15:48:58 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
15:49:02 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/12/19-did-irc
15:49:04 <Wip> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:49:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/12/19-did-minutes.html Wip
15:49:14 <Wip> rrsagent, make logs public
15:49:29 <Wip> Meeting: Decentralized Identifier Working Group
15:49:37 <Wip> Chair: Will Abramson
15:49:41 <Wip> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2024Dec/0016.html
16:00:04 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
16:00:46 <Wip> present+
16:00:53 <markus_sabadello> present+
16:02:08 <Phil-ASU> Phil-ASU has joined #did
16:02:11 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
16:02:17 <Phil-ASU> present+
16:02:26 <decentralgabe> decentralgabe has joined #did
16:02:32 <JoeAndrieu> present+
16:02:38 <decentralgabe> present+
16:02:43 <swcurran> swcurran has joined #did
16:02:53 <pchampin> present+
16:02:54 <swcurran> present+
16:03:01 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #did
16:03:07 <KevinDean> present+
16:03:44 <smccown> smccown has joined #did
16:03:58 <pchampin> scribe+
16:04:48 <brentz> brentz has joined #did
16:05:24 <pchampin> agenda?
16:05:41 <pchampin> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2024Dec/0016.html
16:06:43 <pchampin> will: [announce agenda], any addition to suggest?
16:06:43 <smccown> PR #610 seems about done.  Could we review it?
16:07:24 <pchampin> smccown: w3c/did-extensions#610 is addressing the copyright issue we have been having
16:07:38 <pchampin> ... there has been good feedback.
16:07:40 <Wip> Topic: DID Extensions
16:07:54 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-extensions/pull/610
16:08:02 <pchampin> smccown: I looked at how ICANN is doing.
16:08:43 <pchampin> ... Everyone can register a domain. People with copyright must document it.
16:08:50 <manu> q+
16:08:56 <Wip> ack manu
16:08:59 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to mention international law
16:09:08 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
16:09:08 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention international law
16:09:10 <pchampin> wil: thanks for this work, smccown. Everyone, have a loot at the PR.
16:09:19 <pchampin> ... I think the PR is good, needs approval.
16:09:25 <pchampin> manu: +1
16:09:36 <manu> q+
16:09:44 <Wip> ack manu
16:09:49 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: I don't know what jurisdiction we should base ourselves on. Appart from that, this is good work.
16:09:54 <pchampin> manu: good question.
16:10:23 <pchampin> ... I think that we should focus on what can be enforced at an international level.
16:10:45 <pchampin> ... People have argued that you can not have a global trademark or an international patent.
16:11:27 <pchampin> ... That's not entirely true, even if some countries do not recognize what many do.
16:11:35 <TallTed> present+
16:11:45 <pchampin> ... I don't think we need to wait on clarity to accept the language, but I take your point.
16:12:18 <Wip> q?
16:12:25 <Phil-ASU> Would help if the language was reviewed by as Patent attorney?
16:12:40 <pchampin> ... See the discussion about allowing duplicates.
16:12:47 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-extensions/issues/569
16:12:48 <pchampin> ... If people are not in the same jurisdiction, then we would just keep the duplicate.
16:13:25 <ivan> present+
16:13:34 <pchampin> manu: this is the POLL we ran last week, with an addition suggested by Markus, to show people the order in which things were registered.
16:14:13 <smccown> present+
16:14:33 <pchampin> ... In case of a conflict, one of the party may go to a court, and come back to us with a court order to remove the entry (if the other party is in the same jurisdiction).
16:14:55 <pchampin> s/will:/Wip:
16:14:55 <smccown> q+
16:14:56 <Phil-ASU> +1 looks reasonable to me.
16:15:03 <Wip> ack smccown
16:15:08 <pchampin> smccown: I think that's a great proposal.
16:15:27 <decentralgabe> q+
16:15:30 <Wip> ack decentralgabe
16:15:37 <pchampin> ... From a practical perspective, what happens for implementers (e.g. the universal resolver) when there are duplicates?
16:15:49 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #did
16:15:59 <markus_sabadello> q+
16:16:01 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
16:16:04 <pchampin> decentralgabe: relates to my comments in the last meeting. If we are not the source of truth, other source of truths will emerge.
16:16:10 <bigbluehat> present+
16:16:20 <pchampin> ... I don't think we are the right people to be a source of truth.
16:16:41 <pchampin> markus_sabadello: that's why the registration order is important.
16:17:00 <pchampin> ... If you don't know which one to implement, implement the first one -- unless you have good reason to pick another one.
16:17:04 <CMickeyB9> CMickeyB9 has joined #did
16:17:09 <manu> q+
16:17:15 <Wip> ack manu
16:17:27 <pchampin> Wip: if we decide to support duplicates, there will be other issues to deal with.
16:17:53 <pchampin> i|Wip: if we decide to support duplicates, there will be other issues to deal with.|... we should provide some guidelines.
16:18:01 <pchampin> manu: +1 to markus_sabadello about providing guidelines.
16:18:05 <CMickeyB9> CMickeyB9 has left #did
16:18:23 <CMickeyB> CMickeyB has joined #did
16:18:39 <Wip> q?
16:18:49 <manu> PROPOSAL: Allow multiple registrations in the DID Methods extensions list but make it clear in the registration process that doing so is potentially problematic (due to interop concerns). Duplicates will have an issue raised to track the concern and noted in the list, with the registrants asked to address the concern. Duplicate registrations will be listed in chronological order by date of initial listing.
16:18:55 <ivan> +1
16:18:58 <Wip> +1
16:18:59 <Phil-ASU> +1
16:19:00 <manu> +1
16:19:01 <JoeAndrieu> +1
16:19:03 <swcurran>  +1
16:19:04 <TallTed> +1
16:19:05 <bigbluehat> +1
16:19:09 <decentralgabe> +0
16:19:15 <markus_sabadello> +1
16:19:33 <Wip> RESOLVED: Allow multiple registrations in the DID Methods extensions list but make it clear in the registration process that doing so is potentially problematic (due to interop concerns). Duplicates will have an issue raised to track the concern and noted in the list, with the registrants asked to address the concern. Duplicate registrations will
16:19:33 <pchampin> +0.5
16:19:33 <Wip> be listed in chronological order by date of initial listing.
16:19:53 <manu> q+ for next steps.
16:19:57 <Wip> ack manu
16:19:57 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to discuss next steps.
16:20:00 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to talk about rules
16:20:02 <pchampin> Wip: what are the next steps?
16:20:14 <pchampin> manu: I can raise a PR with updated text, so that we can review it.
16:20:43 <pchampin> ... Some mechanical things need to be changed. Entries will need a "first registered" date, which we can derive from the github history.
16:21:05 <pchampin> ... We need an issue marker for submissions and duplicates.
16:21:17 <pchampin> q+
16:21:36 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
16:21:36 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to talk about rules
16:21:39 <pchampin> ... The text must describe that we allow duplicates, with the appropriate caveat.
16:21:52 <manu> q+
16:21:56 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: wondering if the current rules as framed would satisfy the new Registry process?
16:21:59 <Wip> ack pchampin
16:23:08 <Wip> ack manu
16:23:26 <pchampin> pchampin: do we want to move to a W3C Registry?
16:23:32 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say we need to resolve this. I thought we HAD decided to make it a W3C registry, but not call it a "registry"
16:23:40 <pchampin> ... I would suggest that we don't call this a registry anymore, as the term comes with expectations of unicity.
16:23:54 <pchampin> ... And therefore, that we don't migrate it to a W3C Registry.
16:24:16 <pchampin> manu: there was some confusion. My recollection was that we decided *not* to turn it into a W3C Registry.
16:24:31 <pchampin> ... To JoeAndrieu, no the rules are not appropriate right now.
16:24:46 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
16:24:46 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say we need to resolve this. I thought we HAD decided to make it a W3C registry, but not call it a "registry"
16:24:54 <Wip> here https://www.w3.org/2024/08/01-did-minutes.html#r01
16:25:00 <pchampin> Wip: we did pass a Resolution saying that our registries are *likely* to be managed as a W3C Registry.
16:25:25 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: I hope we agreed to not call them "registries", they are friendly list.
16:25:38 <manu> q+ to note I'm happy to try to make it a registry.
16:25:43 <pchampin> ... But it was also that we would be guinea pigs to push the W3C process to its limits.
16:25:50 <Wip> ack manu
16:25:50 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note I'm happy to try to make it a registry.
16:26:19 <pchampin> manu: this is more work, and would be a bumpy ride.
16:26:36 <brentz> brentz has joined #did
16:26:38 <ivan> q+
16:26:38 <pchampin> ... but I agree with Joe that if we are not part of the conversation, we might be imposed things from the outside.
16:26:48 <Wip> ack ivan
16:27:12 <manu> q+ to talk about shortname
16:27:12 <Wip> Topic: DID Core
16:27:19 <Wip> ack manu
16:27:19 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to talk about shortname
16:27:52 <pchampin> manu: I finally made a FPWD snapshot for DID-core.
16:28:07 <pchampin> ... Do we still want to call this doc "did-core"?
16:28:26 <pchampin> ... The Controlled Identifier Document spec is called cid-1.0
16:28:46 <pchampin> ... The reason for calling DID-Core like that was to avoid confusion with DID methods.
16:29:14 <pchampin> ... In retrospect, this was not so necessary.
16:29:39 <ivan> q+
16:29:43 <pchampin> q+
16:29:48 <Wip> ack ivan
16:30:07 <pchampin> ... proposal is to now use the shortname "did" rather than "did-core"
16:30:26 <pchampin> ivan: if we do that, we need to coordinate with webmaster so that the name change appears in the document's history
16:30:29 <markus_sabadello> q+
16:30:32 <Wip> ack pchampin
16:31:02 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
16:31:06 <manu> q+ to ask the W3C Staff to ask W3M / publishing for a "general pattern".
16:31:11 <pchampin> pchampin: the version-less "did" would point to the latest REC, right?
16:31:14 <pchampin> manu: correct
16:31:55 <Wip> ack manu
16:31:55 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask the W3C Staff to ask W3M / publishing for a "general pattern".
16:31:58 <pchampin> markus_sabadello: the homogeneity between "cid" and "did" is not necessarily appropriate... "cid" defines a document, "did defines an identifier.
16:32:09 <pchampin> ... but I'm not against the change.
16:32:42 <pchampin> manu: that's where we are now. I would argue that eventually, CID should mean "Controlled Identifier".
16:33:13 <pchampin> ... We can defer that conversation to the future, but that would be good enough for now.
16:33:49 <ivan> q+
16:33:52 <pchampin> ... to ivan and pchampin: many WGs do the same mistake of not versioning their first recommendation.
16:34:21 <pchampin> ... should we suggest a homogeneous way of managing that at W3C? with versionless always pointing to the latest REC?
16:34:26 <Wip> ack ivan
16:34:53 <pchampin> ivan: there is a page somewhere (I have to find it) about patterns that are done automatically.
16:35:05 <pchampin> ... It is not totally an unknown problem.
16:35:28 <manu> PROPOSAL: Change the shortname of did-core to did. Set up redirects for did-core -> did, did -> 1.0 REC, did-1.0 -> 1.0 REC, and did-1.1 to the latest v1.1 version published by Echidna.
16:35:31 <Wip> q?
16:35:36 <swcurran> Ivan -- would really appreciate you finding that. I'd love to see if for our spec.  We're hitting the same issue.
16:35:40 <TallTed> it's *so* much better to initially name as 1.0 and never update, than it is to initially name without version and struggle to rename when what should be 1.1 comes around. "This will never be updated" almost never proves true.
16:35:40 <pchampin> +1
16:35:41 <Wip> +1
16:35:45 <TallTed> +1
16:35:47 <ivan> +1
16:35:47 <manu> +1
16:35:50 <JoeAndrieu> +1
16:35:51 <markus_sabadello> +1
16:35:53 <decentralgabe> +1
16:35:59 <swcurran> +1
16:35:59 <Phil-ASU> +1
16:36:10 <Wip> RESOLVED: Change the shortname of did-core to did. Set up redirects for did-core -> did, did -> 1.0 REC, did-1.0 -> 1.0 REC, and did-1.1 to the latest v1.1 version published by Echidna.
16:36:29 <Wip> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22ready+for+pr%22
16:37:14 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22ready+for+pr%22+sort%3Aupdated-asc
16:37:30 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/854
16:37:32 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:37:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/12/19-did-minutes.html pchampin
16:37:49 <pchampin> manu: I will do this one, this is a lot of surgery for the document
16:37:52 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/842
16:38:42 <pchampin> manu: who ever takes this issue needs to see what happens when you try to normalize DID URLs with existing libraries.
16:38:55 <pchampin> ... We should see what they do, make sure that the spec is aligned with what they do.
16:39:19 <pchampin> ... This is a class-3 change; we were expecting URLs to be normalized, but where not specific about how this should be done.
16:40:04 <pchampin> ... Ideally, we defer to WHATWG spec and see "this is how it should be done", but need to check what libraries actually do.
16:40:22 <KevinDean> q+
16:40:25 <pchampin> Wip: anyone willing to take that on?
16:40:27 <Wip> ack KevinDean
16:40:36 <pchampin> KevinDean: I volunteer
16:41:03 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/870
16:41:33 <pchampin> manu: this issue is suggesting to describe the intended audience.
16:41:44 <pchampin> ... Fairly straightforward editorial.
16:41:45 <markus_sabadello> q+
16:41:49 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
16:42:07 <pchampin> markus_sabadello: there is a similiar issue in did-resolution, to describe the intended audience.
16:42:17 <pchampin> ... Good first issue for anyone willing to contribute.
16:42:20 <Wip> q+
16:42:23 <Wip> ack Wip
16:42:38 <pchampin> Wip: I'll take this one, as well as the did-resolution one.
16:42:50 <manu> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/860
16:43:01 <pchampin> manu: this one is also for you, Wip :)
16:43:26 <pchampin> ... The W3C TAG raised an issue on the CID spec, saying we don't define fragment processing rules.
16:43:50 <pchampin> ... It was not a problem when it was plain JSON-LD, but now that it has its own mime-type (and likewise for application/did),
16:43:55 <swcurran> swcurran has joined #did
16:43:58 <pchampin> ... we need to define fragment-processing rules.
16:44:18 <pchampin> ... Actually, I will make a new issue.
16:44:22 <markus_sabadello> q+
16:44:30 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
16:44:40 <pchampin> ... If we are lucky, we can point to CID fragment processing rules, and avoid a class-3  change.
16:45:28 <pchampin> markus_sabadello: the IANA section says that we defer to the fragment-processing rules from JSON-LD.
16:45:31 <pchampin> ... Isn't that sufficient?
16:45:51 <ivan> q+
16:45:51 <JoeAndrieu> +1 for us just using JSON-LD fragment processing rules
16:46:07 <pchampin> manu: now that we made the `@context` optional, and since we target communities that do not like JSON-LD,
16:46:21 <pchampin> ... we might get some pushback if we do that.
16:46:21 <Wip> ack ivan
16:46:37 <manu> q+
16:46:40 <Wip> ack manu
16:46:44 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say that is our intention
16:46:50 <pchampin> ivan: is it possible to define a DID document as did+cid, and therefore inherit from CID like that?
16:47:06 <JoeAndrieu> q-
16:47:16 <pchampin> manu: we could, but I suggest we don't, considering the troubles we had about this whole suffix question!
16:47:40 <pchampin> ... It would be painful to explain which part we inherit, and which part we don't.
16:47:45 <markus_sabadello> q+
16:47:46 <pchampin> ivan: ok, forget it.
16:47:48 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
16:48:20 <pchampin> markus_sabadello: I created a PR in did-core and a corresponding PR in did-resolution to move the parameters section from did-core to did-resolution,
16:48:25 <pchampin> ... as we discussed last time.
16:48:32 <Wip> This https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/872 and this https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/106
16:49:06 <pchampin> i|markus_sabadello: I created a PR|subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/872 and this https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/106
16:49:22 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:49:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/12/19-did-minutes.html pchampin
16:49:29 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/170
16:50:18 <pchampin> Wip: I see this one is pending-close, we should probably close it, we got no response
16:50:27 <pchampin> manu: agreed
16:50:39 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/839
16:51:29 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say Kyle is right
16:51:39 <pchampin> manu: we don't define how you do mutisig in the DID spec.
16:51:59 <JoeAndrieu> q-
16:51:59 <pchampin> ... We should probably say that multisig is defined by the verification mechanism.
16:52:06 <JoeAndrieu> +1 to Manu's summary
16:52:08 <markus_sabadello> q+
16:52:49 <pchampin> ... We should add some language pointing to verification methods and cryptosuite, and not say anything more.
16:52:56 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
16:53:20 <pchampin> markus_sabadello: there is a verification that some people have worked one, "conditional proof" or something like that.
16:53:34 <pchampin> ... It is a CCG work item, I will link it to this issue.
16:53:44 <pchampin> ... And I can take care of this issue.
16:53:59 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/805
16:54:54 <pchampin> manu: it is a purely editorial clean up of the specification.
16:55:14 <pchampin> ... I would suggest to start with the introduction. Touching the terminology will cause a lot of debates.
16:55:54 <Wip> q?
16:55:59 <pchampin> Wip: anyone interested in this?
16:56:03 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/812
16:56:35 <pchampin> i|subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/812|[crickets]
16:57:01 <pchampin> Wip: anyone with experience in delegation, to adapt the examples?
16:57:13 <pchampin> ... I do have some code, I can take this one as well.
16:57:32 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:57:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/12/19-did-minutes.html pchampin
16:57:46 <pchampin> topic: Next meeting
16:57:55 <pchampin> Wip: this was the last call of the year.
16:58:19 <pchampin> ... The next one, 8 Jan, will be a special topic call. We will send a call.
16:58:24 <pchampin> ... Happy holiday everyone.
16:58:28 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:58:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/12/19-did-minutes.html pchampin
16:59:03 <pchampin> m2gbot, link issues with transcript
16:59:04 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-extensions/pull/610#issuecomment-2555104331
16:59:05 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-extensions/issues/569#issuecomment-2555104488
16:59:06 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/854#issuecomment-2555104648
16:59:07 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/842#issuecomment-2555104808
16:59:08 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/870#issuecomment-2555104920
16:59:09 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/860#issuecomment-2555105019
16:59:10 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/872#issuecomment-2555105099
16:59:11 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/106#issuecomment-2555105193
16:59:12 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/170#issuecomment-2555105275
16:59:13 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/839#issuecomment-2555105370
16:59:14 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/805#issuecomment-2555105461
16:59:15 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/812#issuecomment-2555105532
17:01:12 <pchampin> Zakim, end meeting
17:01:12 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Wip, markus_sabadello, Phil-ASU, JoeAndrieu, decentralgabe, pchampin, swcurran, KevinDean, TallTed, ivan, smccown, bigbluehat
17:01:15 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:01:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/12/19-did-minutes.html Zakim
17:01:23 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, pchampin; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:01:23 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did
17:43:00 <brentz> brentz has joined #did
18:53:50 <brentz> brentz has joined #did
19:24:41 <brentz> brentz has joined #did
21:11:00 <brentz> brentz has joined #did
21:57:07 <dlehn> dlehn has joined #did
22:01:16 <brent_> brent_ has joined #did
22:31:26 <brent_> brent_ has joined #did