16:00:15 RRSAgent has joined #did-topic 16:00:15 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/11/04-did-topic-irc 16:00:21 zakim, start the meeting 16:00:22 RRSAgent, make logs Public 16:00:23 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), brent 16:00:45 meeting: Decentralized Identifier Working Group Special Topic Call 16:00:51 chair: Brent Zundel 16:01:00 zakim, this is did 16:01:00 got it, brent 16:05:39 brent has changed the topic to: DID WG Special Call - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Oct/0036.html 16:05:52 scribe+ 16:05:55 Orie has joined #did-topic 16:06:03 brent: We have enough people today to have a discussion. 16:06:09 drummond: Sounds good. 16:06:12 drummond_ has joined #did-topic 16:06:16 Orie: I have notified some other people to come to this meeting. 16:06:19 Topic: DID Spec Registries 16:06:26 scribe+ 16:06:31 present+ 16:06:31 present+ cel-irc-only 16:06:41 present+ manu 16:06:55 https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues 16:06:57 brent: We are here to discuss Registries today 16:07:04 brent: That can serve as framework for conversation 16:07:08 Orie: let's to PRs first 16:07:12 brent: Ok, works for me. 16:07:13 subtopic: PRs 16:07:17 Orie: I can take us through them. 16:07:21 See https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pulls 16:07:30 Orie: Let's look at open PRs, oldest to most recent. 16:07:53 https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/336 16:07:54 Orie: Oldest PR is did:dnssec - I have changes requested, does not conform to minimum requirements for DID Method, would be helpful if other folks would review that specific PR. 16:07:55 q+ 16:08:09 ack manu 16:08:43 manu: what I have been doing, is not reviewing PRs with change requests.... if they address your change request, I don't review... 16:09:01 .. happy to review, but agree with the current review. 16:09:35 Orie: That's probably ok given we don't have a formal process that describes what we're supposed to be doing (as multiple editors) -- I like clear signals, bunch of changes signals more than just one. 16:09:52 Orie: If it's just me, maybe people don't need to listen? 16:09:52 q+ 16:09:57 Orie: We should document it a bit better. 16:10:20 ack manu 16:11:31 https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/340 16:11:32 kristina has joined #did-topic 16:11:37 present+ 16:11:40 Manu: People should read change requests as -- the Editors need it cleared for it to go in. 16:11:50 https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/341 16:11:55 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/341 16:12:08 mprorock_ has joined #did-topic 16:12:09 Manu: One Editor has a problem, we all (Editors) have a problem with it -- unless we specifically disagree in writing. 16:12:21 present+ kristina 16:12:25 present+ 16:12:28 present+ mprorock_ 16:12:53 zakim, who is here? 16:12:53 Present: brent, cel-irc-only, manu, kristina, mprorock_ 16:12:55 On IRC I see mprorock_, kristina, drummond_, Orie, RRSAgent, Zakim, brent, cel, ivan, dlongley, manu, shigeya, rhiaro 16:12:55 Orie: This is open by ryan, attempts to remove provisional status. Manu requested changes, there is a merge conflict, it has been overtaken as you noted, we should close and continue discussion on more recent PRs. 16:12:59 manu: +1 to that. 16:13:02 present+ Orie 16:13:07 present+ drummond_ 16:13:21 Orie: MikeP - please request changes, might have approved before merge conflits. 16:13:28 s/conflits/conflicts/ 16:13:36 mprorock: I will do that now. 16:13:41 https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/346 16:13:46 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/346 16:14:23 Orie: This was open by Kyle, lots of change requests on it, they remain unaddressed, we don't need to cover it -- close pull request or make changes. Someone should ping Kyle. 16:14:54 q? 16:14:55 q? 16:15:11 https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/350 16:15:17 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/350 16:15:39 Orie: Police Science Institute Republic of Korea -- multiple approvals, open for several days, this will cause merge conflicts... we are in the situation where we continue to take registry entries. 16:15:58 Orie: Since we're look at PR now, any objections to merging? 16:16:00 No objections 16:16:02 Orie: merging. 16:16:05 as long as you cool with conflicts 16:16:05 no objections 16:16:27 Orie: I didn't review it, but Mike and Manu did -- if there is an issue, we should talk about Editorial process. 16:16:32 https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/351 16:16:37 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/351 16:16:43 q+ to support the idea, but execute in different PR 16:16:54 Orie: There were changes requested by Manu, other approvals. 16:16:55 ack manu 16:16:55 manu, you wanted to support the idea, but execute in different PR 16:17:50 manu: seems like there is agreement to rename provisional, and address status of deprecated and withdrawn... seems the other PRs address the concerns better. 16:18:06 q+ 16:18:10 ... lets focus on the other PRs. 16:18:14 ack mprorock_ 16:19:04 q+ 16:19:04 mprorock: The concern I have is what's going on w/ overall approvals/objections -- overall perspective formal objections... one issue is that really, the charter doesn't support any sort of value assessment. Provisional was put in because we didn't think people would take it as a value judgement. 16:19:08 provisional was inherited along with the registry from ccg 16:19:35 mprorock: Let's get this in and then go from there. Let's get public facing docs corrected, some of this stuff might take longer. 16:19:35 q+ 16:20:21 ack kristina 16:21:14 q+ to note there are already open issues that allow us to merge and address later 16:21:18 kristina: The main reason to keeping status, deactivated, can you have a separate section "withdrawn methods" or "active methods" -- having that extra column seems like there is a value judgement, "we removed this"... I'll make a comment in the PR, just a comment, MikeJ couldn't make it to the call. 16:21:25 ack manu 16:22:53 if #356 is an option, then great 16:23:52 q+ 16:24:07 @manu - yes, understand 16:24:26 I think the FOs interpreted the provisional status as a value judgement, and then wondered why we weren't making better ones 16:24:40 q- 16:25:10 I removed from the q to try and give us more time to address other PRs 16:25:12 ack drummond_ 16:25:38 manu: I think we're converging on what we're doing in other PRs, data driven, let's focus on those, don't want a partial solution. 16:25:45 re Manu's interpretation of the objectors, having "provisional" does give an impression of incomplete value judgement 16:26:13 drummond: Yes, can we focus on other PRs -- getting this done and updated, here is how the registration process is going to work -- will make a difference w/ FO Council. 16:26:13 q? 16:26:16 so removing "status" while keeping withdrawn etc, would help clarify where we are making value judgement and where we are not 16:26:27 +1 kristina 16:26:28 Orie: Let's move on to next PR 16:26:34 https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/353 16:26:37 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/353 16:26:38 Orie: This is manu's draft, PR 353. 16:27:00 scribe+ 16:27:18 manu: PR 353 attempts to turn all the registry entries into JSON files 16:27:31 ...it changes everything into Orie's YAML file format 16:27:56 ...it renames "Provisional" to "Registered" and retains "Deprecated" and "Withdrawn" 16:28:10 https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/353/files#diff-c68755f9bc842d714659a770fdade9d566c926890c48f9448152b57d70f7b14d 16:28:29 ...that's an example of what a registration looks like. 16:28:43 ...it allows for a description field 16:28:50 ...it breaks out name and email 16:29:16 ...and it has links to implementation, test suite, and other self-asserted info 16:29:30 ...this PR does not address any review of the DID method specification 16:29:45 ...the PR itself is just to change the overall composition of the table 16:29:48 q+ to note that the PR is adding fields we don't have currently. 16:29:59 ...the spec, the name, and the status are required; all others are optional 16:30:08 burn_ has joined #did-topic 16:30:11 ...the purpose of this PR is just to redo the format of the current table 16:30:24 ...other PRs can then tackle the rendering challenge 16:30:26 ack Orie 16:30:26 Orie, you wanted to note that the PR is adding fields we don't have currently. 16:30:28 agropper has joined #did-topic 16:30:55 present+ 16:31:13 Orie: Most of what Manu said, I agree with. This PR adds some new empty fields to every entry, it also duplicates registry entries if we were to merge it w/o additional requirements. My two primary objections -- duplicates data w/o registration process, adds fields that don't exist today. 16:31:26 q? 16:32:01 Orie: I did attempt to address in future PRs. We might want to talk about what content should look like... registration changes in one shot. 16:32:21 q+ 16:32:23 +1 Orie 16:32:26 Orie: if I got it to the point, we could merge it in one shot. 16:32:31 q? 16:32:35 present+ 16:32:38 ack drummond_ 16:32:52 q+ to talk about differences? 16:33:02 drummond: Is fastest thing to do to talk about convergence plan? 16:33:10 ^ yeah, lets look at my PR and then talk about differences 16:33:13 drummond: Almost seems the same. 16:33:17 q? 16:33:24 ack manu 16:33:24 manu, you wanted to talk about differences? 16:33:32 manu: let's just talk about the differences 16:33:49 ...my opinions become stronger if I have to build/maintain the system 16:34:05 ...my suggestion is to talk about the end-result and work backwards 16:34:30 q+ to talk about what we want to see 16:34:39 ...let's make sure we clarify what the final result is, then the editors can figure out how to accomplish it 16:34:51 ...for example, is there a status field or not 16:35:01 ...do we want to provide a description field? 16:35:14 ...do we or do we not make value judgements? 16:35:41 ...the mechanics matter only to the editors, but the fields we see matter to everyone 16:35:58 +1 manu 16:36:04 ack Orie 16:36:04 Orie, you wanted to talk about what we want to see 16:36:04 q? 16:36:06 ...my suggestion is that we go "top down", deciding on what we want to show up, then let the editors tackle the tech details 16:36:27 Orie: I agree, my goal with these PRs was to have what folks see at the end of what people see w/o the word provisional in it. 16:36:31 q+ to suggest a process 16:37:11 Orie: MikeJ's PR accomplishes that goal as well -- rendering the same information we have today w/o misleading value judgements in the table... don't add any new fields, preserve existing talbe structure, rename provisional to registered -- first thing is what folks should see is not the word provisional, existing registry entries w/ no additional changes. 16:38:02 Orie: However, folks will need to see documentation on how to register a DID Method, it's not how process was before -- they will need instructions on how to add JSOn files -- my PR covers those instructions. Those are also a requirement, to summarize -- what folks should see is same information they see today w/o provisional showing up... they can read, update DID Method. 16:38:03 q+ 16:38:08 ack drummond_ 16:38:08 drummond_, you wanted to suggest a process 16:38:56 I will not approve a PR that mixes adding new fields with removing provisional 16:39:02 drummond: I understand, we're merging two different perspectives -- I hear Orie saying "let's do this one thing for what people see in the table" -- add new registration process -- Manu saying "Do we want to add additional fields?" and there is a 4th decision -- are we going to make any value judgement at all? My proposal is only one. 16:39:29 q+ to note not mixing all issues in one PR. 16:40:06 +1 manu... either we keep the existing process and remove provisional.... or we update the process, document it, and remove provional 16:40:11 drummond: What do we want to see? Are we making any value judgement about specification? I'm still proposing baseline value judgement, if you want to call it that. Conformance judgement. 16:40:13 I think we agree not making any value judgements in the registry 16:40:18 ack manu 16:40:18 manu, you wanted to note not mixing all issues in one PR. 16:40:18 q? 16:40:32 justin_r has joined #did-topic 16:40:38 making a decision to include a DID method to a registry is *different* from making value judgements 16:40:43 present+ justin_r 16:40:51 manu: the issue I have with Orie's PR is that it puts multiple issues together in one PR 16:41:07 ...if we just want to remove "Provisional", then let's just modify Mike's PR 16:41:17 ...but the other stuff still remains 16:41:20 +1 to pulling in Mike's PR as a first step 16:41:24 +1 to PRs per issue 16:41:31 ...I'd rather talk about those in "clean PRs" 16:41:34 let see if we can get Mikes PR merged on the call then. 16:41:39 ...one that talks about the fields 16:41:48 Removing withdrawn or deprecated entries might be considered as a separate change also 16:41:56 q+ to propose merging Mike's PR. 16:42:11 ...a second one that renders that data 16:42:26 -1 to splitting generatating and rendering... but also -1 to doing any of that until Mike's PR is merged 16:42:27 ...the third PR is specifically what are the new registration requirements 16:42:48 ...if we don't do it that way, it's going to be all tangled up in one PR that will take forever 16:42:58 ack Orie 16:42:58 Orie, you wanted to propose merging Mike's PR. 16:42:59 q? 16:43:16 ...so if we want to get rid of "Provisional", we should merge Mike's PR 16:43:38 q+ 16:43:39 but those issues don't retain the content 16:44:08 If withdrawn and deprecated is not defined in the spec, Mike's PR should be merged as-is 16:44:35 ack drummond_ 16:44:36 Orie: We have statuses -- I do agree with Manu, changing the process and ability to retain registry entries is hard - in favor of merging Mike's PR given that we have open issues to track what withdrawn/deprecated meant, so Mike's PR is acceptable to merge. We haven't lost any info, we can do so when we update process to how to handle deprecation, how to handle withdrawn. If it's possible -- we don't want to comingle that issue. 16:45:03 all status are not defined. 16:45:13 all undefined status should be removed first. 16:45:16 then defined 16:45:19 +1 Orie 16:45:22 then added back if wee can get agreement. 16:45:37 drummond: Sounds like we're converging -- to address what Kristina said -- withdrawn/deprecated not defined in DID Spec, provisional wasn't defined, status column exists, no official process -- inherited from CCG. 16:45:57 drummond: if we agree on that, would like to second manu's proposal, 3 separate PRs... what is the data, how are we going to render it, what is the registration process? 16:46:07 drummond: That's where we can tackle conformance judgement about spec or not. 16:46:15 q? 16:46:17 q+ 16:46:22 ack Orie 16:46:53 Orie: Comment on where we're converging, let's focus on Mike's PR. Manu said he'd object to merging if we can't preserve existing statuses. 16:46:54 q+ 16:46:54 q+ 16:47:00 ack manu 16:47:23 manu: I'm objecting that we should not just remove any registry information. 16:47:31 ...the latest PRs still preserve that info 16:47:45 ...there is a reason that info is in the registry 16:47:57 q+ 16:48:09 ...so the issue I'm concerned about is deleting info without checking with the registrant 16:48:27 q+ 16:48:29 ...if we want to reach out to them, we might be able to make that decision 16:48:50 ...that's the reason I wanting to keep it somewhere, such as a comment field 16:49:11 I don't agree with that. We have a valid, logical reason to remove and once we define the provisional, etc. we can re-add withdrawal etc. 16:49:14 ...so "change the status column to a Comments column" and then add those comments 16:49:15 -1 16:49:18 ack drummond_ 16:49:21 q? 16:49:53 Drummond: I know Dave Huseby would send a torpedo -- he was emphatic that status of did:git was withdrawn and he doesn't want anyone to misinterpret that. 16:50:26 Drummond: We'd have a big issue there. I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case. Let's not lose that information, we're going to end up replacing it with something, we just need to figure out how to go through this transition. Interested in Justin's -1. 16:50:28 ack kristina 16:51:34 Kristina: This will not set a bad precedent, valid logical reason to remove, not removing for the sake of removing. We could put a short note, do not use did:git -- make sure Dave doesn't have an issue -- once we handle the definition of withdrawn and deprecated, we can always clarify that. Incremental approach, most logical approach, merge Mike's PR as is. 16:51:39 ack justin_r 16:51:42 IMHO the info about the Deprecated and Withdrawn methods can be retained in notes outside the table. 16:51:45 q+ 16:51:50 we can just add a text saying do NOT use did:github instead of labeling it "provisional" 16:52:01 +1 to Drummond 16:52:39 justin: The more you push a registry to just be free text, the more it becomes not like a registry -- comment, read the bits, aspirational at best, disaster at worst... purpose of registry is get to code points that mean very specific things. That's the main point of a registry. 16:52:40 q+ 16:52:45 +1 justin, we ought not to fill the registry with fluff or undefined terms. 16:53:46 ack drummond_ 16:53:49 q? 16:53:51 justin: It is purview of the registry to manage contents, it is up to registry maintiners to make the determination, make best effort to reach out to people -- tell people you're changing it... don't dance around -- I can't change that text, it's not mine -- absurd, not taking control of data that this registry is meant to control. 16:53:51 +1 Justin 16:53:51 q? 16:54:37 drummond: I think it's fine, I do agree with Justin, registry controls what's there -- maintain fidelity with what's registered, status has never been fully defined, fine to move information that two methods have status information outside of table -- get that done, can start on steps manu has started earlier. 16:54:41 to be clear, I like a status column but with clearly defined values tied back to a spec definition 16:54:54 ack manu 16:55:31 https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/351 16:55:34 manu: Merge the PR, go ahead and get it done even though I object 16:55:38 q+ 16:56:04 ack drummond_ 16:56:37 q+ 16:56:50 Orie: Ok, merged. 16:56:53 q+ to talk about new pricess 16:56:53 ack drummond_ 16:56:57 process 16:57:38 drummond: Let's agree on next agenda -- process, conformance, not necessarily sequential... what can we get done between now and next call. 16:57:46 ack Orie 16:57:46 Orie, you wanted to talk about new pricess 16:58:17 q+ 16:58:28 ack drummond_ 16:58:31 orie: we should focus on registration requirements that Editors will comply with -- document what Editors will do in writing... that will impact fields that will be required to be submitted -- don't think we should start w/ shape of registry... behavior of Editors and what they're goin to be required to do. 16:58:45 Do as much of this as we can: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8126 16:59:05 For example, my PR defines how a new method is registered: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/356/files#diff-7eb74253de966f5a4176db7ca2d815a316da2b370c08ec7ad6137b7956d12c16R1 16:59:16 there is currently no written process. 16:59:31 drummond: While I understand that perspective, in the end the registry defines the needs of the market, how does registry best fulfill what it's chartered to do together with ... has to be a reasonable process. Orie has been point of that spear, knows what it will take... the process is not optimal for editors. 16:59:36 There is a written process :( 16:59:52 https://w3c.github.io/did-spec-registries/#the-registration-process 16:59:59 drummond: I meant, one that we'd agree to going forward. 17:00:01 not for reviewing did method registrations. 17:00:10 manu: agreed. 17:00:27 Thank you 17:00:40 zakim, who is here? 17:00:41 Present: brent, cel-irc-only, manu, kristina, mprorock_, Orie, drummond_, burn_, agropper, justin_r 17:00:43 brent: We'll come back around to this on the next call. 17:00:43 On IRC I see agropper, burn_, mprorock_, kristina, drummond_, Orie, RRSAgent, Zakim, brent, cel, dlongley, manu, shigeya, rhiaro 17:00:53 zakim, end the meeting 17:00:54 As of this point the attendees have been brent, cel-irc-only, manu, kristina, mprorock_, Orie, drummond_, burn_, agropper, justin_r 17:00:56 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 17:00:56 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/11/04-did-topic-minutes.html Zakim 17:00:59 I am happy to have been of service, brent; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 17:01:03 Zakim has left #did-topic 17:01:07 rsagent, goodbye 17:01:19 rrsagent, goodbye 17:01:19 I'm logging. I don't understand 'goodbye', brent. Try /msg RRSAgent help 17:01:23 rrsagent, bye 17:01:23 I see no action items