned
22:42:41 <drummond> ...subcomponents do not need to be versioned and permalinks
22:43:26 <drummond> ...use cases, methods, and evaluations all need to be cited
22:44:32 <brent> q?
22:44:43 <drummond> ...the proposal defines what is needed in a criteria. Each proposed criteria needs at least 3 examples.
22:44:56 <drummond> ...then, for all of those fields, what is required for each field
22:45:21 <drummond> ...it also defines identifiers and how they need to work
22:45:42 <drummond> ...there is a way to provide a TR permalink
22:46:24 <drummond> ...prior criteria will still be retained in future versions in a "Retired" section so that the permalink will still work
22:46:53 <drummond> ...the versioning rules are also defined
22:47:46 <drummond> q+ to ask about evaluations vs. criteria
22:48:31 <drummond> ...there is also an escalation path for disputes. However the key difference here, the editors retain the ability to curate the content
22:49:16 <drummond> ...that gives the editors more responsibility to maintain the list of curated criteria PLUS a few example evaluations
22:49:59 <drummond> ...that was done in the original Rubric, but that gave excessive visibility to six specific DID methods that they should not have
22:50:10 <drummond> brent: we have 10 mins left to discuss
22:50:11 <brent> ack drummond
22:50:11 <Zakim> drummond, you wanted to ask about evaluations vs. criteria
22:50:58 <TallTed> q+
22:51:33 <kdenhartog> drummond: Looking for some clarification here, I originally understood from the last call that this is about the registering of evaluations, but it seems this is about registering criteria. Is this about one or both?
22:52:04 <brent> ack TallTed
22:52:14 <kdenhartog> drummond: examples would be cited for showing how to evaluate a criteria, but not for registering the evaluations directly
22:52:49 <drummond> TallTed: I am really happy about how the Rubric is evolving. I very much like this path, and I hope it continues evolving forever.
22:52:53 <kdenhartog> q+
22:53:06 <brent> ack kdenhartog
22:53:27 <drummond> JoeAndrieu: I'm very glad to see that. The work of evolving the Rubric has taught us a great deal, and it will continue.
22:53:57 <drummond> kdenhartog: I also want to second its usefullness. We learned a lot when evaluating did:key.
22:54:19 <drummond> ...it was possible that my misunderstanding led the WG members astray on the last WG call
22:54:30 <brent> q?
22:54:34 <drummond> ...but now that this is clarified, I think this is a great tool
22:55:25 <drummond> drummond: what are next steps?
22:55:36 <kdenhartog> drummond: what are we considering as the next steps to take for this to fit it within the working group time we have left?
22:55:42 <drummond> brent: Next steps are to review the PR ASAP
22:56:16 <drummond> ...the sooner we have feedback on that, the sooner we can have the Rubric in a state where the new WG can take it over as a registry
22:56:31 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #did
22:56:42 <drummond> JoeAndrieu: I will send out an email to the list with the PR and ask for feedback.
22:56:53 <drummond> ...it is seven pages and it has a lot of detail
22:57:17 <drummond> ...Daniel Hardman already caught several improvements that were needed
22:57:29 <kdenhartog> q+
22:57:32 <drummond> brent: That looks great. Looking forward to the feedback.
22:57:35 <brent> ack kdenhartog
22:58:15 <drummond> kdenhartog: Wanted to say thanks for accommodating this time zone for one meeting a month
22:58:40 <shigeya> +1 for kdenhartog. it works for me well too!
22:58:40 <drummond> brent: Thanks to everyone, and especially Joe for the Rubric registry PR, and to scribes, and to wrapping it all up in Sept.
22:58:59 <drummond> ...also, please jump into the DID WG Charter issue and "make your feelings known"
22:59:12 <brent> zakim, who is here?
22:59:12 <Zakim> Present: drummond, cel, brent, shigeya, TallTed, kdenhartog
22:59:14 <Zakim> On IRC I see MacTed, agropper, JoeAndrieu, drummond, RRSAgent, Zakim, brent, stevegt, dmitriz, Travis, hadleybeeman, dlehn4, ChristopherA, dlongley, manu, bigbluehat, wayne,
22:59:14 <Zakim> ... asocrt, etropea73101, damian77, shigeya, cel, rhiaro
22:59:20 <brent> present+ agropper
23:00:24 <brent> zakim, end the meeting
23:00:24 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been drummond, cel, brent, shigeya, TallTed, kdenhartog, agropper
23:00:26 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
23:00:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/31-did-minutes.html Zakim
23:00:29 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, brent; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
23:00:33 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did
23:00:42 <brent> rrsagent, please excuse us
23:00:42 <RRSAgent> I see no action items