Meeting minutes
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to request did-extensions registration issue.
manu: Request to discuss a registration issue for did:tdw and it has been challenged on the name. Need the group to provide an opinion. Suggest timebox.
wip: Proposal for the extensions registry first, and if there is time, we'll look at that topic.
swcurran: Michael Herman introduced himself -- not on IIRC. Outline of past contributions to the DID Core spec. Founder of Web 7.0 and curator of the Trusted Digital Web.
markus_sabadello: Nice to see you Michael -- recall your work on DID Resolution. There are some old issues you opened in DID Resolution and some have been closed after comment and non-response. Michael Herman should look at those close issues to see if any should be reopened.
Announcements
swcurran: Michael's response -- I see the issues when closed and have not seen a need to respond, but will make an effort to.
Announcement
Wip: Gabe Cohen was included in those affected by the TBD shutdown, but will remain as Invited Expert.
<Wip1> w3c/
Wip: Please review the above issue -- Abstract Data Model.
DID Core PRs
Wip1: Updoming call on that Abstract Data Model date to be added
<manu> Open PRs on DID Core: https://
Open PRs
manu: Agreed that we would focus on the "big issues" first -- see what the different classes of changes are -- 1, 2, 3, 4. DID WG charter limits the class of changes.
manu: Substantial rewrite of the DID Core is coming based on the Controller Document spec/WG
manu: But that is later.
w3c/did-core#867
manu: Media types are an issue. Proposal of 3 part media types was not accepted.
… New context for the JSON-LD context to align with Controller Document
w3c/did-core#868
manu: Discussion about Issue 863 -- can we use a single media type. Lots of IETF / IANA discussions, but agreed on one media type "DID", for JSON, and then if CBOR or other is needed, add that DID+CBOR.
… any objections?
… none - yay!
w3c/did-core#869
manu: Issue 838. About media types and how precise apps need to be. Layers on 868. If apps are misconfigured, and they use the wrong media-type, it might be OK to process the document -- e.g. if they just use "json". Prefer that the right media type is used, but if not, the consuming software **MAY** proceed and try to process the document -- e.g.
… look for context, lint the DIDDoc, etc. Suggest don't throw errors.
… or throw an error if your app wants to.
… small typo to be addressed, but once fixed, merge will happen
… all PRs will be merged. Awesome!
DID Resolution Issue Processing
markus_sabadello: Some issues about initial feedback -- 80, 81, 82, 83 -- these have been addressed and so these initial ones can be closed. Marked pending closed.
… 34, 35, 60 are also pending closed.
Wip: Reminder -- please review the pending closed ones, and make sure they have been addressed. Last chance.
<manu> +1 to closing
<manu> The group discussed them, sub issues were created, we don't need the tracking issues anymore.
<markus_sabadello> w3c/
w3c/did-resolution#96
markus_sabadello: Discussion about the terms primary and secondary resources and URL de-referencing. Tried to address the confusion mentioned in a recent WG call. Opened today -- please review.
markus_sabadello: Good first issues -- 4 have been highlighted. It would be good to get others contributing to the spec, so we'd like that to happen. Please contribute!!
<Wip> Issues here - https://
markus_sabadello: A label has been put on the issues.
<markus_sabadello> w3c/
markus_sabadello: There are some others (???) -- issues have agreement on how to address, so someone could take those and put the PR in.
w3c/did-resolution#17
markus_sabadello: How DID resolution relates to DID Core.
… how a DID gets to the related DID Doc.
Wip: currently assigned to Steve McCown -- issue 17 and 18. Plans to look at those before the next meeting.
w3c/did-resolution#19
markus_sabadello: 19 is not assigned -- explain the target audience of the specification -- architects, developers.
… To be assigned to Michael Herman.
w3c/did-resolution#91
markus_sabadello: 91 -- editorial change: separating out security and privacy sections -- have two sections vs. one.
Wip: Great one for putting in your first PR.
markus_sabadello: And an opportunity to be a contributor to the spec.
JoeAndrieu: I'll take it.
DID Extensions - DID Method Registry proposal
w3c/did-extensions#565
Wip: Goal -- proposal to be discussed and ideally agreed upon.
… At the bottom is the actual proposal we want to get to. "What is the first step we can take to a better approach for managing the registry?"
… suggestion is to add a "last updated" attribute to the entries.
… but is there more or something else that could/should be done. And then ping all entry owners to do a "proof of liveness"
manu: Short proposal -- can we put a "last_update_date" and people have a certain amount of time to refresh, and if they don't we only show the active ones, with a button that there expired ones. Goal is to address the criticism that there are too many "not active" registrations.
… we need to pick a time period (perhaps a year), and if you don't update the method in a year, the entry goes into a second list.
… that would reduce the list of default displayed methods to those that people are willing to do a PR on their method entry.
… we have in GitHub the last time that the entry was updated. And we can ping all the contacts. We can even automate the PRs that only change the date, but nothing else.
MichaelHerman: why is too many DID Methods a problem? These are identifiers, there are many identifiers, there are many identifier schemes. These should be like domain names. This idea of limiting the names seems weird.
manu: Many of these DID methods are not being developed. You are maintaining something that is dangerously misleading. In comparison to domain names -- you are required to keep those alive. Our bar is less, but the goal is the same. You have to keep your DID Method active.
KevinDean: Challenge is one of longevity. If a DID is used in signing something -- someone years from now should be able to find how to use a DID to verify the signature. If there are DID Methods that are unused and so we need a way to maintain the list in a better way.
<Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention that "dangerously misleading" exactly why a registry is a bad idea in the first place.
MichaelHerman: agree on keeping fresh and current. Reject wholeheartedly that someone thinks there are too many methods.
JoeAndrieu: It is innate that people will think it is "definitive". It is not -- it is just a list, a resource to find out about DID Methods. Knows about a DID Method that is used 10s of millions of time and not registered.
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to point to new PR: w3c/
<JoeAndrieu> +1 (no objections to proposal)
manu: Not hearing objections to the proposal.
<JoeAndrieu> -infinity to requiring a domain name
<Wip> PROPOSAL: Add a "lastUpdated" date to the DID Method registration to enable the ability to convey whether a DID Method is actively maintained in the list of DID Methods.
MichaelHerman: approach to resolve the collision issue.
<manu> +1
<Wip> +1
<swcurran> +1
<JoeAndrieu> +1
<markus_sabadello> +1
<swcurran> +1
<bigbluehat> +1
<TallTed> +1
RESOLUTION: Add a "lastUpdated" date to the DID Method registration to enable the ability to convey whether a DID Method is actively maintained in the list of DID Methods.
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to point to new PR: w3c/
w3c/did-extensions#586
manu: On Joe's point -- 593 was raised. Document still says "Official Registry" -- that is controversial -- so this changes the language, and so there is no language proposed -- "This is a list..." -- says nothing of a Registry. Please comment on the PR.
MichaelHerman: has prepared notes. Unfortunate about what has happened. That said Michael has been working on the Trusted Digital Web for the past ten years -- now called Web 7.0. Has decided to defend his unregistered trademark. Further, this is not the place to adjudicate trademark disputes -- comments made about that are
… irrelevant. This is between Michael's organization and whatever is the did:tdw organization. Raises some other situations that Michael things that he things are precedents.
… Michael plans to see this through. W3C needs to think about if it is complicit.
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to "patent and trademark issues" and "they're just people's opinions"
<JoeAndrieu> +1 to continue
manu: Need more time to talk through this. Request -- to be continued.
<JoeAndrieu> IANAL, but IMO, did:tdw is a valid trademark of did:tdw and not a valid trademark, registered or otherwise, of Michael Herman
manu: This became an issue when trademark issues were raised. There are a set of policies that kick in. This is the WG that owns the document and that means that they must be addressed here. If those goes the litigation path, there are lawyers that will have weigh in.
… Saying W3C is too broad -- need to be more specific about who Michael wants to engage in W3C.
… Up to DID Working group if there is no resolution on the PR.
Wip: To be continued. Need to close the call.
… Thanks all.
<pchampin> s|w3c/did-resolution#19|subtopic: w3c/did-resolution#19