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