14:54:21 RRSAgent has joined #did 14:54:25 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/10/02-did-irc 14:54:27 Zakim has joined #did 14:54:37 Wip has joined #did 14:55:46 Wip has changed the topic to: DID WG Agenda 2025-10-02 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2025Sep/0013.html 14:56:18 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/02-did-minutes.html TallTed 14:56:35 Meeting: Decentralized Identifier Working Group 14:56:38 Chair: Wip 14:56:42 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2025Sep/0013.html 14:58:08 ottomorac has joined #did 15:00:55 previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/09/25-did-minutes.html 15:00:55 next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/10/09-did-minutes.html 15:03:18 present+\ 15:03:22 present+ 15:03:24 scribe+ 15:03:24 present+ 15:04:28 bigbluehat has joined #did 15:04:48 present+ 15:05:07 present+ 15:05:22 Topic: Agenda 15:05:38 denkeni has joined #did 15:05:39 swcurran has joined #did 15:05:46 present+ 15:06:07 present+ 15:06:10 Wip: Today we will talk about TPAC, DID Path URL, Horizontal Review for DID Resolution... and some DID Resolution PRs 15:06:10 Topic: TPAC Attendance 15:06:27 present+ 15:06:35 TPAC attendance spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GZqNyInIAdDcaHemrHxiV5kd8S2ByfGXEEL0jRzQL9o/edit?gid=0#gid=0 15:06:36 Wip: I put together a spreadsheet, we are about a month away... 15:07:11 Wip: Please let us know in this spreadsheet if you will be coming, please fill out the form.. We will only do one day, 1-Nov 15:07:18 q+ 15:07:26 ack manu 15:07:56 Manu: Historically we combine agenda and spreadsheet into a single doc, maybe we can add another sheet in there? 15:08:06 Wip: Yes I can do that... 15:08:24 Wip: I will also send this by email to the group 15:08:24 present+ 15:08:25 PDL-ASU has joined #did 15:08:32 present+ 15:08:39 Topic: DID URL Path Special Topic debrief 15:08:53 q+ 15:09:00 q+ to agenda+ DID Method Extensions for a short bit to provide an update AFTER -- DID URL Path discussion. 15:09:18 Wip: we had a productive call on the DID URL Path discussion, we decided that we are going to use the service array and have up to 3 different types... 15:09:18 ack manu 15:09:18 manu, you wanted to agenda+ DID Method Extensions for a short bit to provide an update AFTER -- DID URL Path discussion. 15:09:29 q+ to agenda+ DID Method Extensions for a short bit to provide an update AFTER -- DID URL Path discussion. 15:09:36 JennieM has joined #did 15:09:38 present+ 15:09:47 markus_sabadello has joined #did 15:10:15 Wip: The consensus was we need some standard mechanism defined by the did-resolution without breaking things like did linked resources and other similar legacy items... the idea is to have some convergence... 15:10:27 ack manu 15:10:27 manu, you wanted to agenda+ DID Method Extensions for a short bit to provide an update AFTER -- DID URL Path discussion. 15:10:32 Wip: Swcurran agreed to do an initial PR with some suggestions... 15:10:58 Manu: Yes agree, can we also discuss did method extensions later? 15:11:23 Otto: we will have another call? 15:11:50 q? 15:11:57 Wip: Not sure yet, to be decided.... unfortunately the did:cheqd team was not present and we would like to have their input and we will need to reach out to them 15:11:58 Topic: DID Method Extensions 15:12:41 1 year backlog, actually, 15:12:52 Manu: Regarding the did methods, we had a large backlog of registration requests, we discussed how to handle this, since we need at least 2 reviews... 15:13:55 Manu: some proposals were put forward that we should shut it down... Over the weekened myself and Swcurran were able to clear the backlog.... 15:13:57 q+ 15:14:21 ack swcurran 15:14:22 Manu: I think the process can work as long as few of us share the load, and not have a single person doing reviews... 15:14:47 Swcurran: Wanted to say that one of the PRs perhaps scared away some of the other reviewers... 15:14:48 q+ 15:14:56 ack manu 15:15:35 smccown has joined #did 15:16:02 Manu: Yes we need to deal with that PR... it was disruptive to the process. The maintainers need to make a decision on it. 15:16:32 Wip: Yes the chairs can decide here, agreed. 15:16:36 +1 15:16:45 +1 to discussing the PR in the next WG call. 15:16:49 Topic: Horizontal Review Update 15:17:07 s/the chairs/the WG/ 15:17:08 present+ 15:17:25 present+ 15:17:26 Wip: Just a status update, over the weekend we had the security and privacy review added by smccown, great thanks! .... 15:17:33 https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/191 15:17:44 https://github.com/w3c/security-request/issues/106 15:18:15 q+ 15:18:18 ack manu 15:18:28 Wip: there was a response from security that is asking us to do some Treath Modeling 15:19:28 Manu: Yes that was my interpretation as well, I reached out to Simone to talk about it, he indicated he wanted a Threat Model. However I indicated we may not have time in this WG.... 15:20:19 Manu: I think there is value to Threat Modeling, but not sure if folks have enough bandwidth for it at the moment... 15:21:22 Manu: Simone is suggesting perhaps as fallback, we might suggest some security considerations from an RFC that implementers could be required to respond to... 15:21:52 Manu: We need to make a decision here.... perhaps we discuss here and then reach out to Simone to try to agree on something... 15:22:21 Wip: Yes, also would be good to get JoeA's perspective on this one... 15:22:29 https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/207 15:22:37 Wip: Also for the TAG we are now ready 15:23:33 Wip: I am not sure if it makes sense or not to have this "Design Goals and Rationale" section... 15:23:41 scribe+ 15:24:23 ottomorac: I'm trying to emulate other specs out there that had this explanation. There's always a relationship to other specs section. It need not be done this way, just seemed it was the sensible thing to do. 15:24:30 q+ 15:24:41 ack Wip 15:24:42 ottomorac: We're pressed for time, I'm open to moving us forward in whatever way works. 15:24:43 q+ 15:25:10 ack manu 15:25:26 Wip: Yes, just concerned that the text from the other PRs doesn't fully address the Design Goals aspect... 15:25:50 Manu: We have this in other WGs, but not normally used for Horizontal Review.... 15:26:49 Manu: I think we do need a "Design Goals and Rationale" section, the current content doesn't fully address it, but it is subset of what the TAG requires... 15:26:58 q+ 15:27:28 Manu: the PR seems useful, we need to figure out how incorporate it... 15:27:57 ack Wip 15:28:01 Manu: we might even retitle it to "Ecosystem Review" even.... 15:28:31 Wip: Yes we can re-title and then add a separate issue to formally require design goals and rationale.... 15:28:49 q+ 15:29:01 ottomorac: How explicit do we need to be about the text being for the TAG? 15:29:07 ack manu 15:29:27 Wip: Or it could be called "Ecosystem Overview" 15:30:02 Manu: Yes, we don't need to write this for the TAG directly currently, maybe change the title... 15:30:40 Manu: The TAG wants just clarity on the usefulness of the spec 15:30:49 ottomorac: Ok, maybe ecosystem overview for now, change the title, then we can improve in future. 15:31:00 https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/199 15:31:03 https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/194 15:31:09 Wip: yes we can just change the title, and open a separate issue to add "Design Goals and Rationale"..... 15:31:37 Wip: also please review these other PRs reviewed, I am keen to get this to the TAG 15:31:39 q? 15:31:47 Topic: DID Resolution Test Suite 15:32:09 https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-resolution-mocha-test-suite/issues 15:32:12 Wip: The progress is going ok, I currently have tests for section 4. 15:32:49 Wip: Would appreciate someone looking at it and giving feedback... 15:33:08 Wip: Currently we only have the DID Universal Resolver in there, we need other DID Resolvers.... 15:33:51 q+ 15:33:52 Wip: I also need some feedback from Markus on a few items... Also the DIF Universal Resolver is not checking for ASCII strings, which is another concern... 15:34:08 ack manu 15:34:52 Manu: Yes +1 on having a call to do a second pass at this. Thank you Will for the help here.... Digital Bazaar will submit a resolver in the future. 15:35:10 q+ 15:35:13 Manu: Just the fact that it works with a single resolver is the most difficult part.... 15:35:47 ack markus_sabadello 15:36:10 markus_sabadello: yes thanks Will, getting this initial step done is the hardest... 15:36:31 now lets add more tests and more implementations. 15:36:58 Wip: Would it be better for me to submit a PR to get some reviews on other test cases? 15:37:00 Manu: Yes 15:37:07 Topic: DID Resolution PR Processing 15:37:27 Wip: we have 10 open PRs at the moment... 15:37:32 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/182 15:37:47 Make https binding mandatory #182 15:38:07 Wip: Yes the conformance classes needed to be added... 15:38:35 q+ 15:38:38 Wip: I thought we are adding a new conformance class remote DID resolver. This is a conforming DID resolver (existing conformance class) that implements HTTPS binding the resolve API. Makes me think we might need a remote DID URL dereferencer class also though. 15:38:41 ack markus_sabadello 15:39:17 markus_sabadello: Yes... in the spec we define local binding and remote binding... 15:39:40 q+ 15:39:49 ack manu 15:39:51 maybe the conformance classes can directly reference those 2 terms... 15:40:08 q+ 15:40:31 Manu: Maybe we have a base "conformance class" and another "remote resolver" conformance class.... 15:40:34 Examples of conformance classes: https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vcalm/#conformance 15:40:47 q- 15:41:12 q+ 15:41:19 Manu: The language I was expecting would be a little closer to what the VCALM spec is doing, by directly indicating which sections of the spec the class needs to align too... 15:41:36 ack Wip 15:41:49 Manu: perhaps we layer it using this base conformance class... and then the other 15:42:07 q+ 15:42:53 q+ 15:42:56 ack markus_sabadello 15:42:58 ack manu 15:43:01 q+ markus_sabadello 15:43:04 Wip: Yes I think we can just have "conforming did resolver" which includes the local... and then have the additional "remote resolver" class... 15:43:17 Manu: Yes agree with that.... 15:43:42 ack markus_sabadello 15:43:54 So "remote resolver" would just be a class that also implements https binding... 15:43:57 q+ 15:44:02 ack manu 15:44:09 markus_sabadello: Yes but https binding is not the only remote binding... 15:44:42 q+ 15:44:46 ack Wip 15:44:48 Manu: Then a conforming did-resolver is the one that implements section 11.1, or we just define a conforming "https did resolver".... 15:45:13 Wip: Do we also need 2 classes to for the DID URL de-referencer.... 15:45:17 q+ 15:45:21 ack manu 15:45:46 Manu: Perhaps not.... 15:46:34 q? 15:46:41 Manu: So let's keep base conformance class and add a single conformance class for "https did resolver" 15:46:54 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/204 15:47:20 Wip: any thoughts on this PR? 15:47:49 q+ 15:47:50 Wip: The goal from swcurran was to address that potential loop.... 15:47:53 ack manu 15:48:03 q+ 15:48:08 Manu: Yes I think this is ready to go... 15:48:52 ack markus_sabadello 15:49:24 markus_sabadello: I think it's fine, but perhaps needs to be moved to another section... 15:49:45 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/204 15:49:49 Wip: Yes so general call to the group we need to have at least 2 reviews... 15:50:04 s/204/206/ 15:50:34 https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/206/files 15:51:08 Wip: This is simple PR just to address the issue.... any reactions? 15:51:50 Manu: This is RFC language, so need to clarify the SHOULD.... 15:52:50 Manu: Perhaps just need to address the suggestion sentence, we need to be careful about how implementers would interpret, it might even be good for the "security considerations" 15:52:54 Topic: DID Resolution Issue Processing 15:53:21 q+ 15:53:35 Wip: We have 35 open issues, 11 have PRs, others are TAG related, and others are threat model related.... 15:53:41 ack manu 15:54:51 Manu: We need to identify which others are ready for PR.... by being clear what the PR should say and classifying the level of effort 15:56:05 Wip: Yes we need to decide which issues really processing... I feel like most issues have been discussed at least once... 15:56:26 s/issues really processing/issues really need processing/ 15:56:40 q? 15:56:58 Wip: There are about 10 or so issues that really need discussion... again appreciate help with the PRs... 16:09:36 scribe- 16:09:44 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:09:45 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/02-did-minutes.html ottomorac 16:10:26 rrsagent, make minutes 16:10:27 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/02-did-minutes.html ottomorac 16:10:57 m2gbot, link issues with transcript 16:10:58 comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/182#issuecomment-3362025119 16:10:58 comment already there: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/182#issuecomment-3362025119 16:11:00 comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/204#issuecomment-3362025233 16:11:01 comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/206#issuecomment-3362025349 16:18:46 zakim, end the meeting 16:18:46 As of this point the attendees have been \, ottomorac, Wip, bigbluehat, pchampin, swcurran, denkeni, manu, TallTed, PDL-ASU, JennieM, ivan, smccown 16:18:47 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:18:48 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/02-did-minutes.html Zakim 16:18:54 I am happy to have been of service, ottomorac; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 16:18:55 Zakim has left #did 16:19:10 RRSAgent, please excuse us 16:19:10 I see no action items