15:33:30 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
15:33:30 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/11/16-did-irc
15:33:32 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:33:33 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
15:33:36 <ivan> Meeting: DID WG Telco
15:33:36 <ivan> Chair: burn
15:33:36 <ivan> Date: 2021-11-16
15:33:36 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Nov/0005.html
15:33:36 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2021-11-16: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Nov/0005.html
15:33:37 <agendabot> ivan, sorry, I did not recognize any agenda in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Nov/0005.html
15:56:17 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #did
15:56:53 <burn> burn has joined #did
15:57:34 <rgrant> rgrant has joined #did
15:59:34 <justin_r> justin_r has joined #did
15:59:37 <justin_r> present+
15:59:45 <brent> brent has joined #did
16:00:17 <ivan> present+
16:00:25 <ivan> Chair: brent
16:00:26 <burn> present+
16:00:40 <brent> present+
16:00:41 <dlongley> regrets+
16:00:43 <ivan> present+ brent
16:00:49 <ivan> present+ TallTed
16:00:58 <ivan> present+ manu
16:01:04 <ivan> present+ rgrant
16:02:10 <ivan> present+ dmitriz
16:02:10 <ivan> present+ drummond
16:02:24 <drummond> drummond has joined #did
16:02:30 <drummond> present+
16:02:36 <drummond> Unfortunately I can't scribe today
16:02:52 <pam> pam has joined #did
16:03:13 <burn_> burn_ has joined #did
16:04:16 <brent> scribe+ justin_r
16:04:34 <manu> q+ to talk about DID FO request from AC Forum
16:04:37 <justin_r> Brent: agenda review: DID spec registry PR's, DID spec registry issues
16:04:39 <agropper> agropper has joined #did
16:04:44 <justin_r> ... anything else?
16:04:45 <brent> ack manu
16:04:45 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to talk about DID FO request from AC Forum
16:04:56 <agropper> present+
16:04:57 <justin_r> manu: recent email to AC form about formal objections
16:05:08 <manu> This is a recent request on the AC wrt. DID Core FOs: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2021OctDec/0301.html
16:05:48 <justin_r> ... one of the objectors says we aren't getting anywhere with sustainability discussion re: proof of work; suggesting that DID WG deal with that
16:06:02 <Orie> Orie has joined #did
16:06:04 <justin_r> ... DID WG should recharter to include that
16:06:07 <Orie> present+
16:06:16 <justin_r> s/we aren't/the AC group isn't/
16:06:33 <ivan> present+ juancaballero
16:06:53 <justin_r> ... I don't think there's a clear message back to the AC forum around what this group thinks about working on DID method or more-decentralized methods than did:key and did:web or making "debating proof of work" a charter objective
16:07:09 <justin_r> ... could provide personal opinion, but we should get back to the AC
16:07:29 <justin_r> ... we need to give concrete guidance back about this direction from the AC
16:07:34 <Orie> q+
16:07:54 <brent> ack Orie
16:07:59 <drummond> q+ to ask what Manu is recommending we do
16:08:06 <justin_r> Orie: avoiding engaging on proof of work debate on AC list
16:08:17 <pam>  present+
16:08:22 <justin_r> ... don't know what constructively will come from it, will echo what I said on charter
16:08:24 <ivan> present+ markus_sabadello
16:08:32 <juancaballero> +
16:08:35 <justin_r> ... don't think the next version of this WG should comment on proof of work at all
16:08:35 <juancaballero> +1
16:08:45 <justin_r> ... we have more important issues to focus on, like interoperability weak points
16:09:08 <justin_r> ... would love for folks to say the same thing, that this WG won't debate proof of work
16:09:14 <brent> +1
16:09:22 <manu> q+ to note that not engaging ends up having things thrust upon the group that we don't want to do, and proposed suggestion forward.
16:09:28 <justin_r> ... should come from multiple people
16:09:37 <rgrant> +1 to not debating PoW
16:09:38 <brent> ack drummond
16:09:38 <Zakim> drummond, you wanted to ask what Manu is recommending we do
16:09:39 <justin_r> ... "we believe the WG should not use its charter to debate proof of work"
16:09:53 <justin_r> drummond: agree with that; was wondering what manu was recommending in terms of action
16:10:08 <justin_r> ... looked at comment, this guy is new, doesn't know the context of AC discussion
16:10:23 <justin_r> ... manu, are you suggesting we designate someone to say "no"?
16:10:38 <justin_r> manu: two things, but first -
16:10:43 <brent> ack manu
16:10:43 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that not engaging ends up having things thrust upon the group that we don't want to do, and proposed suggestion forward.
16:10:55 <justin_r> ... not engaging on mailing list results in things being thrust upon us that we don't want
16:11:01 <justin_r> ... we need to be clear and consistent
16:11:05 <Orie> say it here: https://github.com/w3c/did-wg-charter/issues/17
16:11:10 <drummond> +1 to making sure we send a clear message on the AC mailing list
16:11:10 <Orie> and link to it on the mailing list.
16:11:13 <ivan> present+ kristina
16:11:16 <TallTed> "Perhaps the W3C should charter a specific PoW WG... "
16:11:28 <justin_r> ... we need to say no each time someone brings it up
16:11:40 <pam> q+
16:11:47 <justin_r> ... two things: we are not going to debate proof of work, we have other things to do, debates are happening elsewhere, we can cite the results when done
16:11:53 <burn_> +1 TallTed
16:12:03 <drummond> +1 to that being a WG position
16:12:07 <ivan> present+ cel
16:12:16 <brent> +1
16:12:38 <justin_r> ... second thing: group is trying to figure out what the right methods to standardize are, but are getting conflicting guidance from objectors
16:12:53 <justin_r> ... there is no solution we can propose to conflicting requirements
16:13:13 <justin_r> ... we need the formal objection resolved before we can form a path forward
16:13:30 <justin_r> ... by taking these positions, we put the work back on the formal objection process; we can't make any decisions here b/c we'll just be overruled
16:13:44 <justin_r> third thing (of 2): we need to propose something that should be reasonable
16:13:46 <brent> q?
16:13:55 <brent> ack pam
16:14:19 <ivan> +1 to pam
16:14:26 <justin_r> pam: would like to see us officially acknowledge proof of work as orthogonal; this is meant to translate documents on any substrates
16:14:31 <juancaballero> duly noted
16:14:34 <brent> +1, it's not that it's not worth our time, it's that it is completely out of scope
16:14:43 <justin_r> ... should be acceptible to write a DID doc written on the wall in the blood of your enemies
16:15:00 <drummond> +1 to reinforcing that the specifics of ANY DID method are out-of-scope for the WG
16:15:23 <justin_r> ... as far as interop, we need to find our own way; we need these elements; implementors should have one unanchored implementation that works as soon as they install
16:15:28 <TallTed> +1000 to offering that DID method for FO Panel & AC consideration!
16:15:40 <justin_r> ... don't think we should let satisfying the objectors be the goals; should think about how we can make DID something the Web world can adopt
16:15:40 <manu> I agree with everything Pam just said. :)
16:15:44 <brent> q?
16:15:44 <rgrant> +1 to everything Pam said
16:15:50 <Orie> +1 Pam
16:15:57 <burn_> +1 Pam
16:15:59 <drummond> +1 that our goal should NOT be to let the objectors tell us what we need to do, but defend OUR view of what needs to be done
16:16:02 <manu> q+ to propose what the next charter should be about.
16:16:06 <justin_r> brent: having discussed it here is good, seeing where we agree; taking comments to mailing list is next step
16:16:16 <brent> ack manu
16:16:18 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to propose what the next charter should be about.
16:16:19 <justin_r> ... or alternatively we could take proposals and make resolutions and link to the AC group
16:16:20 <ivan> q+
16:16:29 <justin_r> manu: unfortunately, may want to get it as a resolution in the group
16:16:41 <justin_r> ... going back to the AC emptyhanded isn't good, it;s like "no we don't want to do that"
16:16:48 <justin_r> ... vs "here's what we feel is reasonable"
16:17:18 <rgrant> q+ to say there is missing due process (with clarity on burden of proof)
16:17:18 <justin_r> ... it's going to take time to work through this; we believe standardizing did:key and did:Web has merit; demonstrates all the features in did core; will work on those as notes
16:17:41 <justin_r> ... b/c it is not clear what the AC really wants at this point; w/o clear direction, that is what we think is a realistic goal
16:17:51 <justin_r> ... rechartered group is maintenance WG that will work on notes
16:17:55 <brent> or maybe ccg work items?
16:18:11 <brent> ack ivan
16:18:15 <justin_r> ... once it's clear what's in scope, we can do that
16:18:24 <justin_r> ivan: worried about making formal resolution
16:18:46 <justin_r> ... this is not a formal request, it was just raised in discussion
16:19:06 <justin_r> ... may be seen as overreacting; perfectly OK that someone or someones answer to the AC
16:19:19 <justin_r> ... OK to refer to the minutes of this meaning, which will be public
16:19:27 <justin_r> ... formal resolution has a weight which we should not do right now
16:20:23 <justin_r> ... another thing: I'm a little worried about rechartering; rechartering wakes up various parties; could say we could standardize methods if there's agreement on what to standardize; leave it open, we could find none that people agree on
16:20:52 <brent> q?
16:20:55 <justin_r> ... realize this is an open ended charter that AC doesn't always like, might need good english crafting to do that; be prepared to not force us into rechartering in 1/2 yr
16:20:57 <brent> ack rgrant
16:20:57 <Zakim> rgrant, you wanted to say there is missing due process (with clarity on burden of proof)
16:21:03 <TallTed> That mailing list may be informal discussion, and so not worth full engagement, but it is likely to feed into the formal discussion, and so be worth some response from us.  I'm also wondering about how and when we (and how many of us) will be formally engaging in presentation to the FO Counci.
16:21:05 <drummond> I am a huge proponent of letting DID method authors drive their own standardization efforts and NOT make that the job of a rechartered DID WG
16:21:10 <manu> q+ to note that "maintenance" is not vague.
16:21:30 <TallTed> s/FO Counci/FO Council/
16:21:46 <justin_r> rgrant: looking at email, what's the accusation? if we needed to respond, we should respond to specific accusation
16:21:57 <justin_r> ... "this cannot be sustainable or interoperable"
16:22:09 <justin_r> ... sustainable is the wrong goal, instead look to ethical web
16:22:23 <justin_r> ... maybe we throw the request back and say there are problems with the request
16:22:43 <burn_> s/ethical web/ethical web principles that conflict with each other/
16:22:48 <brent> ack manu
16:22:48 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that "maintenance" is not vague.
16:23:02 <justin_r> manu: retract request to have formal anything, just point to the minutes
16:23:05 <justin_r> ... we have thoughts
16:23:42 <justin_r> ... ivan, about it being nebulous about future did methods: main charter will not be nebulous, it will be maintenance
16:23:50 <drummond> +1 to using this discussion as sufficient backing for responses on the AC list
16:24:04 <justin_r> ... one of the things we will look out is whether we can get W3C to come together to standardize methods; if we get there we can recharter to standardize those
16:24:10 <ivan> q+\
16:24:15 <pam> q+
16:24:20 <cel> scribe+
16:24:21 <brent> ack \
16:24:24 <manu> scribe+
16:24:34 <manu> ivan: I'm almost where you say you are, manu -- that's fine. What I want to avoid is rechartering.
16:24:57 <rgrant> s/the wrong goal/the wrong goal if held in isolation/
16:25:28 <manu> ivan: What we have to realize, maintenance WG is a term that we use that is not a part of the process, this is a WG. I'd like to find a way to have "ok, it's a maintenance WG that leaves it open wrt. whether a good target is found w/o rechartering" -- not something we have to figure out right now. We should try to do that w/o saying we'll recharter to do that.
16:25:49 <brent> Topic: DID Registries PR review
16:25:57 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc
16:25:57 <manu> q+
16:26:09 <brent> ack pam
16:26:13 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #did
16:26:15 <justin_r> pam: not sure if I want to throw a monkey wrench
16:26:37 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #DID
16:26:41 <justin_r> ... one question, if we move to maintenance mode tomorrow, we end up with several specs that are still in draft mode; what are the paths for those documents?
16:26:48 <manu> q+ we'd be maintaining all of them?
16:26:50 <markus_sabadello> present+
16:26:55 <brent> ack manu
16:27:15 <justin_r> manu: my expectation is that anything we publish would be maintained; don't think we have anything except maybe registries that we intend to take any further than a note
16:27:17 <ivan> q+
16:27:29 <justin_r> ... when this group ends, we'll have a req for did core and a couple of notes
16:27:40 <justin_r> ... what drafts are you concerned about?
16:27:58 <justin_r> pam: status list $year spec, as an example
16:28:07 <manu> q+ to statuslist is a VC spec...
16:28:08 <justin_r> ... also did:web is a draft, no path to maturity for that
16:28:15 <brent> ack ivan
16:28:15 <Orie> Pam, you appear to be referring to W3C CCG work items.
16:28:25 <drummond> Right
16:28:25 <Orie> those are not maintained by this WG.
16:28:53 <justin_r> ivan: there's a n issue if we move on to formal registries or not
16:29:06 <justin_r> ... no such thing as a maintenance group, only a WG that says what's in scope
16:29:46 <justin_r> ... we are running ahead b/c I would be overly happy if all we need to find is what to do with did charter
16:29:48 <brent> q?
16:29:51 <brent> ack manu
16:29:51 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to statuslist is a VC spec...
16:29:56 <justin_r> ... that's not where we are
16:30:21 <justin_r> manu: those are CCG specifications (like statuslist), different group, different charter
16:30:34 <Orie> Note the "w3c-ccg"... https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-status-rl-2020
16:30:34 <justin_r> ... we'd like to move did:Web forward, can't move it forward unless AC wants us to
16:30:36 <dmitriz> wait, why is did:web this group? That's also ccg
16:30:49 <justin_r> ... just because it's not rec-track yet doesn't mean we can't work on it
16:30:53 <justin_r> ... just can't put it in scope in charter
16:30:56 <dmitriz> q+
16:31:02 <Orie> Note the "w3c-ccg": https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-method-web
16:31:12 <dmitriz> q-
16:31:13 <dmitriz> ah ok
16:31:14 <Orie> neither are under this wg.
16:31:18 <justin_r> brent: happy to have this come back to a future group
16:31:28 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pulls
16:31:30 <manu> q+ to note PRs that went in.
16:31:37 <brent> ack manu
16:31:37 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note PRs that went in.
16:32:03 <justin_r> manu: all pull requests about changing format, new process, new process -- all is in
16:32:06 <justin_r> ... build process has been fixed
16:32:26 <Orie> q+ to address the existing entries that are targeting the old process.
16:32:28 <justin_r> brent: taking us through new and improved link
16:32:36 <justin_r> ... going to skip did method registration PRs
16:32:46 <pam> Sorry to open Pandora's box - I brought it up because the charter-per-spec administrative burden is something I think we all need to be thinking of from an industry perspective
16:33:00 <justin_r> Orie: want to be clear about what editors are supposed to do against PRs vs old process
16:33:11 <justin_r> ... currently requesting changes, have discussed making changes manually for them
16:33:15 <brent> ack Orie
16:33:15 <Zakim> Orie, you wanted to address the existing entries that are targeting the old process.
16:33:18 <justin_r> ... would suggest point people to the new process
16:33:26 <justin_r> ... need to handle it consistently
16:33:31 <justin_r> ... we get a lot of them every week
16:33:34 <manu> q+ to not make it difficult for folks that have already gotten through
16:33:38 <manu> q-
16:34:10 <justin_r> manu: want to make it easier for those that are already through, like did:id
16:34:16 <justin_r> brent: PR 341
16:34:18 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/341
16:34:26 <markus_sabadello_> markus_sabadello_ has joined #did
16:34:47 <justin_r> ... changes requested, what's the status, how does it relate?
16:35:05 <manu> q+ to note that this PR is overtaken by events.
16:35:14 <justin_r> rgrant: status provisional column is solved; did:we label old links? I don't know
16:35:15 <brent> ack manu
16:35:15 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that this PR is overtaken by events.
16:35:16 <TallTed> https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/341#pullrequestreview-797802836 -- overtaken by other events
16:35:27 <justin_r> manu: I think this PR is overtaken by events, no longer have a status column
16:35:36 <justin_r> ... that's what the group agreed to, suggest we close this PR
16:35:42 <justin_r> rgrant: will close
16:35:52 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/346
16:35:56 <justin_r> brent: PR 346
16:36:22 <Orie> q+
16:36:37 <brent> ack Orie
16:36:55 <justin_r> Orie: I think this PR made a lot of changes all at once; changes have been requested for some time
16:37:01 <manu> q+
16:37:09 <justin_r> ... PR seems dead to me, suggest it gets split up into smaller PRs
16:37:14 <brent> ack manu
16:37:17 <justin_r> ... will comment on issue
16:37:30 <justin_r> manu: kyle said people are ready to re-review, but I broke things
16:37:58 <justin_r> ... feel like I agree w/orie, don't know if this PR could really be ... too much going on in this PR
16:38:03 <justin_r> ... all changes probably need to be made
16:38:22 <justin_r> ... would be OK with doing a re-review and get agreement to merge it
16:39:13 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/367
16:39:20 <manu> q+
16:39:26 <brent> ack manu
16:39:39 <justin_r> manu: meant to be a thought exercise about other fields; 3 new fields
16:39:52 <justin_r> ... one was implementation, one was conformance report, third was rubric evaluation
16:40:00 <justin_r> ... agreement that we dont want rubric evaluation
16:40:12 <Orie> q+ to express feelings about optional registry fields...
16:40:22 <justin_r> ... link to conformance report is objective, passes or doesn't
16:40:30 <justin_r> ... would like to see an array for implementations
16:40:58 <justin_r> ... two new fields are optional fields that can be filled out when people do a registration
16:41:02 <brent> ack Orie
16:41:04 <Zakim> Orie, you wanted to express feelings about optional registry fields...
16:41:13 <justin_r> Orie: don't feel good about optional fields, any optional fields
16:41:26 <justin_r> ... of the fields proposed, I think implementations is most useful and other ones are less useful
16:41:34 <justin_r> ... question whether this is really the right place to add this information
16:41:54 <manu> q+ to note how not having enough information triggered FOs in the first place.
16:41:55 <justin_r> ... did method spec, already a required URL, we could suggest that people add these links in their document
16:42:02 <TallTed> q+ to wonder about one issue/PR per added field, and to ask about who can add to such an array field as implementations
16:42:06 <manu> q- later
16:42:22 <justin_r> ... would rather see us have one URL and link out to other areas
16:42:23 <brent> ack TallTed
16:42:23 <Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to wonder about one issue/PR per added field, and to ask about who can add to such an array field as implementations
16:42:38 <justin_r> -1 to having a linktree style URL as Orie suggests
16:42:53 <justin_r> TallTed: adding fields like this should be one per PR, they are vastly different
16:43:00 <manu> s/-1 to having/justin_r: -1 to having/
16:43:16 <rgrant> +1 to not including blessed implementaions in registry
16:43:20 <justin_r> ... who gets to update it? if method author only, they get to bless what's listed here
16:43:30 <brent> ack manu
16:43:30 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note how not having enough information triggered FOs in the first place.
16:43:33 <justin_r> ... this feels like more of a registry thing than intended
16:43:36 <pam> +1 to the concerns about maintenance of implementations links over time in the registry
16:43:48 <justin_r> manu: lumped them all together to generate discussion
16:43:54 <Orie> yes, I am concerned about these new "optional" fields.
16:44:07 <drummond> I feel strongly that registrants should be maintaining their own links in the registry.
16:44:27 <justin_r> ... there's a lack of information in the registry; it's useful to have information
16:44:43 <justin_r> ... v. concerned about an informational-only field; having a freeform way makes all information unstructured
16:45:01 <justin_r> ... hard to find information you're looking for, everything's formatted differently; linking to somewhere else, have no idea how it's organized
16:45:15 <justin_r> ... would like to link to things that we expect will exist for production did methods
16:45:32 <justin_r> ... implementations will exist, conformance report will exist
16:45:38 <kristina_> kristina_ has joined #did
16:45:38 <Orie> q+
16:45:39 <justin_r> ... can redo PR based on comments
16:45:42 <kristina_> q+
16:45:47 <brent> ack Orie
16:45:50 <justin_r> Orie: should do those as separate PRs
16:46:07 <rgrant> q+ to say that the Rubric could evolve to include links to handle registered methods
16:46:23 <manu> q+ I'll break them into separate PRs
16:46:26 <manu> q+ to I'll break them into separate PRs
16:46:30 <justin_r> ... other issues associated, like who gets to add implementation -- how do you handle when someone tries to remove an implementation?
16:46:42 <justin_r> ... optional fields come with tremendous editorial process and potential abuse
16:46:57 <justin_r> ... editors know how to handle situations w/new fields
16:47:04 <brent> ack kristina_
16:47:23 <justin_r> kristina_: we did agree not to make any value judgements in the registry
16:47:37 <justin_r> ... trying to address objectors confusion: don't think this fields would help
16:47:47 <justin_r> ... would rather keep this simple, it's just a registry, you make the decision
16:48:00 <Orie> +1 to keeping the registry simple... do the work to make did methods great elsewhere.
16:48:12 <brent> ack rgrant
16:48:12 <Zakim> rgrant, you wanted to say that the Rubric could evolve to include links to handle registered methods
16:48:34 <justin_r> rgrant: not sure if rubric is intended to collect evalutations that refer to method by topic, but a good place to consider that feature
16:48:40 <kristina_> rubric was an example
16:48:43 <justin_r> ... someone exploring did method could search for implementations w/evaluations on rubric
16:48:53 <pam> q+ to ask who we expect to be consulting the registry
16:48:53 <brent> ack manu
16:48:54 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to I'll break them into separate PRs
16:49:04 <justin_r> manu: will break these into separate PRs, expecting everything to fail
16:49:13 <brent> ack pam
16:49:13 <Zakim> pam, you wanted to ask who we expect to be consulting the registry
16:49:22 <justin_r> pam: quesiton becomes: who do we expect to be referencing the registry?
16:49:33 <justin_r> ... do we expect it to be end-users? verifiers? implementors of did methods?
16:49:40 <dmitriz> +1, mainly intended for implementors
16:49:44 <justin_r> ... my guess is the last, generally this is meant to namespace and ensure de-dupulication
16:49:51 <drummond> q+
16:49:55 <brent> ack drummond
16:49:56 <rgrant> +1 to say registry is for implementors
16:49:57 <Orie> Who is this registry for: https://www.iana.org/assignments/cbor-tags/cbor-tags.xhtml ? :)
16:50:05 <dmitriz> or rather, main audience -- implementers, and formal objecters. :)
16:50:34 <justin_r> drummond: it's a namespace, one we tried to avoid but had to establish it
16:50:57 <justin_r> ... W3C finally has a formal registry capability
16:51:22 <ivan> q+
16:51:29 <justin_r> ... what we should be looking at to become a formal registry
16:51:47 <brent> ack ivan
16:52:47 <justin_r> ivan: all the details for registries are coming soon, this group is a guinea pig
16:52:52 <drummond> Oh no! Another guinea pig!!!
16:53:12 <justin_r> ... once we have the new process settled, all the rest will come after that
16:53:29 <manu> q+ to cry about Candidate Registry (CRY).
16:53:31 <justin_r> ... had a similar discusison with the rubric document
16:54:00 <brent> ack manu
16:54:00 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to cry about Candidate Registry (CRY).
16:54:12 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/369
16:54:13 <justin_r> manu: don't want to guinea pig the group through candidate registry
16:54:13 <drummond> I suggest we put the Candidate Registry process discussion in a subsequent call
16:54:22 <markus_sabadello_> q+
16:54:32 <brent> ack markus_sabadello_
16:54:56 <justin_r> markus_sabadello_: "did:id" sounds generic or universal, but in fact is central/universal
16:55:13 <justin_r> ... PR adds requirement that name of extension should give a hint to what it is
16:55:18 <TallTed> +1 did:id is problematic, but we failed to ban it (and others like it). :-(
16:55:28 <Orie> ^
16:55:30 <manu> q+ to note guidance is a value judgement to a degree
16:55:30 <justin_r> ... eg property called "my_property" wouldn't be indicative
16:55:36 <brent> ack manu
16:55:37 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note guidance is a value judgement to a degree
16:55:48 <justin_r> manu: agree with intent, concerned that this is another value judgement
16:55:52 <markus_sabadello_> q+
16:55:59 <justin_r> ... editors need to make a judgement
16:56:25 <justin_r> +q
16:56:35 <brent> ack markus_sabadello_
16:56:43 <justin_r> ... want to find a way to not register crazy properties but don't want it ot be a value judgement
16:56:44 <pam> all you have to do is normatively define "crazy" and we're fine
16:57:02 <justin_r> markus_sabadello_: not a value judgement, it's just a bad name regardless of whether it's centralized or not
16:57:22 <brent> ack justin_r
16:57:23 <rgrant> q+ this battle will be won when no one looks at DIDs
16:57:34 <rgrant> q+ to say this battle will be won when no one looks at DIDs
16:58:03 <manu> justin_r: I have some experience being designated expert on IANA stuff, the Editors of this stuff need to be prepared to say "No" to people registering and sometimes that "No" needs to be "this isn't a good name for the thing you're doing" or "you haven't specified this enough"
16:58:15 <TallTed> did:shortname isn't defined to require any meaning (and they should be treated as opaque), but english (and probably some other languages) have generic-looking strings that will imply things that aren't accurate, such as more genericity, as in this case
16:58:41 <brent> +1 TallTed
16:58:51 <manu> justin_r: I had to turn something away recently, they had defined a CBOR thing, but it was a JSON thing, they had to spell out exactly what the data mapping was -- this is the job of the designated experts... effectively "don't pick a dumb name" is something that should be applied by designated Editors/experts of this registry.
16:58:55 <brent> ack rgrant
16:58:55 <Zakim> rgrant, you wanted to say this battle will be won when no one looks at DIDs
16:59:06 <justin_r> rgrant: appreciate Justin's perspective, wish we'd thought of this earlier
16:59:08 <kristina_> +1 Justin to saying "no" to what does not make sense by the registry editors' common sense and the understanding of the industry.
16:59:19 <justin_r> ... battle will be one when nobody looks at DIDs
16:59:26 <dmitriz> +1 ryan
16:59:44 <justin_r> brent: parting shots?
16:59:48 <justin_r> manu: what are we doing with this PR?
16:59:54 <justin_r> brent: as of now it's ongoing
17:00:00 <justin_r> ... encourage continued chiming in
17:00:06 <Orie> please use the "approve" or "request changes" feature of github when reviewing PRs.
17:00:49 <justin_r> ... no meeting next week
17:00:58 <justin_r> ... 🦃
17:01:12 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:01:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/11/16-did-minutes.html ivan
17:01:29 <drummond> HA!
17:01:58 <drummond> No, you're the best!
17:02:28 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
17:02:28 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been justin_r, ivan, burn, brent, TallTed, manu, rgrant, dmitriz, drummond, agropper, Orie, juancaballero, pam, markus_sabadello, kristina, cel
17:02:31 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:02:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/11/16-did-minutes.html Zakim
17:02:34 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:02:38 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did
17:02:40 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
17:02:40 <RRSAgent> I see no action items