14:20:41 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
14:20:41 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/10/28-did-irc
14:20:44 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:20:44 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:21:21 <ivan> Meeting: DID WG vF2F meeting
14:21:25 <ivan> chair: Brent, Burn
14:57:11 <brent> present+
14:58:41 <kinjim> kinjim has joined #did
14:58:50 <brent> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/7a3923ee-8744-47d3-9802-a6a85e2fa50b#agenda
14:58:50 <agendabot> clear agenda
14:58:50 <agendabot> agenda+ Intros/greeting - 10 min
14:58:50 <agendabot> agenda+ Talk with the CEO - 30 min
14:58:50 <agendabot> agenda+ Rubric - prep for future deep dive - 20 min
14:58:50 <agendabot> agenda+ DID Method Registration - 60 min
14:58:52 <agendabot> agenda+ Decentralized Identifier Working Group ( View Calendar)
14:58:55 <agendabot> agenda+ Download as ics
14:59:21 <brent> zakim, remove item 5
14:59:23 <Zakim> agendum 5, Decentralized Identifier Working Group ( View Calendar), dropped
14:59:31 <ryuichi> ryuichi has joined #did
14:59:41 <brent> zakim, show agenda
14:59:41 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
14:59:42 <Zakim> 1. Intros/greeting - 10 min [from agendabot]
14:59:42 <Zakim> 2. Talk with the CEO - 30 min [from agendabot]
14:59:42 <Zakim> 3. Rubric - prep for future deep dive - 20 min [from agendabot]
14:59:42 <Zakim> 4. DID Method Registration - 60 min [from agendabot]
14:59:42 <Zakim> 6. Download as ics [from agendabot]
14:59:55 <brent> zakim, remove item 6
14:59:55 <Zakim> agendum 6, Download as ics, dropped
15:00:37 <ivan> present+
15:00:49 <jeff> present+
15:00:51 <ivan> present+ brent, justin, cel
15:00:57 <ivan> guests+ jeff
15:01:02 <agropper> agropper has joined #did
15:01:06 <justin_r> justin_r has joined #did
15:01:06 <shigeya> present+
15:01:11 <justin_r> present+
15:01:17 <agropper> present+
15:01:20 <pebran> pebran has joined #did
15:01:40 <ivan> guests+ PeterAndersen
15:01:48 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #did
15:01:50 <Eric_Siow> Eric_Siow has joined #did
15:01:50 <rgrant> rgrant has joined #did
15:01:51 <pchampin> present+
15:02:05 <Eric_Siow> Present+
15:02:11 <kazho> kazho has joined #did
15:02:44 <cel> present+
15:02:50 <pebran> present +
15:02:51 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
15:03:33 <rgrant> prexent+
15:03:36 <rgrant> present+
15:03:41 <drummond> drummond has joined #did
15:03:49 <drummond> present+
15:04:01 <drummond> scribe+
15:04:07 <nms> nms has joined #did
15:04:19 <shinta_> shinta_ has joined #did
15:04:23 <drummond> brent: Greetings and agenda review
15:04:47 <drummond> ...agenda is three topics: 1) conversation with W3C CEO Jeff Jaffe
15:05:03 <drummond> ...2) DID Rubric - discussing roadmap
15:05:29 <drummond> ...3) DID Spec Registries  - open issues, DID method registration, etc.
15:05:45 <kazho> present+
15:06:01 <drummond> ...next will be introductions
15:06:35 <drummond> ...Brent Zundel, Chief Cryptography Architect, Evernym, focused on SSI for enterprises
15:06:35 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #did
15:06:38 <ivan> present+ dwaite
15:06:46 <drummond> ...supplies technology for IATA Travel Pass
15:06:52 <manu> present+
15:06:57 <drummond> ivan: Staff Contact
15:07:57 <ivan> present+ markus_sabadello
15:08:04 <markus_sabadello> drummond: Chief Trust Officer at Evernym
15:08:18 <drummond> rgrant: Ryan Grant, with Digital Contract Design - make foundational libraries for did:btcr and verifiable credentials
15:08:18 <markus_sabadello> drummond: Co-editor of DID spec, worked on it for >5y
15:08:38 <ivan> scribe+ markus_sabadello
15:08:54 <drummond> agropper: Adrian Gropper, CTO of a non-profit called Patient Privacy Rights, brings privacy expertise for human rights implications of standards
15:09:32 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
15:09:33 <dwaite> dwaite has joined #did
15:09:46 <drummond> cel: Charles Lehner, Spruce Systems
15:09:55 <pebran> pebran = Peter Bruhn Andersen
15:09:58 <drummond> dwaite: David Waite, Ping Identity
15:10:35 <drummond> esiow1: Eric Siow, Intel, on W3C Advisory Board, joining the call to get educated
15:11:14 <drummond> jeff: Jeff Jaffe, W3C CEO, Massachusetts
15:11:23 <ivan> present+ manu
15:11:43 <drummond> JoeAndrieu: Joe Andrieu, Legendary Requirements, DID Rubric
15:12:02 <drummond> justin_r: Justin Richer, independent consultant
15:12:21 <drummond> kazho: Kauhiro Hoya, Judd Bagley
15:12:49 <drummond> manu: Manu Sporny, Digital Bazaar, editor of the DID spec and several others
15:13:09 <kdenhartog> kdenhartog has joined #did
15:13:14 <kdenhartog> present+
15:13:32 <kdenhartog> audio issues
15:13:32 <drummond> markus_sabadello: Markus Sabadello, founder of DanubeTech, co-editor of the spec, DIF ID Working Group co-chair
15:13:37 <kdenhartog> plz come back at end
15:13:48 <drummond> kdenhartog: Kyle den Hartog
15:14:11 <drummond> Michel Foucault: Paris, interested in DID
15:14:45 <drummond> Ned Smith, Intel, co-chairing several groups in the industry related to attestation, located in Oregon
15:15:09 <drummond> Pam Dingle, Director of Identity Standards, Microsoft
15:15:13 <ivan> present+ pam
15:15:35 <drummond> Peter Bruhn Andersen: Danish Agency working on DID & verifiable credentials
15:16:08 <drummond> pchampin: Pierre Champin, based in France, W3C Fellow
15:16:14 <Geun-Hyung_> Geun-Hyung_ has joined #did
15:16:21 <Geun-Hyung_> present+
15:16:26 <drummond> Russell Stringham, Adobe, joining to learn
15:16:48 <ivan> present+ shigeya
15:17:08 <drummond> shigeya: KEO University, attending as a member
15:17:17 <ivan> present+ TallTed
15:17:33 <drummond> TallTed: Works across a number of W3C groups
15:18:08 <drummond> Geun-Hyung Kim: member of EID WG, very interested in SSI and decentralized identity
15:18:27 <drummond> Kristina Yasuda, Microsoft Identity Standards
15:18:36 <russStringham> russStringham has joined #did
15:19:15 <drummond> kdenhartog: Kyle den Hartog, works at Mattr in NZ, editor of Verifiable Credentials spec v1.1
15:19:18 <brent> zakim, next agendum
15:19:18 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Intros/greeting - 10 min -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:19:28 <drummond> brent: grateful to everyone for coming at this time
15:19:28 <brent> zakim, next agendum
15:19:28 <Zakim> agendum 1 was just opened, brent
15:19:42 <pchampin> zakim, close agendum 1
15:19:42 <Zakim> agendum 1, Intros/greeting - 10 min, closed
15:19:43 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:19:43 <Zakim> 2. Talk with the CEO - 30 min [from agendabot]
15:20:01 <brent> zakim, next agendum
15:20:01 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Talk with the CEO - 30 min -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:20:11 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #did
15:20:18 <burn> burn has joined #did
15:20:42 <drummond> brent: This is a free-form conversation and will use the queue in IRC for questions
15:21:03 <drummond> jeff: I'd like to start by thanking the DID community for bringing the work to W3C
15:21:05 <ivan> present+ burn
15:21:20 <drummond> ...I was invited today to talk about the formal objections to the spec and the process.
15:21:45 <drummond> ...for a spec to get to a W3C REC status, it must be at the highest level of quality
15:21:50 <michel_cc> michel_cc has joined #did
15:22:03 <drummond> ...so it is a conceptually great thing to have formal objections (FOs)
15:22:17 <drummond> ...but it is not comfortable to be on the receiving end
15:22:31 <drummond> ...I have been reading up on the objections, and also on the DID WG's responses
15:22:39 <drummond> ...so how do FO's get resolved?
15:22:52 <drummond> ...in the past, they would be resolved by Tim Berners-Lee
15:23:00 <drummond> ...and it's never been easy
15:23:15 <drummond> ...Tim is still the director, but it's now a more complex process
15:23:26 <drummond> ...I'm happy to talk more about how the process works
15:23:40 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #did
15:23:50 <drummond> ...finally, I want to express my appreciation for the thoughtfulness of the DID WG members in the AC discussions
15:24:17 <brent> q?
15:24:17 <drummond> ...people have been helpful in addressing not only the content of the objections, but the process discussions
15:24:18 <manu> q+ to ask about FO data.
15:24:27 <brent> ack manu
15:24:27 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about FO data.
15:24:37 <drummond> manu: Thank you Jeff for the background.
15:24:39 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:24:42 <phila> phila has joined #did
15:24:55 <drummond> ...we brought this work to the W3C because we thought it was the right place.
15:25:15 <drummond> ...personally I think the W3C process is a good one and I expect it to work here too
15:25:46 <drummond> ...One of the reactions to FOs brought up so late can make it seem like we are "under attack"
15:25:52 <ivan> present+ phila
15:26:02 <drummond> ...however I've done research on FOs, and it reveals some interesting data
15:26:17 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #did
15:26:38 <drummond> ...this data actually shows that this situation with the DID spec is actually very much of an exception
15:27:12 <drummond> ...is there any way we can help get this data and this message conveyed outside of W3C to correct misconceptions without violating member confidentiality
15:27:42 <drummond> jeff: It's a great question. I call this a "controversy" because there are points and counterpoints.
15:28:17 <Eric_Siow> Q+ to add to Jeff.
15:28:29 <drummond> ...to even to someone who understands what's going on, it can be pretty confusing, and putting it out in the public will be even more confusing
15:28:48 <drummond> ...so does it actually help the situation to "extend the news cycle" and make more out of it
15:29:09 <drummond> ...so one strategy is to let this process finish, and then just report on that
15:29:27 <manu> q+ to ask about expected timeline for the Formal Objection Council to review this item? 1 months, 3 months, 6 months?
15:29:28 <drummond> ...which will take it out of the space of conjecture and "spin" and just report on a decision
15:29:46 <brent> ack markus_sabadello
15:29:52 <drummond> ...so I'm open to the idea of sharing data, but only if it helps and doesn't just "extend the news cycle"
15:30:01 <drummond> markus_sabadello: What is the next step in the process/
15:30:05 <manu> q+ to mention that perhaps we can do this entirely separately from DIDs -- wait until FO is processed, then do separate messaging around "fairness of W3C Process"
15:30:26 <drummond> jeff: Several years ago, Tim Berners-Lee because less active, so he delegated managed FOs to the W3C team
15:30:39 <drummond> ...the day of Tim formally stepping down are coming soon
15:31:01 <drummond> ...so the W3C team feels it needs to incubate the process for how the FO process should work once that happens
15:31:32 <drummond> ...so W3M tries to bring the "plaintiff" and the "defendant" together to see if they can be resolved
15:31:34 <ivan> present+ dbuc
15:31:38 <dbuc> dbuc has joined #did
15:31:39 <drummond> ...but 3 times recently that has not worked
15:32:04 <drummond> ...so W3M has recommended to put together a Council to resolve it
15:32:37 <drummond> ...however the AC and W3C staff have been very busy with TPAC, so it hasn't started up yet
15:32:49 <brent> ack Eric_Siow
15:32:49 <Zakim> Eric_Siow, you wanted to add to Jeff.
15:32:58 <drummond> ...so hopefully the Advisory Board will formally respond shortly to agree to the Council process
15:33:18 <ivan> present+ dmitriz
15:33:24 <drummond> Eric_Siow: As an AB member, I am trying to get as much information as I can so I can be prepared
15:33:54 <drummond> ...the important thing for me personally is that I'd like to make a request to both the proponents and the opponents to help the council make an objective decision
15:33:55 <manu> q+ to share link to what's been written up thus far.
15:34:10 <drummond> ...if the W3C Council is going to work, it must have the trust of the membership
15:34:20 <manu> q+ to provide input to recusal process.
15:34:29 <drummond> ...it is important that the Council make good decisions based on good principles
15:34:49 <drummond> ...if the Council is perceived as making decisions based on political pressure, that would be very bad for W3C
15:35:11 <drummond> ...what I would like to make a request to the DID WG to provide very objective data
15:35:40 <drummond> ...I attended the sustainability session and heard arguments for and against the sustainability issues
15:35:55 <drummond> ...secondly, I'd like clarification on the scope of the objections
15:36:22 <burn> q+ to comment on distinction between issue validity and timing of address
15:36:34 <drummond> ...and then there is discussion that video over the web is computation-intensive as well
15:36:48 <tzviya> present+
15:36:51 <drummond> ...whatever decision the Council makes, someone will be unhappy
15:37:24 <drummond> ...I have a responsibility as an AB member to the membership, so if my decision makes someone unhappy, I want to be able to look them in the eye and explain the decision
15:37:50 <brent> ack manu
15:37:50 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about expected timeline for the Formal Objection Council to review this item? 1 months, 3 months, 6 months? and to mention that perhaps we can do this
15:37:50 <drummond> ...this is important because the members need to be able to trust the Council and that there's trust in the process
15:37:52 <TallTed> q+ to note that we here have no influence over the scope of the objections; we are not the objectors.
15:37:53 <Zakim> ... entirely separately from DIDs -- wait until FO is processed, then do separate messaging around "fairness of W3C Process" and to share link to what's been written up thus far.
15:37:53 <Zakim> ... and to provide input to recusal process.
15:38:12 <drummond> manu: Thank you Eric, I thing those thoughts are wonderful. I also agree with Jeff's points.
15:38:15 <manu> Some content to help FO council look at objective arguments: https://msporny.github.io/did-core-formal-objections/
15:38:25 <drummond> ...we are trying to put that content together in that link.
15:38:43 <drummond> ...that is a FAQ where everything is documented.
15:39:05 <drummond> ...this is still in process and we are working to have all DID WG members review to make sure it is complete
15:39:12 <dbuc> Even better example: animated GIFs, which are 99% memes that deliver virtually 0 utility value to humankind. If these same folks don't move to rid xfer/render of that data format from the Web, it will be wildly hypocritical.
15:39:25 <drummond> ...it may help for the Council to have a dialog with the DID WG to discuss
15:39:41 <drummond> ...there is also a fairness issue that you brought up.
15:39:52 <JoeAndrieu> q?
15:39:57 <drummond> ...I am speaking on a personal level, not on behalf of my company
15:40:04 <dbuc> +1 to Manu
15:40:09 <jeff> q+ to address manu's comments about recusals
15:40:15 <JoeAndrieu> +1 to a disinterested jury
15:40:20 <drummond> ...I find it unacceptable for objectors to be on that Council -- and also for DID WG members to be on the Council
15:40:33 <drummond> ...that include Amy Guy, since she's on the TAG, but should be recused
15:40:49 <tzviya> q+ to talk about recusals
15:40:49 <drummond> ...that doesn't mean they can't provide input, but they should not vote
15:41:04 <dbuc> And then he said unto them "Let there be backdoor vote-whipping" lol
15:41:15 <drummond> ...lastly, a question for Jeff: what's the timeline for the Council to make a decision?
15:41:50 <drummond> ...I'll note that the DID spec FO process is already the second-longest delay after EME
15:42:07 <brent> ack jeff
15:42:07 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to address manu's comments about recusals
15:42:30 <drummond> jeff: First, on recusals, this is one of the benefits of incubation, we need to see issues like this come up
15:42:33 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/278
15:42:40 <drummond> ...Manu, you have participated in this issue
15:42:56 <drummond> ...that issue showed up well before there was a DID FO
15:43:30 <drummond> ...if you've seen some of my comments, you've seen my POV that conflicts should be recognized
15:43:31 <burn> q+ to talk about AB decision and wisdom of taking a hard case first
15:43:34 <manu> q+ to speak to news cycle and how to make data that paints W3C in a good light public w/o tying to DID FOs.
15:43:38 <drummond> ...and there is the other POV that all should participate
15:43:47 <drummond> ...we won't resolve this today
15:44:02 <drummond> ...but it will be a community process discussion on the "director-free" topic
15:44:23 <drummond> ...even before the DID FO came up, this is an issue to be resolved.
15:44:35 <drummond> ...on the timeline question, I don't have a complete answer
15:44:56 <drummond> ...the AB has not agreed to form the Council yet. Once they do...
15:45:17 <drummond> ...the Council needs to appoint chairs and then resolve the recusal issue
15:45:42 <drummond> ...we did a Council experiment a year ago with the [missed name of issue]
15:46:10 <drummond> ...that process was felt to be rushed and wasn't very satisfactory
15:46:25 <drummond> ...and there are also two other FOs that must be dealt with
15:46:29 <jeff> q-
15:46:38 <drummond> ...but it is appropriate to "put pressure on us"
15:46:38 <phila> q+ to thank Manu
15:46:39 <manu> q-
15:46:48 <brent> ack burn
15:46:48 <Zakim> burn, you wanted to comment on distinction between issue validity and timing of address and to talk about AB decision and wisdom of taking a hard case first
15:46:50 <drummond> brent: can we continue to the top of the hour?
15:46:55 <drummond> jeff: yes
15:47:33 <drummond> burn: We may not be the first group to go through the FO process, but if I'm going to through out a new tech deployment, I roll it out slowly
15:48:05 <drummond> ...so something the AB should consider is whether taking up a difficult issue like this
15:48:22 <jeff> q+ to comment on Dan's comments about "waiting for the result"
15:48:26 <drummond> ...especially because those who are objecting are causing a delay for an entire industry that is waiting on the result
15:48:42 <drummond> ...so is it wise to overload the AB with other FOs
15:49:01 <drummond> ...secondly, I want to second what Eric said about making decisions based on principles
15:49:13 <drummond> ...within a WG, that's the nature of the work, making decisions
15:49:18 <dbuc> I am excited to see the objectors solve the 40+ year chronological oracle problem for us - they can inform Chaum, Back, and others that there was an easy solution right there, all along.
15:49:30 <drummond> ...I have been involved with the work here at W3C for over two decades
15:49:47 <drummond> ...and sometimes the only way to make a decision is to decide to postpone some of the work
15:50:31 <drummond> ...one of the things that is most challenging in this case is for organizations who did not participate in this work to make FOs about work they would like to see done
15:50:31 <dbuc> Nothing feels too intense (given my usual), so go ahead
15:50:56 <drummond> ...some of these issues are for future work, but they should not hold back version 1
15:51:08 <dbuc> (people should be pressed on the empirical points - that's healthy)
15:51:23 <brent> ack jeff
15:51:23 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to comment on Dan's comments about "waiting for the result"
15:51:43 <drummond> ...to ask yourselves, "Under what situations should work be held up when the work accomplished its charter and FOs should apply to future work".
15:52:04 <rgrant> +1 to quality of objection being weighed against effect on industry.  thank you for being so clear, burn
15:52:14 <drummond> jeff: With regard to overloading the AB, I understand, but this is also a good idea to test the Council with a difficult question.
15:52:32 <burn> I'm glad Jeff doesn't believe there will be a controversial issue again in the future :)
15:52:48 <drummond> ...as far as the issue that there is a whole community that the work that is "frozen", I think we can share with that community where it stands.
15:53:01 <drummond> ...that there are specific issues that have been raised.
15:53:19 <burn> s/I'm glad Jeff doesn't believe there will be a controversial issue again in the future :)//
15:53:20 <bumblefudge> bumblefudge has joined #did
15:53:27 <drummond> ...people have raised questions about interoperability because DID methods is not in scope
15:53:46 <drummond> ...and folks outside of the community have pointed out that there is real market interop
15:53:56 <drummond> ...and also the questions about sustainability
15:54:08 <drummond> ...so all of these issues should be brought to the Council
15:54:28 <drummond> ...within the IETF, people implement RFCs all the time before they are final
15:54:42 <drummond> ...I don't want to soften how much I like RECs.
15:54:59 <drummond> ...but I hope that implementers can feel more comfortable.
15:55:06 <brent> q?
15:55:19 <drummond> ...with regard to the specific objectors, I would prefer not to comment on that.
15:55:33 <drummond> ...I think we need to go with the process.
15:56:04 <drummond> burn: I wasn't commenting on who objected. I was commenting on non-participants making FOs.
15:56:05 <brent> ack TallTed
15:56:05 <Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to note that we here have no influence over the scope of the objections; we are not the objectors.
15:56:31 <drummond> TallTed: We have no control over the scope of the objections; we are not the objectors.
15:57:13 <dbuc> +1 to Tall Ted
15:57:13 <drummond> ...that could have been accomplished on the call between the formal objectors and DID WG leadership, but that call did not accomplish anything other than restate the objections
15:57:45 <Eric_Siow> Q+ to respond to Ted.
15:57:47 <drummond> ...the only way to move forward is to read and understand all the deliverables of the DID WG
15:57:54 <drummond> ... this time frame is hideous
15:58:34 <brent> ack tzviya
15:58:34 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to talk about recusals
15:58:36 <drummond> ...many of the 100+ DID methods were created before the DID spec was finished, so it is not something where interop should be expected.
15:58:51 <drummond> tzviya: I had to miss the start of the call, sorry
15:59:17 <drummond> ...I sent an email earlier today that agreed that tackling such a complex FO by the Council is problematic
15:59:28 <drummond> ...the recusal issue is also a complex issue to solve
15:59:55 <drummond> ...we are really interested in getting perspectives about this issue
16:00:08 <drummond> ...some people feel like we should have gotten that input a long time ago
16:00:33 <drummond> ...I would like to get input from everyone about this process and how it can be improved
16:00:47 <drummond> ...having it be perceived as fair is the most important outcome
16:00:47 <ivan> present+ orie
16:00:53 <brent> ack phila
16:00:56 <drummond> brent: we'll take 10 more mins on this topic
16:00:57 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to thank Manu
16:01:23 <jeff> Manu++
16:01:23 <brent> ack Eric_Siow
16:01:23 <Zakim> Eric_Siow, you wanted to respond to Ted.
16:01:33 <Orie> Orie has joined #did
16:01:38 <Orie> present+
16:01:39 <drummond> phila: I wanted to thank Jeff and Tzviya for their input and working on this. GS1 is totally behind this.
16:01:55 <weiler> weiler has joined #did
16:01:59 <weiler> present+
16:02:08 <drummond> Eric_Siow: I am very conscious of us setting a precedent here, and I want to set a good precedent.
16:02:33 <drummond> ...we have done this once before on "Devices and _______" [missed second part] and we heard from both sides
16:02:44 <weiler> zakim, who's on the call?
16:02:44 <Zakim> Present: brent, ivan, jeff, justin, cel, shigeya, justin_r, agropper, pchampin, Eric_Siow, rgrant, drummond, kazho, dwaite, manu, markus_sabadello, kdenhartog, pam, Geun-Hyung_,
16:02:47 <Zakim> ... TallTed, burn, phila, dbuc, dmitriz, tzviya, orie, weiler
16:02:55 <rgrant> q+ to request that the council help us narrow the scope appropriately
16:02:57 <plh> plh has joined #did
16:02:59 <jyasskin> jyasskin has joined #did
16:03:05 <drummond> ...so please plan to come to the Council and provide compelling arguments and evidence, especially on principles
16:03:12 <dbuc> present+
16:03:16 <brent> ack rgrant
16:03:16 <Zakim> rgrant, you wanted to request that the council help us narrow the scope appropriately
16:03:19 <drummond> brent: time for one or two more questions
16:03:39 <drummond> rgrant: My request to the Council that they help us narrow the scope appropriately.
16:03:59 <drummond> ...the question of whether "proof of work" is actually in scope because it is such a large topic.
16:04:09 <Orie> q+
16:04:20 <drummond> ...one way to narrow that scope is to look at the specific scope of the DID spec
16:04:38 <drummond> ...or to say that this issue has been adequately addressed in the text of our deliverables
16:04:39 <jeff> q+ with some summary remarks
16:04:48 <drummond> ...one way or another, I need to know what the scope is.
16:04:57 <manu> q+ jeff to provide some summary remarks
16:05:14 <kdenhartog> q+
16:05:23 <brent> zakim, close the queue
16:05:23 <Zakim> ok, brent, the speaker queue is closed
16:05:24 <drummond> jeff: If there is a Council, there will definitely be a process of having input to the Council. The DID WG can decide how to do that.
16:05:57 <tzviya> see https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/director-free/#addressing-fo for documentation that exists
16:05:59 <drummond> Eric_Siow: I can see a process whereby both parties have a chance to present their case to the Council, and then both parties have a chance to respond to the others.
16:06:19 <brent> ack Orie
16:06:21 <drummond> ...and the Council could provide feedback to the scope issue
16:06:21 <jeff> q- later
16:06:34 <rgrant> +1 to Eric_Siow, a two round council meeting would help immensely.
16:06:51 <dbuc> Perhaps we could have an objective waterline for all technology we allow in the Web? For example: "No technology must be in any way related to any hardware/software process that results in any greater than 1/20 of the emissions from clothes dryer energy consumption" (a personal favorite of mine)
16:06:53 <drummond> Orie: I just wanted to say that I'm very grateful to have the opportunity to respond to the feedback we've had both on process and the objections.
16:07:23 <drummond> ...What has been challenging with regard to some of the concerns raised is that these FOs were raised at the very end of the process.
16:07:54 <drummond> ...so it's important that we figure out where do we apply the feedback and does it mostly apply to a future charter
16:08:41 <drummond> ...I also wanted to note the mix of the technical feedback, when mixed with separate sustainability issues, has made it difficult to be clear about how to respond effectively.
16:08:56 <drummond> ...we will contine to respond as effectively as we can
16:08:56 <brent> ack kdenhartog
16:09:20 <brent> ack jeff
16:09:20 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to provide some summary remarks
16:09:28 <drummond> kdenhartog: We've been talking in hypothetical "if" a Council is formed. What happens if it's not.
16:09:59 <drummond> jeff: It is the responsibility of the Director. So the Council will only make a recommendation to the Director.
16:10:26 <drummond> ...if no Council is formed, then the Director will delegate it to W3M to review and make a recommendation.
16:10:49 <drummond> ...if W3M has a clear decision, they can publish that.
16:11:15 <drummond> ...however if W3M feels there is an aspect that needs the Director's attention, then they will involve the Director.
16:11:22 <drummond> ...that has happened a few times.
16:11:30 <drummond> ...now let me seque into a summary.
16:11:51 <drummond> ...as I said at the outset, FOs make for stronger specifications, even if they can be frustrated.
16:12:23 <drummond> ...I really do appreciate that this group feels they have checked all the boxes and want to get the DID 1.0 spec out as a REC
16:12:57 <drummond> ...despite the strong feelings on all sides, I like that the discussion has been constructive
16:13:22 <drummond> ...so I hope we can get through this and move on to the next stages of the work, including DID method interoperability
16:13:35 <drummond> ...so I hope this process does clear the way for that work to happen
16:13:59 <drummond> brent: I want to thank Jeff and Eric and Tzviya for coming.
16:14:01 <markus_sabadello> scribe+
16:14:04 <rgrant> +1 thanks jeff
16:14:22 <markus_sabadello> brent: Moving on to the next topic.
16:14:58 <burn> Yes, many thanks Jeff (and others) for joining today
16:15:02 <markus_sabadello> brent: My proposal is we spend 10 min on Rubric, then remaining time will be for DID method registration
16:15:11 <brent> zakim, close agendum
16:15:11 <Zakim> I don't understand 'close agendum', brent
16:15:20 <brent> zakim, close this agendum
16:15:20 <Zakim> agendum 2 closed
16:15:21 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:15:21 <Zakim> 3. Rubric - prep for future deep dive - 20 min [from agendabot]
16:15:30 <dbuc> Let's go Zakrandon!
16:15:40 <brent> zakim, next agendum
16:15:40 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Rubric - prep for future deep dive - 20 min -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:15:56 <brent> zakim, open the queue
16:15:56 <Zakim> ok, brent, the speaker queue is open
16:16:25 <markus_sabadello> brent: We anticipate in future calls to do deep dives into Rubric discussions. The purpose of this block of time is to queue up some topics that we want to deep-dive into
16:16:39 <manu> q+
16:16:42 <markus_sabadello> brent: Let's get some of those issues recorded that we want to work on
16:16:43 <kdenhartog> q+
16:16:46 <brent> ack manu
16:17:06 <markus_sabadello> manu: The resource usage of DID records, it's clear we need some guidance on that in the Rubric document
16:17:24 <markus_sabadello> manu: But don't try to "villify" certain resource usage patterns.
16:17:24 <agropper> q+
16:17:25 <rgrant> q+ to suggest address all TAG/EWP is the right way to provide guidance
16:17:33 <markus_sabadello> manu: This also came up in the Web-of-Things call this morning
16:17:35 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to mention major revisions based on did:v1, did:web, and did:ion
16:17:39 <brent> ack kdenhartog
16:17:55 <markus_sabadello> kdenhartog: One of the things we found in did:web, is try to have a deeper understanding of who participates in it
16:18:05 <markus_sabadello> kdenhartog: We should structure scope in a more clear way
16:18:07 <Orie> +1 lets be careful no to use language that maligns technologies, and associates them with environmental destruction or criminal activity... we should focus on how much power they cost, and what properties we get from that cost.
16:18:21 <markus_sabadello> kdenhartog: E.g. is US gov in-scope, since they have jurisdiction over ICANN and root servers
16:18:28 <markus_sabadello> kdenhartog: So the Rubric should explore who participates
16:18:28 <brent> ack agropper
16:18:32 <manu> +1 to make the discussion a cost-benefit discussion.
16:18:55 <markus_sabadello> agropper: Does the Rubric need to consider interoperability as a criterion. Are there going to be different grades of interoperability between methods?
16:19:01 <brent> ack rgrant
16:19:01 <Zakim> rgrant, you wanted to suggest address all TAG/EWP is the right way to provide guidance
16:19:36 <markus_sabadello> rgrant: I think any DID method that allows other implementations to parse their DID document properly, is mostly covered by the DID Core specification itself
16:19:45 <markus_sabadello> rgrant: There are various levels of interop. The most basic is the data model.
16:19:54 <markus_sabadello> rgrant: Once you have the data back, you know what to do with it.
16:20:11 <markus_sabadello> rgrant: Beyond that level, there are many different options on how to get the DID document, as defined by the DID method.
16:20:25 <jyasskin> I think https://w3c.github.io/did-rubric/#alternatives does cover interoperability? It's not very fleshed out, but the outline's there and good.
16:20:29 <markus_sabadello> rgrant: One additional tool could be the Universal Resolver, but you don't have to use that.
16:20:41 <markus_sabadello> rgrant: Some methods allow queries against external nodes
16:21:02 <markus_sabadello> rgrant: This is about assignment of trust, so you have a similarly spectrum of being able to interop quickly
16:21:33 <markus_sabadello> rgrant: Addressing all TAG Ethical Web Principles is the right way to provide guidance, for environmental aspects as well.
16:21:56 <markus_sabadello> rgrant: DID methods and their reviewers may see nuances of DID methods that are stronger in some points, and weaker in other points.
16:21:57 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
16:21:57 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention major revisions based on did:v1, did:web, and did:ion
16:21:59 <manu> jyasskin, yep, "substitutability" is a big consideration in the ecosystem... and we do need to flesh that out more, perhaps even within DID Methods... like, can you substitite resolvers, etc.
16:22:23 <TallTed> There could be multiple kinds/levels of interop, so multiple interop Qs in the rubric.  I see no reason not to raise whichever ones you think of as issues (for potential criteria) against rubric
16:22:28 <markus_sabadello> JoeAndrieu: +1 to addressing all TAG Ethical Web Principles as criteria. How do we align with those principles when evaluating DID methods. This could be one of our deep-dive topics.
16:22:57 <drummond> +1 to making sure the Rubric also includes evaluating to W3C principles, including ethical principles
16:22:58 <markus_sabadello> JoeAndrieu: There isn't an interoperability criterion. We are evaluating did:web, did:v1, did:ion. All three have had things that taught us how the current criteria are broken.
16:23:23 <markus_sabadello> JoeAndrieu: E.g. applying some criteria to did:web has been confusing. This could be a deep-dive topic.
16:23:40 <kdenhartog> q+
16:23:57 <markus_sabadello> JoeAndrieu: One of the issues of interoperability is explicitly listing the types of verification methods or relationships. E.g. some DID methods don't support verification methods, so there may be less interoperability.
16:24:06 <brent> ack kdenhartog
16:24:29 <markus_sabadello> kdenhartog: One thing we learned is that method specification interoperability isn't necessarily granular enough, there are also implementation-specific questions.
16:24:39 <agropper> q+
16:24:49 <cel> q+ to ask about rubric criteria from SRI assessment
16:24:51 <markus_sabadello> kdenhartog: I.e. don't just evaluate the DID method spec, but also a specific implementation.
16:24:54 <brent> ack agropper
16:24:58 <JoeAndrieu> +1 to new criteria about implementations
16:25:48 <brent> ack cel
16:25:48 <Zakim> cel, you wanted to ask about rubric criteria from SRI assessment
16:25:57 <rgrant_> rgrant_ has joined #did
16:25:59 <markus_sabadello> agropper: The sense in which I meant interoperability has to do with substitutability. This can give individuals more meaningful choice. The Rubric should reflect such issues of substitutability, as one aspect of interoperability.
16:26:22 <markus_sabadello> cel: Is the SRI review still under consideration for criteria?
16:26:30 <cel> thanks
16:26:41 <brent> zakim, next agendum
16:26:41 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- DID Method Registration - 60 min -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:27:18 <markus_sabadello> brent: DID method registration, and the DID spec registries, are the topics of conversation now.
16:27:24 <manu> q+ to propose some stuff
16:27:36 <kdenhartog> https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/83
16:27:42 <kdenhartog> Ongoing issue about this topic ^
16:27:46 <markus_sabadello> brent: What specifically do we have to do to make the registry process as straightforward and clear as possible, both both those who register, and for those who look at it.
16:27:49 <brent> ack manu
16:27:49 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to propose some stuff
16:28:12 <markus_sabadello> manu: This concrete proposal could address a number of challenges we have had with DID method registration
16:28:32 <markus_sabadello> manu: There are complaints that we are not being strict enough about who can register. This was by design in the beginning, we wanted a low barrier of entry.
16:28:48 <markus_sabadello> manu: This has created a problem that people can't tell the difference between DID method registrations.
16:29:01 <drummond> The challenge is QUALITY
16:29:09 <markus_sabadello> manu: What are the "good" ones that have way more implementation experience than e.g. someone's weekend project.
16:29:20 <jyasskin> +1 manu
16:29:31 <markus_sabadello> manu: We don't want to put a huge burden on those who register either.
16:30:09 <markus_sabadello> manu: If we do an attribute-based registration process. E.g. This DID method has a specification, this specification has an implementation, it has a testnet, etc. These are clear yes/no questions.
16:30:16 <brent> this did method passed the did core test suite?
16:30:21 <markus_sabadello> manu: If we do that, we can annotate the DID method registry in an objective way
16:30:44 <markus_sabadello> manu: We could add tiny JSON files to registrations that are used to render tables
16:31:00 <markus_sabadello> manu: This could make the process more manageable and objective.
16:31:03 <kdenhartog> q+
16:31:09 <brent> ack kdenhartog
16:31:15 <markus_sabadello> kdenhartog: +1 to manu, that's a really good starting point
16:31:19 <drummond> q+ to talk about the new table
16:31:20 <rgrant> +1 to attribute-based registration process
16:31:32 <markus_sabadello> kdenhartog: My frustration is that it doesn't get us the full way there to decide what's a "quality" DID method.
16:31:57 <kristina> kristina has joined #did
16:31:58 <Orie> q+
16:32:00 <manu> q+ to try not to make this perfect, but better.
16:32:02 <markus_sabadello> kdenhartog: There is a need for better specifications. Many methods have security considerations that are a single sentence. Implementation guidelines sometimes just point to a single library.
16:32:26 <markus_sabadello> kdenhartog: Rather than us deciding on quality, we lean on standards organizations that have WGs that can look at methods.
16:32:44 <markus_sabadello> kdenhartog: E.g. if a certain method has gone through a standardization process, it achieves a higher status.
16:32:46 <rgrant> q+ to weigh against standards bodies, but to offer that as a rubric issue
16:32:46 <brent> ack drummond
16:32:47 <Zakim> drummond, you wanted to talk about the new table
16:32:58 <rgrant> q+ to weigh against standards bodies but offer that as a rubric issue
16:33:04 <markus_sabadello> drummond: Encourage people to contribute to the Github issue.
16:33:42 <markus_sabadello> drummond: We should have a process that is as objective as possible, but it should also have an objective quality bar. E.g. to simply point to a specification, some of those are very lacking.
16:33:50 <brent> maybe the JSON could also point to a rubric evaluation
16:33:58 <manu> +1 to that, brent
16:34:30 <markus_sabadello> drummond: We wanted to be inclusive in the beginning. I've been an advocate of keeping the current table, but start a new table that has a baseline bar. You must revise your specification for all DID Core 1.0 requirements, and you can't handwave at Security+Privacy Considerations.
16:34:37 <kdenhartog> +1 to the brent, that seems like a potential quality metric if we're not going to be able to achieve consensus on the reliance of standards bodies
16:34:44 <kristina> Agree with how Manu framed the problem statement, and +1 to Kyle that we need to do more that the initial proposal. there is a need for an organized structured process/body of ppl reviewing what gets accepted as a DID method.
16:34:54 <markus_sabadello> drummond: I don't think it's going to be a large burdens, but you should only go into the new table if you are 1.0 compliant.
16:35:19 <markus_sabadello> drummond: Then our attention should be on objective characteristics on which registry maintainers could make objective decisions.
16:35:56 <markus_sabadello> drummond: DID method authors should be free to standardize wherever they want. We should encourage the process of maturing DID methods, so that the market can compete.
16:36:11 <brent> ack Orie
16:36:58 <markus_sabadello> Orie: I agree with some of what drummond said. Other things make me nervous. In Privacy+Security Considerations, there is sometimes only one sentence. Sometimes that's okay, and sometimes it is not.
16:37:38 <markus_sabadello> Orie: My experience is with JOSE/COSE registries. Merges into them are controlled by a set of individuals who establish consensus. The entries of terms points to a specification, which doesn't have to be at a specific standards organization.
16:38:03 <markus_sabadello> Orie: We're now at a point where we need a larger amount of editors, with a higher number of required consents before we accept something.
16:38:08 <Eric_Siow> Q+ to ask a question
16:38:20 <markus_sabadello> Orie: The JOSE/COSE registry is very successful, I hope we can be like that.
16:38:38 <markus_sabadello> Orie: The number #1 way of improving quality is to add editors, and require all to approve.
16:38:41 <kristina> really well-said, Orie.
16:38:50 <brent> ack manu
16:38:50 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to try not to make this perfect, but better.
16:39:01 <dbuc> dbuc has joined #did
16:39:20 <markus_sabadello> manu: I wanted to respond to kdenhartog . I'm nodding in agreement with a lot. The original proposal is something we can execute on today.
16:39:31 <drummond> I mostly agree with Orie, but I don't think every registry maintainer should be required to approve every listing. Just a threshold.
16:39:36 <markus_sabadello> manu: With that proposal we will end up with either the same document or a better one that has labels e.g.
16:39:49 <markus_sabadello> manu: We don't have to strife for perfection right now
16:40:06 <markus_sabadello> manu: The proposal is such that it doesn't matter if we have 1 or 2 tables. We can generate them programmatically based on the data.
16:40:09 <kdenhartog> q+
16:40:24 <drummond> +1 to generating the table(s) programmatically
16:40:29 <markus_sabadello> manu: We have a concrete proposal in front of us that can give us immediate improvements that we can continue to iterate on
16:40:32 <brent> ack rgrant
16:40:32 <Zakim> rgrant, you wanted to weigh against standards bodies, but to offer that as a rubric issue and to weigh against standards bodies but offer that as a rubric issue
16:40:34 <Orie> drummond we need acountability, otherwise a maintainer can never approve things... and still be listed as an editor... we need the burden to be shared equally.
16:41:02 <markus_sabadello> rgrant: Requiring validation from a standards organization is a difficult bar for some decentralized protocols.
16:41:05 <dbuc> +1 to Ryan's comment
16:41:06 <drummond> q+ to talk about DID method standardization
16:41:18 <markus_sabadello> rgrant: Some decentralized protocols are based on VDRs that disrupt traditional institutions.
16:41:22 <manu> q+ to remind everyone that we wanted to optimize for registration, not high quality.
16:41:29 <markus_sabadello> rgrant: I'm a strong proponent of manu 's objective criteria
16:41:37 <brent> ack Eric_Siow
16:41:37 <Zakim> Eric_Siow, you wanted to ask a question
16:42:00 <markus_sabadello> Eric_Siow: This is a question that hopefully can educate me. Is this issue related to one of the objections (diverging instead of converging)?
16:42:01 <Orie> q+
16:42:16 <rgrant> Eric_Siow: I think it is the essence of one of the objections.
16:42:31 <markus_sabadello> Eric_Siow: If that's the issue, then if the group can define a way to come up with objective methods, that might be helpful.
16:42:38 <brent> ack kdenhartog
16:42:42 <jyasskin> +1 that non-standardized methods should be acceptable on the registry, just distinguished from ones that match manu's and kdenhartog's criteria.
16:42:46 <Orie> limiting registration is not an objective, imo.... letting the market pick methods is.
16:43:12 <markus_sabadello> kdenhartog: Responding to manu, I wholeheartedly agree that editors should be able to handle this in a programmatic way. Managing this is a tragedy of the commons problem. Leaning on programmatic approach is better.
16:44:08 <markus_sabadello> kdenhartog: A good litmus test of what is "high quality" is "can I produce an interoperable implementation just by reading the spec?". The test suite can help with this. Being able to lean on Rubric evaluations also gets us close to where I want us to get.
16:44:24 <markus_sabadello> kdenhartog: We should reach a high bar, without excluding methods that can't go through a standards body.
16:44:28 <brent> ack drummond
16:44:28 <Zakim> drummond, you wanted to talk about DID method standardization
16:45:13 <Orie> See this registry for comparison... https://www.iana.org/assignments/cbor-tags/cbor-tags.xhtml
16:45:38 <markus_sabadello> drummond: Wanted to Eric_Siow 's really good question. It's easy to look at a registry with ~114 registered methods and seeing divergence. I want to make it clear that comparing DID methods to URIs/URNs, that comparison makes sense in some parts (URI schemes, URN namespaces, DID methods), but they are also different.
16:46:38 <dbuc> +1 to Drummond
16:46:46 <markus_sabadello> drummond: This design was intentional. Every DID method is an attempt to provide a verifiable identifier using any combination of cryptography and VDR. There are many ways of doing that. We wanted to accelerate and standardize the competition. We built an abstraction layer on top of all of them, that's the primary reason of the specification.
16:46:47 <nms> We have a similar challenge working with the sea of cryptographic algorithms. Different algorithms have different purposes so they are grouped by intended function. Beyond that specs need to define negotiation of which algorithm to use.
16:46:50 <manu> +1 to what Drummond is saying.
16:47:02 <dbuc> q+
16:47:07 <markus_sabadello> drummond: We want the market to choose and let the best DID methods rise to the top. This is different from encouraging divergence.
16:47:26 <brent> zakim, close the queue
16:47:26 <Zakim> ok, brent, the speaker queue is closed
16:47:45 <markus_sabadello> Eric_Siow: Can you standardize the ones that have some objective measure (e.g. widely implemented and use), vs those that are not widely used could be standardized later.
16:48:43 <markus_sabadello> drummond: I wanted to talk about standardization. The existence of a standard (effort) associated with a DID method is another one of those objective criteria. I want to see W3C standardize more DID methods, but some DID methods are also going to happen elsewhere.
16:48:56 <markus_sabadello> drummond: I don't think you should HAVE to standardize a DID method.
16:49:12 <JoeAndrieu> +1 to decentralized innovation
16:49:29 <markus_sabadello> drummond: The marketplace can develop DID methods anywhere they want, but we want an objective process for adding them to the registry. If there is a standard, then we will have a way to point to it.
16:49:31 <rgrant> relevant DID Rubric issue to discuss standardization (whether or not the DID WG requires anything here): https://github.com/w3c/did-rubric/issues/63
16:49:48 <markus_sabadello> drummond: Once we improve the quality of the registry, that will help the market make its decisions.
16:49:52 <kdenhartog> +1 to not requiring them. It's worth stating to that while I believe a standards body can be a way to display quality it's not the only one. Another example metric that can help evaluate quality is number of implementations submitted to a test suite
16:49:56 <Orie> See the charter issue raised here: https://github.com/w3c/did-wg-charter/issues/17
16:49:56 <markus_sabadello> drummond: There are also many URI schemes.
16:50:03 <brent> ack manu
16:50:03 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to remind everyone that we wanted to optimize for registration, not high quality.
16:50:21 <kdenhartog> q+
16:50:35 <markus_sabadello> manu: We optimized the registry to learn early about DID methods that are being created. We wanted to know about DID methods that are being created.
16:50:56 <markus_sabadello> manu: We can provide signals in the registry that tell you whether or not a DID method has reached a certain level of maturity.
16:50:59 <jyasskin> The IETF has a history of putting too high a bar on acceptance to some of their registries, and I believe they mostly regret that. So +1 to manu.
16:51:11 <brent> ack Orie
16:51:15 <markus_sabadello> manu: I want to push back hard against making it harder for people to register DID methods. It should be easy to sort by criteria that matter to people.
16:51:16 <burn> +1, we want to ensure that experimental did methods can get registered
16:51:32 <dbuc> q-
16:51:32 <manu> not if we make it all optional for registration :)
16:51:36 <markus_sabadello> Orie: We can't sort on criteria, unless we require people to provide them, which will make it harder for people to register.
16:51:53 <manu> The only mandatory thing for registration is a spec that meets DID Core... everything else is optional.
16:51:56 <rgrant> q+ to support a column/entry to note standardization work
16:51:59 <drummond> I mostly want to see the baseline criteria for registration be a v1.0 compliant DID method specification. All other registration attributes should be optional.
16:52:28 <markus_sabadello> Orie: The challenge I see is that the registry is attempting to do more than just being a registry. See JOSE/COSE which is simple. If we add criteria, it will not just be about adding a link to a spec, it will also about additional tasks for the editors.
16:52:29 <plh> --> https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#registries "The Registry Track"
16:52:50 <markus_sabadello> Orie: To some degree, the Rubric has begun to capture some of the things we were also envisioning for the registry.
16:53:18 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say it should be a simple litmus test of conformance
16:53:18 <drummond> +1 to the DID Spec Registries NOT being the place that you go to for advice and guidance on selection of DID methods. We want the market to compete on offering those services.
16:53:18 <markus_sabadello> Orie: It might be better to keep it a very boring registry, and refer to the Rubric for a better way to add comparision, sorting, etc.
16:53:31 <JoeAndrieu> q?
16:53:46 <rgrant> Orie: +1 to both adding a column allowing one to note a standards process underway (or achieved) in the registry, as well as to speaking to this more in the Rubric
16:53:50 <markus_sabadello> brent: I think we got some good data points. We seem to have agreement around a desire for registration to remain simple, to benefit those who are making those registrations happen (the editors)
16:54:11 <markus_sabadello> brent: But we do need some way of making the registry easier to consume. A number of directions were proposed, I think we will be able to come to consensus.
16:54:34 <drummond> Yes, I like the idea of adding a column for being able to point to one or more published evaluations against the Rubric.
16:54:37 <markus_sabadello> brent: Thanks all for coming, we had some great conversations. Next week we will be back to our regular schedule of meetings.
16:54:44 <Orie> maybe we can point from the registry to the rubric, instead of expanding the registry requirements, and move that consideration to the rubric.
16:54:45 <markus_sabadello> brent: We invite you to join the DID WG.
16:54:51 <rgrant> thanks everyone!
16:54:54 <markus_sabadello> brent: Thanks to scribes, thanks to all, see you next week.
16:55:15 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:55:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/10/28-did-minutes.html ivan
16:55:18 <rgrant> ty markus_sabadello
16:55:23 <rgrant> ty drummond
16:55:59 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
16:55:59 <RRSAgent> I see no action items