15:50:02 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
15:50:07 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/02/27-did-irc
15:50:11 <Wip> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:50:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/27-did-minutes.html Wip
15:50:22 <Wip> rrsagent, make logs public
15:50:32 <Wip> Meeting: Decentralized Identifier Working Group
15:50:37 <Wip> Chair: Will Abramson
15:50:42 <Wip> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2025Feb/0019.html
15:50:44 <Wip> present+
15:59:01 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #did
16:00:00 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
16:00:20 <markus_sabadello> present+
16:00:22 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #did
16:01:00 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #did
16:01:11 <KevinDean> present+
16:01:20 <manu> present+
16:02:43 <KevinDean> https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
16:02:48 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
16:03:10 <ottomorac> scribe+
16:03:49 <ottomorac> scribe-
16:03:52 <ottomorac> present+
16:03:57 <ottomorac> scribe+
16:04:10 <TallTed> present+
16:04:13 <Wip> Topic: Agenda Review & Introductions
16:04:29 <denkeni> denkeni has joined #did
16:04:43 <ottomorac> wip:  Welcome everyone. Let Jan Christophe to introduce himself....
16:04:58 <ottomorac> JC:  happy to be here, thanks for the invite. This my first time here.
16:05:16 <Wip> ?
16:05:19 <Wip> q?
16:05:19 <denkeni> present+
16:05:20 <ottomorac> wip: Any additions to the standard agenda
16:05:29 <Wip> Topic: DID Core Issue Processing
16:05:31 <ottomorac> wip:  ... ok lets keep going...
16:06:01 <ottomorac> wip:  Manu some issue you would like to speak about?
16:06:21 <ottomorac> Manu: no, been busy with verifiable credential spec.
16:06:28 <Wip> https://github.com/w3c/did/issues
16:07:02 <ottomorac> wip:  please remember to act on issues that you are assigned to....
16:07:20 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did/issues/805
16:07:25 <ottomorac> wip:  Let us look at one issue that I wanted to discuss this week....
16:08:06 <ottomorac> wip: this issue was raised some time ago...   I think I came to the conclusion that perhaps what Rick is asking for is already included...
16:08:21 <manu> q+
16:08:35 <Wip> ack manu
16:09:05 <ottomorac> manu:  Yeah I think we should remember that Rieks comment came for 4 years ago when the spec was much newer....
16:09:35 <ottomorac> manu: I think we promised to go through the spec top to bottom with a particular look at the property to update semantics....
16:09:57 <ottomorac> manu: if that is done Wip, then we could circle back with Rieksj...
16:10:09 <ottomorac> wip:  Yes I kind of that in my reply....
16:10:24 <Wip> https://www.w3.org/TR/cid/#verification-methods
16:10:35 <ottomorac> wip: I think the only place that may be lacking is the CID spec...
16:10:55 <ottomorac> wip:  I think that was CIDs point in regards to the value of the controller property...
16:11:00 <manu> q+
16:11:03 <Wip> ack manu
16:11:47 <ottomorac> manu:  ok for that definition we should point folks to the controller section ...
16:12:22 <ottomorac> manu:  perhaps we need to clarify some wording about the controllers...
16:12:34 <ottomorac> manu:  we will likely not update CID spec at this point
16:12:39 <Wip> https://w3c.github.io/did/#service-properties
16:12:56 <manu> q+
16:13:04 <Wip> ack manu
16:13:07 <pchampin> strictly speaking, this is an editorial change which probably could be published as a proposed amendment to CID 1.0
16:13:16 <ottomorac> wip:  I think this is addressed, but I will perhaps take one more pass...
16:13:48 <ottomorac> wip: ok let give Riejs some time to react....
16:14:21 <Wip> Topic: DID Resolution PRs
16:14:24 <ottomorac> manu: reminder to all to write PRs for issues assigned to you :)
16:14:27 <Wip> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pulls
16:14:38 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/126
16:14:42 <ottomorac> wip:  ok....  so first one...
16:15:00 <ottomorac> wip:  related to an optional resolution option for relative URLs...
16:15:22 <ottomorac> markus: this was one of the enhancements that we discussed...
16:15:54 <ottomorac> markus:  there is a section in did-core that talks how to do this...
16:16:13 <ottomorac> markus:  you added a comment wip, that it should be more precise....
16:16:27 <ottomorac> markus: should we improve the language?
16:16:41 <ottomorac> wip:  yes, potentially some small tweak...
16:16:46 <Wip> q?
16:16:48 <ottomorac> markus: ok will work on it
16:16:53 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/125
16:17:13 <ottomorac> wip:   this is adding a service type parameter.... Markus?
16:17:38 <ottomorac> markus: this is also an enhancement that we discussed....  this would introduce a parameter to select a service by type....
16:17:52 <ottomorac> markus: I see that you Wip also had some comments on it....
16:18:19 <ottomorac> markus:  you correctly pointed out some details about it...
16:19:00 <ottomorac> wip:  yes in regards to the service parameter...
16:19:33 <ottomorac> markus:  Yes i think we discussed about resolution.... and also it would depend on media type as to the list of URIs or service objects...
16:19:47 <Wip> q?
16:19:51 <ottomorac> markus: I think it would make sense to update the PR in that regard...
16:20:11 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/123
16:20:17 <ottomorac> wip: hopefully we can get these updated and merged....
16:20:50 <ottomorac> markus:  yes this is a consequence on the controlled identifier...
16:20:59 <manu> q+
16:21:34 <ottomorac> markus: this PR solves some issues on.. no longer necessary to distinguish between a resolve() and resolveRepresentation() function.
16:21:37 <Wip> ack manu
16:21:44 <ottomorac> markus: from my pov this is looking good
16:21:52 <ottomorac> manu:  yes +1 to that PR....
16:21:52 <TallTed> q+
16:22:09 <ottomorac> manu: yes let me take a look at it...
16:22:21 <Wip> ack TallTed
16:22:31 <ottomorac> manu:  I undertstand this is a simplification that others have asked
16:22:39 <pchampin> q+
16:22:45 <Wip> ack pchampin
16:22:45 <manu> q+
16:22:55 <ottomorac> tallted: reminder to use SVG instead of PNG where possible...
16:23:19 <ottomorac> pierre:  yes perhaps sad to see the loss of the abstract data model...
16:23:44 <ottomorac> pierre:  one argument was that it was not testable...
16:23:44 <Wip> ack manu
16:23:50 <Wip> q+
16:24:11 <ottomorac> manu:  this has caused so much conflict, that adding any note would just create conflict...
16:24:24 <pchampin> s/pierre:/pchampin:
16:24:25 <pchampin> s/pierre:/pchampin:
16:24:30 <markus_sabadello> q+
16:24:41 <ottomorac> manu:  in regards to Teds.. point...   I will leave these as PNGs  this would be complex...
16:25:21 <ottomorac> manu: I think Ted's suggestion is so that we ease everyone's job...
16:25:32 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
16:25:35 <ottomorac> manu: perhaps this can be solved with just HTML and some CSS styling...
16:25:53 <TallTed> +1 as manu says, changing these example images to HTML would be fine.
16:25:54 <ottomorac> markus:  Yes I agree... I think I can use either SVG or HTML... will do that...
16:26:12 <Wip> ack Wip
16:26:14 <ottomorac> wip: ok thanks....
16:26:16 <manu> +1 to raising a separate issue to deal w/ the conversation.
16:26:23 <Wip> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/114
16:26:37 <ottomorac> wip: if you look at the issue that triggered this change...
16:26:53 <manu> q+
16:27:01 <Wip> ack manu
16:27:11 <ottomorac> wip: is that you were referring to Pierre?
16:27:38 <ottomorac> manu: I think its different.... with CBOR LD ....
16:28:13 <ottomorac> manu:  ... I don't think we should prevent implementations from having other representations of did documents...
16:28:35 <ottomorac> manu: this is not an abstract data model thing...
16:28:58 <ottomorac> manu:  that is a decision up to the implementer...
16:29:24 <ottomorac> manu:  we can still support accept headers...
16:29:41 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/122
16:29:42 <ottomorac> wip: ok good. feel like this PR is getting ready.. agree with the image suggestion
16:30:18 <ottomorac> wip: so this PR attempts to Define verificationRelationship as a derferencing option
16:31:02 <ottomorac> wip:  I think this approach works better from my personal perspective...
16:31:34 <manu> q+
16:31:37 <markus_sabadello> q+
16:31:37 <ottomorac> wip: thoughts from the group?
16:31:38 <Wip> ack manu
16:31:47 <ottomorac> manu:  not sure I got the last bit...
16:32:15 <Wip> did:example:1234?versionId=1#vm-2
16:32:17 <ottomorac> wip:  yes,  let clarify
16:32:30 <ottomorac> wip: if I reference that did....
16:33:21 <Wip> https://w3c.github.io/cid/#retrieve-verification-method
16:33:52 <ottomorac> wip: so... this the retrieve verification mehtod..... I don't want to call the resolve function again,....
16:34:01 <ottomorac> wip:  I already have a did document....
16:34:15 <manu> q+
16:34:32 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
16:34:44 <ottomorac> wip: basically the verification method identifier.. would not have any parameters...
16:35:07 <ottomorac> markus: its a bit difficult to combine the 2 algorithms...
16:35:24 <ottomorac> markus:  Not sure this fits in with the rest of the alg...
16:35:34 <ottomorac> markus: I like your improvement....
16:35:50 <ottomorac> markus:  I wonder if we have to reference the other alg....
16:35:59 <ottomorac> markus: or just copy some of the steps...
16:35:59 <Wip> q?
16:36:01 <Wip> ack manu
16:36:15 <ottomorac> manu:  yes, agree you can just copy the steps....
16:36:50 <ottomorac> manu:  you can run the entire alg... and just have one more step for the verification relationship....
16:37:23 <ottomorac> manu:  and if you get back a verification method,  then ensure it matches the verification relationship...
16:37:52 <ottomorac> wip: yes.... I tried do that....
16:38:13 <ottomorac> wip: I will take another pass...  and do what you suggested Markus...
16:38:14 <Wip> q?
16:38:24 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/119
16:38:37 <ottomorac> wip:  ok this is pretty straightforward
16:38:50 <ottomorac> wip:  Add versionId and versionTime to DID resolution options
16:39:01 <markus_sabadello> q+
16:39:05 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
16:39:18 <ottomorac> markus:  Yes we can probably merge this...
16:39:25 <Wip> q??
16:39:52 <ottomorac> wip:  one thing I know, in that did resolution alg.... I know we have placeholders for the version handling....
16:40:18 <markus_sabadello> q+
16:40:21 <ottomorac> wip:  I don't think the did resolution spec should handle this,.... each did method will probably handle versioning differently...
16:40:37 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
16:40:46 <ottomorac> markus:  yeah I totally agree....
16:41:08 <ottomorac> markus: we should probably say in the resolution algorithm to clarify that....
16:41:26 <ottomorac> markus: saying version id and version time are passed to the did method....
16:41:38 <Wip> q?
16:41:41 <ottomorac> wip: ok yes...
16:41:50 <Wip> Topic: DID Resolution Issue Processing
16:42:06 <Wip> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20%20sort%3Aupdated-asc
16:42:11 <ottomorac> wip:  maybe we go into the recently updated....
16:42:16 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/12
16:42:35 <ottomorac> wip:  Design versioning features....
16:42:43 <markus_sabadello> q+
16:42:46 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
16:42:55 <manu> q+
16:43:00 <manu> q-
16:43:02 <ottomorac> markus:  I think once we add the options and the PR....
16:43:14 <manu> +1 once versionTime and versionId are merged, we're good to go... issue resolved.
16:43:16 <ottomorac> markus:  I will add a comment on it...
16:43:21 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/37
16:43:33 <ottomorac> DID-URL uniqueness across time...
16:43:38 <manu> q+
16:43:44 <ottomorac> wip: Kyle is asking about the keys in the document...
16:44:07 <Wip> ack manu
16:44:22 <ottomorac> manu:  Yes we should allow it.... it is not necesarrily good practice...
16:44:32 <ottomorac> manu: we may want to warn people...
16:44:52 <ottomorac> manu:  in our implementation we just use the public key identifier value as the identifier for the key....
16:45:14 <Wip> q+
16:45:16 <ottomorac> manu: works to guarantee this over time...
16:45:16 <JoeAndrieu> +1 to recommending using keys rather than restricting values
16:45:20 <Wip> ack Wip
16:45:22 <markus_sabadello> q+
16:45:33 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
16:45:49 <ottomorac> markus: I also think we should allow it....
16:46:26 <ottomorac> markus: yes, you should able to change keys... again not best practice...
16:47:00 <ottomorac> markus:  yes this in general is a feature.... and add a warning
16:47:29 <ottomorac> wip: ok yes we can mark as pending closed... and open an issue in did-core along with some security considerations....
16:47:36 <manu> q+
16:47:40 <Wip> ack manu
16:47:55 <ottomorac> manu:  before we move on... lets not bury in security considerations...
16:48:10 <Wip> q+
16:48:16 <ottomorac> manu: it should clearly warn people about the implications...
16:48:27 <Wip> ack Wip
16:48:44 <ottomorac> wip:  Yes that make sense, but the challenge is also have the CID spec....
16:48:45 <manu> q+
16:48:48 <Wip> ack manu
16:48:55 <ottomorac> manu: Yes that is true....
16:49:17 <ottomorac> manu: we should probably have this group take over the CID spec once its published....
16:49:22 <Wip> q?
16:49:30 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/28
16:49:48 <ottomorac> 'remote' vs 'local' DID Resolvers raised by Chris Allen....
16:50:02 <ottomorac> wip: we should probably invite Chris Allen to lead a discussion on this....
16:50:15 <ottomorac> wip:  does anyone have comments on it...
16:50:20 <markus_sabadello> q+
16:50:24 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
16:50:45 <ottomorac> markus:  Yes its about architecture and where a resolver is deployed....
16:51:12 <ottomorac> markus: it needs some updating...
16:51:36 <ottomorac> markus:  its related to trust and selective disclosure... look forward to a discussion on it....
16:51:57 <ottomorac> wip: invite the group to read about this... and prepare for the discussion....
16:52:00 <Wip> q?
16:52:04 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/6
16:52:17 <ottomorac> DID method governance #6
16:52:24 <ottomorac> raised by Markus....
16:52:51 <ottomorac> markus:  yes, I will mark as pending closed....
16:53:03 <ottomorac> markus: unless anyone has any comments...
16:53:10 <Wip> q?
16:53:21 <manu> +1 to pending close
16:53:26 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/95
16:53:38 <ottomorac> Minimizing the extent of profiling of requestors #95
16:54:00 <ottomorac> wip:  is there an action on this one?
16:54:10 <manu> +1 privacy considerations
16:54:15 <ottomorac> markus:  yes this came up in November, its newer...
16:54:36 <ottomorac> markus: I think its still valid, perhaps to be addressed in the security considerations...
16:54:59 <ottomorac> wip: ok sounds good...
16:55:19 <ottomorac> wip: ok last thing I want to mention....
16:55:36 <ottomorac> wip: about the APAC call... I have moved to an EU friendly time...
16:55:57 <ottomorac> wip: it will be interesting to see who from the APAC time zone joins...
16:56:22 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:56:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/27-did-minutes.html pchampin
16:57:28 <pchampin> present+
16:57:51 <pchampin> s/markus:/markus_sabadello:/g
16:58:08 <pchampin> present+ JC
16:58:18 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:58:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/02/27-did-minutes.html pchampin
18:27:25 <ottomorac> ottomorac has joined #did
19:04:43 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did
19:29:02 <brent> brent has joined #did
20:46:22 <brent> brent has joined #did
22:06:36 <brent> brent has joined #did