14:55:53 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
14:55:58 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/09/18-did-irc
14:56:07 <Wip> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:56:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/18-did-minutes.html Wip
14:56:10 <Wip> rrsagent, make logs public
14:56:15 <Wip> Meeting: Decentralized Identifier Working Group
14:56:18 <Wip> Chair: Wip
14:56:21 <Wip> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2025Sep/0006.html
14:56:25 <Wip> present+
15:00:37 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #did
15:00:46 <KevinDean> present+
15:01:18 <pchampin> present+
15:02:15 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #did
15:03:26 <swcurran> swcurran has joined #did
15:03:27 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
15:03:50 <swcurran> present+
15:04:57 <denkeni> denkeni has joined #did
15:04:57 <manu> present+
15:05:03 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #did
15:05:22 <denkeni> present+
15:05:22 <Wip> Topic: Agenda Review
15:05:23 <bigbluehat> present+
15:05:23 <bigbluehat> scribe+
15:05:34 <KevinDean> present+
15:05:52 <bigbluehat> Wip: quick announcement, agenda review, and then some issues and PRs
15:05:59 <manu> q+
15:06:02 <Wip> ack manu
15:06:12 <bigbluehat> ... I didn't leave time for DID Core... Manu?
15:06:28 <bigbluehat> manu: just a few things on that. Horizontal review, etc. Just a few minutes probably
15:06:31 <Wip> Topic: Announcement about Affiliation
15:06:53 <bigbluehat> Wip: I'm no longer formerly representing DCD on these calls.
15:07:06 <ivan> q+
15:07:06 <bigbluehat> ... I'll be representing Legendary Requirements going forward
15:07:19 <Wip> ack ivan
15:07:25 <bigbluehat> ... I plan to continue chairing this group for the foreseeable future
15:07:39 <bigbluehat> ivan: formally, you have to be reappointed as a chair with the change of affiliation
15:07:57 <bigbluehat> ... mostly pchampin can take care of that...but it does have to be done.
15:08:08 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
15:08:22 <bigbluehat> pchampin: I will start the process to get you reappointed, Wip
15:08:24 <Wip> q?
15:08:31 <Wip> Topic: DID Core
15:09:05 <bigbluehat> manu: I prepared a 1.1 draft
15:09:08 <manu> CR-ready DRAFT has been created: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2025Sep/0005.html
15:09:29 <bigbluehat> manu: I've sent an announcement email
15:09:39 <bigbluehat> ... this is the first CR ready thing
15:09:45 <bigbluehat> ... changes are reflected in the version history and in the spec
15:09:54 <bigbluehat> ... the implementation report is also ready for 1.1
15:10:04 <bigbluehat> ... this includes 1.0 and 1.1 tests
15:10:26 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #did
15:10:28 <JennieM> present+
15:10:30 <bigbluehat> ... ivan, I have not done the Quad comparison between 1.0 and 1.1
15:10:37 <bigbluehat> ... those should match, if they don't, I'll fix it
15:10:46 <bigbluehat> ... our privacy review has been completed
15:10:50 <bigbluehat> ... they've signed off on 1.1
15:11:00 <bigbluehat> ... they did raise one issue that we cannot address in our current charter
15:11:18 <bigbluehat> ... there's a request to improve the review criteria
15:11:22 <bigbluehat> ... that'd be a class 4 change
15:11:29 <bigbluehat> ... which is blocked by a recharter need
15:11:43 <bigbluehat> ... pchampin there's one in here for finalizing the context files pre-req
15:11:43 <JoeAndrieu> q+ about registry
15:11:47 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to ask about registry
15:12:06 <bigbluehat> ... staff and chairs will need to sort out timing
15:12:08 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
15:12:08 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to ask about registry
15:12:11 <bigbluehat> ... but everything is preparred
15:12:29 <bigbluehat> JoeAndrieu: question for manu about the class 4 changes
15:12:41 <bigbluehat> manu: Kyle wants us to change the specification text
15:13:13 <bigbluehat> ... basically, Kyle wants us to tighten the MUST statements up around DID Methods
15:13:30 <bigbluehat> ... mostly because some of the methods don't have good security sections
15:13:33 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:13:45 <bigbluehat> ... and other folks have raised issues around certain methods being aggressively centralized
15:13:50 <Wip> q- about
15:13:52 <bigbluehat> ... did that put more context around it?
15:13:55 <Wip> q- registry
15:13:58 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
15:14:08 <bigbluehat> JoeAndrieu: we do have control over the registry
15:14:15 <manu> q+
15:14:17 <bigbluehat> ... and we could raise the bar on getting into the registry
15:14:19 <Wip> ack manu
15:14:22 <bigbluehat> ... regardless of the spec text
15:14:33 <bigbluehat> manu: we could, but I'm a bit concerned about adding that at the end of the charter
15:14:41 <bigbluehat> ... vs. putting our time into DID Resolution
15:14:50 <bigbluehat> ... mostly, I'm not sure we have bandwidth
15:14:59 <Wip> q+
15:15:03 <bigbluehat> JoeAndrieu: technically, we do have the need to define these rules for the registry anyway
15:15:04 <Wip> ack Wip
15:15:15 <bigbluehat> ... so maybe we can better express these needs in that activity
15:15:28 <bigbluehat> Wip: we did take that work on, but agreed we may not have time to do it
15:15:47 <bigbluehat> ... right now, I'm feeling a bit nervous about getting DID Resolution through in time
15:15:54 <manu> q+
15:15:57 <bigbluehat> ... but if people have time to push these other things forwards, that's also fine
15:15:59 <Wip> ack manu
15:16:24 <bigbluehat> manu: I don't think there's anything stopping anyone from doing a PR for that registry change
15:16:31 <bigbluehat> ... but I plan to focus on DID Resolution
15:16:41 <bigbluehat> ... maybe JoeAndrieu , you can address it along with Kyle's concerns?
15:16:50 <bigbluehat> JoeAndrieu: yeah...I've got threat modeling I'm doing
15:16:50 <TallTed> present+
15:16:59 <bigbluehat> ... unfortunately, I can't sign up the way I want to
15:17:05 <bigbluehat> ... but I take the point about the need for the work
15:17:08 <Wip> q?
15:17:27 <bigbluehat> Wip: k. I think we're just waiting on other horizontal reviews then
15:17:32 <bigbluehat> manu: could we do a resolution today?
15:17:45 <bigbluehat> ... it would basically say, we're ready to publish once the horizontal reviews are in
15:17:49 <bigbluehat> ... could we get that on the books?
15:17:56 <bigbluehat> ... I think I set it as 2 weeks after TPAC
15:18:06 <bigbluehat> Wip: isn't that Thanksgiving?
15:18:13 <bigbluehat> manu: I tried to avoid that...
15:18:23 <bigbluehat> Wip: does W3M schedules effect this?
15:18:28 <bigbluehat> manu: it does. We could say ASAP
15:18:34 <bigbluehat> Wip: anyone objecting to that?
15:19:21 <bigbluehat> ivan: our webmaster is not in the US, so Thanksgiving may not be an issue for publication
15:19:21 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
15:19:38 <pchampin> scribe+
15:20:39 <JoeAndrieu> +1 to Manu's clarification
15:20:51 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: will we need another resolution if changes are made after horizontal review?
15:20:54 <ivan> q+
15:21:07 <Wip> ack ivan
15:21:24 <pchampin> manu: if some WG participants object to publish it after such changes, we will take another resolution
15:21:53 <pdl> pdl has joined #did
15:22:19 <Wip> q?
15:22:20 <pchampin> ivan: this should not be a problem;
15:22:21 <pchampin> ... if the horizontal review provide comment, that will prevent us from going to REC, but we can publish a new CR snapshot after the first one
15:22:33 <Wip> PROPOSAL: Publish the DID v1.1 specification (https://w3c.github.io/did/transitions/2025/CR/) as a Candidate Recommendation Snapshot after the Horizontal Review is complete with a target publication date towards the end of November.
15:22:37 <manu> +1
15:22:37 <JoeAndrieu> +1
15:22:40 <pchampin> +1
15:22:40 <TallTed> +1
15:22:40 <pdl> +1
15:22:40 <Wip> +1
15:22:42 <JennieM> +1
15:22:42 <markus_sabadello> +1
15:22:47 <bigbluehat> +1
15:22:58 <ivan> +1
15:23:01 <Wip> RESOLVED: Publish the DID v1.1 specification (https://w3c.github.io/did/transitions/2025/CR/) as a Candidate Recommendation Snapshot after the Horizontal Review is complete with a target publication date towards the end of November.
15:23:25 <Wip> Topic: DID Resolution Horizontal Review
15:23:55 <pchampin> Wip: same questions for DID Resolutions; what do we need to bring DID Resolution to CR?
15:24:01 <Wip> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3ATAG
15:24:06 <pchampin> ... we need to complete the Security review, Privacy review, TAG review
15:24:26 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/185
15:24:33 <Wip> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/194
15:24:55 <pchampin> Wip: markus_sabadello already reviewed this; we can discuss it here
15:25:05 <pchampin> ... my goal is to have TAG review by the end of the month
15:25:31 <Wip> q?
15:25:45 <pchampin> ... Contrarily to DID core, this is a brand new spec, so we want to give those groups enough time to review.
15:25:47 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/191
15:26:21 <pchampin> Wip: this one is currently not assigned to anyone. Is anyone willing to take it?
15:26:21 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:26:21 <pchampin> ... There is a link to the questionnaire.
15:26:21 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:26:23 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
15:26:41 <pchampin> markus_sabadello: I think I said I would do it. I should have time.
15:26:48 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
15:26:53 <JoeAndrieu> q-
15:26:54 <pchampin> Wip: thank you. Please self assign.
15:27:18 <pchampin> TallTed: things are shifting. Not sure this questionnaire is what the group is now looking for.
15:27:37 <pchampin> ... The other side is a threat-model based Security consideration section. But this is not yet well defined.
15:27:43 <smccown> smccown has joined #did
15:27:59 <pchampin> Wip: currently, the documentation says to fill in that questionnaire.
15:28:08 <pchampin> .. We are just getting the process started.
15:28:14 <smccown> present+
15:28:15 <smccown> I just joined, so I didn't get it all, but I'd be happy to help with the privacy questionnaire
15:28:16 <pchampin> s/.. We/... We
15:28:20 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/92
15:28:41 <pchampin> Wip: sorry about yesterday, I didn't feel I had enough done to warrant taking time on a call.
15:28:54 <pchampin> ... I have done some work on the test suite.
15:29:09 <pchampin> ... I have a handful of tests, now waiting for DIDs to be passed in.
15:29:20 <Wip> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-test-suite-implementations/blob/main/implementations/DIF.json
15:29:50 <manu> q+
15:29:53 <Wip> ack manu
15:29:55 <pchampin> ... Are there any implemeters of resolver here (or that we know of) who could submit things?
15:30:09 <pchampin> manu: we intend to submit one, but we have a big backlog.
15:30:24 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say we should try to get Shaun Conway's Ixo implementation, but I don't know if they have https
15:30:26 <pchampin> ... We have the resolution software, only not yet the HTTP binding.
15:30:29 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
15:30:29 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say we should try to get Shaun Conway's Ixo implementation, but I don't know if they have https
15:30:43 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: I will try to get Sean Conway's implementation.
15:31:06 <pchampin> ... I don't think their implementation is up to speed with our HTTPS approach.
15:31:19 <pchampin> Wip: anyone else we should be reaching out to?
15:31:34 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: I will raise it to DCD to BTCR2.
15:32:19 <pchampin> manu: we don't formally need to have a test suite, the requirement is to have two independent implementations for each features.
15:32:43 <JoeAndrieu> s/I will raise it to DCD to BTCR2/We should ask DCD for a BTCR2 resolver/
15:32:45 <ivan> +1 to manu
15:32:48 <pchampin> ... We determine this. Of course a test suite is a good idea to do it.
15:32:56 <pchampin> ... But that's not blocking us for going to CR.
15:33:18 <Wip> Topic: Error codes for unsupported DID features
15:33:23 <Wip> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/190
15:33:47 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:33:53 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
15:34:34 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: it may be that a resolver does not support a specific method, but it is still a valid DID.
15:35:01 <pchampin> Wip: this is a relatively simple change in the spec. If anybody could propose a PR...
15:35:21 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:35:24 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
15:35:32 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: I like markus_sabadello's suggestion in the thread.
15:35:48 <Wip> q+
15:35:52 <pchampin> markus_sabadello: there is already an error code "Method not supported", and "Unsupported public key type"
15:36:00 <pchampin> s/specific method/specific feature
15:36:05 <Wip> ack Wip
15:36:09 <pchampin> ... I'll put it also as a comment in there.
15:36:41 <pchampin> Wip: there are probably a few other error kinds that will bubble up with implementation experience
15:37:03 <manu> q+
15:37:06 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:37:10 <Wip> ack manu
15:37:11 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: should there be a registry of common error codes across did methods?
15:37:25 <pchampin> ... This looks similar to common properties.
15:37:42 <pchampin> manu: you could view it as such, but I'm not sure we need this.
15:37:51 <markus_sabadello> https://www.w3.org/TR/did-extensions-resolution/#error
15:38:02 <pchampin> ... People can currently use URLs for error codes, which is pretty decentralized.
15:38:10 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
15:38:23 <pchampin> ... Actually, we do define error codes in a vocabulary. We just don't put them in did-extensions.
15:38:41 <pchampin> markus_sabadello: there are already extension error codes that are not in the spec.
15:38:49 <pchampin> ... We may have to update the registry.
15:38:54 <Wip> Topic: DID Resolution PR Processing
15:38:57 <Wip> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pulls
15:39:14 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/182
15:40:07 <TallTed> q+
15:40:08 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to ask about conformance class
15:40:11 <Wip> ack TallTed
15:40:45 <pchampin> TallTed: this PR confuses me. I made a comment to replace "remote DID resolver" to "resolver of remote DID".
15:40:51 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
15:40:51 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to ask about conformance class
15:40:54 <Wip> q+
15:40:55 <KevinDean> +1
15:41:00 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:41:21 <Wip> q-
15:41:40 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: TallTed's comment made me realize that we are defining conformance classes.
15:41:56 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
15:42:06 <pchampin> ... Maybe that's how we should explain it, and "remote" should indeed apply to the resolver.
15:42:36 <pchampin> markus_sabadello: I also find in the title of the issue confusing
15:42:55 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:42:57 <pchampin> ... "https binding" is about how the client interacts with the resolver, not how the resolver interacts with other components
15:43:05 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
15:43:23 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: we need to figure out where to say that we have 2 conformance classes, and how to define them.
15:43:32 <pchampin> ... Probably in this PR, but not in this section.
15:43:34 <Wip> Seems like it should go here https://w3c.github.io/did-resolution/#conformance
15:43:44 <pchampin> ... But we do need to define "remore resolver"
15:44:53 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/183
15:45:12 <pchampin> i|subtopic|Wip: [comment about two conformance classes] I'll add a comment in the issue for otto
15:45:15 <TallTed> s/remore/remote/
15:45:30 <Wip> q?
15:45:33 <pchampin> Wip: anyone having concerns about this PR?
15:45:44 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/192
15:46:01 <pchampin> Wip: another one from Otto, also about binding.
15:46:31 <pchampin> markus_sabadello: it is about adding a POST binding, which we don't have right now.
15:46:36 <pchampin> ... I think it is fine.
15:46:59 <pchampin> ... It goes together with PR w3c/did-resolution#196 which I submitted.
15:47:12 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/196
15:47:43 <pchampin> markus_sabadello: I try to define of how the POST interface would work:
15:47:55 <pchampin> ... how you construct the URL, what to put in the headers, in the body.
15:48:14 <pchampin> Wip: review wanted on these PRs.
15:48:34 <pchampin> ... Also the OpenAPI YAML needs to be updated.
15:48:37 <pchampin> markus_sabadello: yes
15:48:44 <Wip> Topic: DID Resolution Issue Processing
15:49:08 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/163
15:49:20 <pchampin> i|subtopic|Wip: we have 33 open issues, quite a few of them related to Horizontal Review, and threat modeling
15:49:58 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:49:58 <pchampin> Wip: we are currently stating that a DID document SHOULD include a 'created' property.
15:50:06 <pchampin> ... In some cases it will be made up.
15:50:06 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
15:50:27 <pchampin> markus_sabadello: I created a PR related to this issue, which has been merged.
15:50:46 <pchampin> ... It was reorganizing some sections about metadata but I didn't feel it addressed the main topic of this issue.
15:50:58 <pchampin> ... The 'created' property is sometimes verifiable, sometimes self-attested.
15:51:21 <pchampin> ... There is some language in the spec about this: what's the source of the metadata?
15:51:30 <Wip> q+
15:51:33 <pchampin> ... Built into the DID method? Something the controller can influence?
15:51:40 <pchampin> ... Maybe we need more of this.
15:51:45 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to mention self-attested metadata seems oxymoronic
15:51:58 <Wip> ack Wip
15:52:17 <pchampin> Wip: I was thinking about this from the perspective of did:ptcr2
15:52:44 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
15:52:44 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention self-attested metadata seems oxymoronic
15:52:52 <pchampin> ... In this case, the DID resolver would probably ignore the SHOULD, it has no way to derive the information.
15:53:13 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: I'm good with the language SHOULD; it allows for some methods to not provide it if they have good reasons.
15:53:29 <pchampin> ... That said, a more conceptual question confuses me, about self-attested properties.
15:53:44 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:53:50 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
15:53:57 <pchampin> ... We don't have a way in BTCR2 to allow the controller to put such metadata in the document, so the self-attested idea does not fit here.
15:54:29 <pchampin> markus_sabadello: this came up with did:web, where self-attested metadata about the DID document can be added.
15:54:43 <pchampin> ... You would not trust these values very much, but that would be compliant.
15:55:05 <Wip> q+
15:55:08 <Wip> ack Wip
15:55:15 <pchampin> ... If you compare this to fully blockchain-based DID methods, with verifiable timestamps... this is what this text is about.
15:55:27 <pchampin> ... To allow variations across implementations.
15:55:37 <JoeAndrieu> +1 for what is basically a published "sidecar" style metadata like the DID Loge Entry in webvh
15:56:01 <pchampin> subtopic: Other issues
15:56:17 <pchampin> Wip: 3-4 other issues are about the path. 3-4 are about the threat model.
15:56:38 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:56:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/18-did-minutes.html pchampin
15:57:36 <pchampin> present+ ivan
15:57:42 <pchampin> present+ JoeAndrieu
15:57:45 <pchampin> present+ markus_sabadello
15:57:45 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:57:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/18-did-minutes.html pchampin
15:58:11 <pchampin> m2gbot, link issues with transcript
15:58:12 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/185#issuecomment-3308284665
15:58:13 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/194#issuecomment-3308284736
15:58:14 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/191#issuecomment-3308284837
15:58:15 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/92#issuecomment-3308284959
15:58:16 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/190#issuecomment-3308285098
15:58:17 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/182#issuecomment-3308285221
15:58:18 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/183#issuecomment-3308285345
15:58:19 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/192#issuecomment-3308285423
15:58:20 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/196#issuecomment-3308285540
15:58:21 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/163#issuecomment-3308285626
16:51:23 <brent> brent has joined #did
16:58:33 <TallTed> Zakim, end meeting
16:58:33 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Wip, KevinDean, pchampin, swcurran, manu, denkeni, bigbluehat, JennieM, TallTed, smccown, ivan, JoeAndrieu, markus_sabadello
16:58:37 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:58:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/09/18-did-minutes.html Zakim
16:58:44 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, TallTed; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:58:44 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did
16:58:44 <TallTed> RRSAgent, bye
16:58:44 <RRSAgent> I see no action items