14:54:33 RRSAgent has joined #did 14:54:37 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/06/25-did-irc 14:54:37 rrsagent, make logs public 14:54:42 Meeting: Decentralized Identifier Working Group 14:54:46 Chair: ottomorac 14:54:51 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2026Jun/0024.html 14:54:51 clear agenda 14:54:51 agenda+ Agenda Review, Introductions (5 min) 14:54:51 agenda+ DID WG Timeline & Options (20 min) 14:54:51 agenda+ Revisiting Resolving DID URLs (20 min) 14:54:51 agenda+ Next Time (5 min) 14:55:01 previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/06/18-did-minutes.html 14:55:18 next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/07/01-did-minutes.html 14:58:17 transcriber-bot has joined #did 14:58:32 transcriber-bot, connect 14:58:39 Wip has joined #did 14:58:53 present+ 14:59:16 transcriber-bot, connect 14:59:17 scribe+ 14:59:55 transcriber-bot, pause 14:59:55 scribe- 14:59:59 present+ 15:05:11 present+ 15:05:17 transcriber-bot, resume 15:05:17 scribe+ 15:05:22 Otto Mora: Okay. Alright, uh... 15:05:25 swcurran has joined #did 15:05:27 ... Oh 15:05:27 zakim, next item 15:05:28 agendum 1 -- Agenda Review, Introductions (5 min) -- taken up [from agendabot] 15:05:29 present+ 15:05:35 ... Uh, yeah, so today, um 15:05:47 ... We will be talking about the overall timeline for the DAD working group, so Will has kindly put together a presentation with some points around that 15:05:52 ... Uh, we want to maybe try to get to the topic of revisiting 15:06:10 q+ 15:06:11 ... the data URLs, but I don't think we have the quorum for that, so I think it will be mainly potentially around the timeline, and I guess both Will and maybe Pierre discussing that a bit more with the group. Anything else folks want to add? 15:06:15 ack Wip 15:06:18 ... Uh, yeah, go ahead, Will 15:06:21 Will Abramson: Yeah, I guess I would just add, I mean, hopefully... 15:06:27 ... I have prepared something, I mean, it's a shame Stevens… um… Not here 15:06:45 ... Steve, right? To talk about the dig URL resolution thing, but I think I do want to socialize it if we've got time, uh, just so we can start thinking about it, and… Yeah, so we'll see. I do expect us to get to the DID URL versus DID discussion again 15:06:47 zakim, next item 15:06:47 agendum 2 -- DID WG Timeline & Options (20 min) -- taken up [from agendabot] 15:06:48 Otto Mora: Okay, yeah, I think we should socialize then, you're right... 15:06:52 ... All right. Thank you, Will 15:06:57 ... Okay, go… so, yeah, go ahead, Will, we have the topic of the… the timeline and the representing 15:07:05 Will Abramson: Alright, yeah, great. Um, yeah, so I'm gonna share my screen, and I'm gonna present… Um... 15:07:11 ... basically, me, PA, and Otto had a discussion this week, and we looked at our 15:07:12 ... Can you still see… can you see the dead working group, Taiwan? 15:07:15 Otto Mora: Yeah. Mm-hmm... 15:07:22 Will Abramson: Okay... 15:07:25 Otto Mora: Yeah, go ahead, yeah... 15:07:36 Will Abramson: Yeah. Yeah, so we were talking on Tuesday, um, we were talking about the timeline, right? How long we got left in our charter... 15:07:41 ... What have we got to do? All of those things. Um, this is just a summary of 15:07:46 ... That discussion, and kind of 15:07:53 ... a bit of a reality check, I think, for us, about what our priorities are, given that. You know, 2 weeks of our 6 15:08:04 ... Two months of our six-month extension is… up, effectively. Um… So 15:08:14 ... Yeah, I mean, please, also you can manage the queue, and we can stop and have a conversation about any of this at any time. I'm trying to work through the conversation that we had. Yeah, so 15:08:23 ... you know, just to highlight that, you know, we are running out of time. Our charter expires on the 28th of October 2026, which will be at TPAC. in Dublin 15:08:29 ... And we've already been given the maximum 6-month extension for our chart 15:08:40 ... That's a given. So that means we have 17 weeks, approximately. of work remaining in this group. But… You know, we are 15:09:00 ... starting summer, right? It is summer now. I know I'm going to be out for at least two weeks, right? Joe and Manu aren't here this week. I know Joe's going to be out for a couple weeks in summer. Like, I'm sure people are going to be out. That just happened, so… You know, maybe we've got 15 weeks of work, right, if we're being generous. Um 15:09:13 ... So it's just a, uh, you know, bear that in mind as we're going through this. And then there's, okay, well, what do we need to do in those 15 weeks to get to a state that 15:09:31 ... Would be satisfactory for this group by the time our charter expires 15:09:39 ... And I think the main thing, I'll decide about this later, is it will be a failure of this group if we do not get into candidate rec. for… bid resolution before our charter expires. I think it'll be much harder for us to get a re-charter, and it will be 15:09:48 ... it will reflect badly on, you know, all the work that we've put in, and the wider DID community. We absolutely must 15:09:57 ... be targeting to get into candidate rec. So, you know, we've got our first public working draft 15:10:16 ... We have a working draft of bid resolution. Bid is already in candidate rec, with a few caveats that I'll get into later. Bid resolution is not in candidate rec, and we still have a bunch of things that we need to do to get a working group decision and team approval to move into candidate rec 15:10:34 ... And then once you're in Candidate Rec, right, we can iterate on different Candidate Recs, but we also need to start thinking about how do we get out of Candidate Rec, how might we get out of Candidate Rec, and how do we get something that we're happy with, that we can go out to wide review. And then go out to have a AC review in time 15:10:47 ... So, what does that actually look like in practice? This is what, you know, PA was just flagging for us. AC review is going to take a minimum of 28 days. Like, that's really the bare minimum 15:11:01 ... Um… Before you have AC review. you have wide review. So, wide review is where, I guess, you… Let the W3C members know. You have a candidate rec that you're happy with 15:11:04 q? 15:11:22 ... And please take a look at it, right? I mean, maybe PA can speak a bit more to the details of that, but that also takes… you know, you need to have wide review for a minimum of 28 days, like an announcement on the mailing list for W3C members. Here's a spec, we want to get it to REC. We're just going to review it and provide comments, I think 15:11:22 q+ 15:11:26 ... Right, and this is… I guess the wide review is kind of where 15:11:31 ... the objections might come up, you know 15:11:44 ... Or where they came up before, right? That's, like, the browser vendors look at it, and they say no, or they say yes. Um, so, yeah, that's 8 weeks, right? Like, we're really targeting to get to rec 15:11:53 ... That's 8 weeks of our time, just trying to do the review, right? Like, so we've got 7 weeks. Of work 15:12:09 ... that we have left to prepare our spec to be in a candidate REC state that we are satisfied with, so we can go out to wide review in time to be complete by the end of our charter. So, 7 weeks, not very much time 15:12:10 q- 15:12:13 ... Uh, which doesn't seem like very much time to me 15:12:16 ... Um 15:12:48 ... That's just a flag for that. And then second, or next, is, okay, what do we actually need to do in that time? Like, if we wanted to finish the DID resolution work in a place, or put it in a place that we would be. happy with, or it would at least have achieved something in this work, what needs to happen? So, this is really, um 15:12:51 ... Starting from the backwards, right? Like, we need to absolutely move into data resolution candidate rec, right? We need to have a candidate rec that can be wide reviewed and can go to AC review 15:13:00 ... So what do we need to do to move the JID resolutions back into cancer review? Candidate Rex, sorry 15:13:04 ... We have to complete the horizontal review, and we have done quite a lot of this 15:13:08 ... There are a few minor tag issues that remain 15:13:11 ... thought 15:13:16 ... The big thing, I think, for us to move into horizontal review, or the couple, is 15:13:20 ... this threat modeling conversation, right? Like 15:13:32 JennieM has joined #did 15:13:39 present+ 15:13:46 ... We haven't put any, or hardly any time in this group on threat modeling, but security requires threat modeling to be complete, or it requires specs to have a threat model to move into candidate review. And I think Joe would say, like, the bid core spec also requires a threat model to move out of candidate rec into a recommendation, based on 15:13:46 what he's heard from Simone. Um… I have a little pushback against this 15:13:56 ... You know, it feels a bit unfair on this group that we've been asked to produce a threat model. Um 15:14:11 ... really, this year, right? When we had… when we were just wrapping up the group, right? We didn't really know what a threat model entailed, like, saying we're still figuring it out. Feels like threat modeling maybe should have been a conversation that. New groups 15:14:14 ... A requirement as far as new groups 15:14:17 ... But even so, I think the threat modeling work is super valuable, and 15:14:22 ... we should try and do it if we can. Like, for me, that is something that 15:14:25 ... Has already uncovered interesting things, and it's just a different perspective that 15:14:34 q? 15:14:37 ... helps us when we're looking at this work. But it is a lot of work, right? A threat model is not… it's not something that we just whap out in a week. Like, that's gonna take some time and some conversation in the group to get something that 15:14:49 ... we can all live with. Okay, and then the other thing we need to do is revisit the inputs to did resolution. Even though we've spent many… Painful weeks discussing this. Um 15:14:56 ... we need to revisit it, I think, and I'll explain this in more detail later, um, I'd love to hear what you think 15:15:07 ... Um, and then the last thing is, the thing that we've also spent many painful weeks discussing is the refactoring and finalization of the DID URL dereferencing algorithm 15:15:13 ... And I guess I'm putting it to the group 15:15:19 ... This is too much work for us to achieve in the small timeframe we have left 15:15:23 ... So, the question goes, okay, well, what… what… you know, like, what is 15:15:26 ... What does it mean to finish the DigiURL dereferencing algorithm? 15:15:30 ... You know, like, how much work is just that piece? 15:15:34 ... Currently, we've been talking about this as a working group since March 15:15:37 ... Um 15:15:47 ... I'm not… I mean, maybe other people are more positive than me, but I'm not convinced that we're much closer to a solution that everyone could live with than we were then 15:15:51 bigbluehat has joined #did 15:15:58 ... maybe we are. There are some positive directions. I do like the direction of this refactoring, and I think there is… there is value to be uncovered there. But, um 15:16:15 ... I'll get to how this fits in, like, I'm not saying we should discard the dural dereferencing entirely and go back to the current version, but I'm just saying maybe in this current charter, or in the current weeks that we have left, this shouldn't be a priority, because it is not critical past. Um 15:16:33 ... Yeah, and just like, so could we do just this feature in seven weeks, right? Like, that's what I'm trying to say, right? If we didn't have anything else to do, and we just had finished the URL dereferencing, could we do that in seven weeks? I think maybe we could. But, just to flag, you know, we have spent at least 12 weeks on this already 15:16:45 ... And even if we get a refactored algorithm that we are happy with, this algorithm would have to go through horizontal review. I think that's tagged, seeing, and ping, at least 15:16:55 ... We have no test suite, and we have no implementations, I don't think, unless there are ones out there. I mean, maybe Marcus has one, but… um 15:17:00 ... kids might not be conformant. Yeah, so, like, there's a whole piece of work there that's not even factored in. that we also need to do 15:17:18 ... So, just like, you know, I'm not sure we're being realistic. I mean, I'm not sure even in 17 weeks we could do that. Maybe other people think it's… I'm being… Um, very negative 15:17:23 ... I don't mean to be, I'm just trying to do a bit of a reality check here for folks 15:17:32 ... Okay, and then I want to talk about, like, what is our priority right now? Like, what is the thing that we should be focusing all of our attention and energy on? And maybe, as chairs. We've not 15:17:36 ... Have this top of mind, as much as we should have 15:17:46 ... Um 15:17:52 ... But my suggestion, and really, PA and me and Otto were talking about this 15:18:21 ... from the outside, what people are looking to the DID working group to do is address the interoperability objections that were raised 15:18:34 ... In the initial bid working group, the previous bid working group 15:18:45 ... And the reason that we included did resolution into our charter 15:19:05 ... was as a direct response to these objections. We claimed, by standardizing a interface. a consistent interface across DID methods, that you can execute the resolve function and get back a conformant DID document for any DID method, right? Not for any DID method, but you have one standard entry point. that you can call the same way for any DID 15:19:05 methods. We claim that that is the way we can address interoperability, because whether you use DID key, or DID web, or, you know, any of the DID methods 15:19:09 ... as a… as someone… a client of those bids, someone receiving those bids, they know that the resolved operation is going to be the same, and the… the response from that is also something that's the same. The bid document's already been defined, so as long as they can take a bid. and get back a DID document, then we're claiming that there is 15:19:09 interoperability, and that is how we're addressing these 15:19:22 ... objections. um… I think that's valid. I stand behind that claim. But, there is nothing in that claim that is dependent on did URL dereference. That's what I'm claiming here. Um… So 15:19:34 ... I don't know, like, do these objectives care about digital URL dereferencing? Maybe. I know people in this group care about it strongly, right? That's why we're talking about a lot of people in this group have 15:19:38 ... have use cases that depend on digital LD referencing, and ideally, they want those use cases to be 15:19:39 q? 15:19:47 ... standardized, so that there aren't all these competing different approaches to how you interpret a dig URL 15:19:51 ... Uh, but I don't know if it's critical path. In fact, I think it's… I'm claiming it's not critical path 15:19:58 ... You cannot have did URL dereferencing without did resolution. I think we all agree with that. Um, most people out there 15:20:14 ... I may be claiming, without any evidence, are more interested in bid resolution initially. I mean, I think one of the reasons we have struggled in this group is there is not enough implementation experience with bid URL bid resolution. Um 15:20:19 ... Yeah, so again, just to highlight this, the worst case scenario 15:20:33 ... is for us to fail to get CR before our charter expires. Like, that is, like, people will be able to point out the DID working group and the work and say, they failed 15:20:40 ... You know, like, the objectors will be able to point out the work and shut it down, or it'll be much harder for us to reach out to. And continue this work 15:20:48 ... So… so what should we do? How do we… address this. Um 15:20:58 ... when we were talking, we came up with a few different approaches. They're kind of in the same vein, but, you know, we can pick which one we might get first, with the caveat, you know, with the 15:21:01 ... Um, point that we have to get to CR, right? Like, that is what we should focus on 15:21:13 ... And so I think it's like, what's the minimum viable bid resolution spec that produces value? 15:21:16 ... That we could take to CR 15:21:30 ... Right? So, like, for me, I think what's critical is threat model is critical, although maybe we could debate that a little bit, but I would like to see us focus on threat modeling to get that done. I think the horizontal review issues are critical, and a decision on bid resolution input is critical. Did URL dereferencing is not? 15:21:51 ... Um, and then, you know, that's not, like I said, that's not to say we're chucking out digital LD referencing, pull out the specs, we don't want to talk about it anymore. It's just to say right now, as a working group, what we're focusing our attention and time and energy on, especially in the calls. Has to be getting something 15:21:55 ... that we are happy… that we are comfortable with to CR 15:22:06 ... Um, and then, when we're in CR, there are a couple of options for how we can continue the work, right? Like, we can either 15:22:23 ... plan to and intend to recharter to continue to discuss and address just the URL dereferencing, right? Like, we know we have this piece, we know it's under-defined, we know we haven't got enough time to get it ready, given our charter 15:22:32 ... So we can… we can propose to reach out to that. The other option that PA suggested is, once you're in CR 15:22:41 ... you can have… you can come into CR with the explicit intention to continuously iterate in CR, so create new candidate recommendations 15:22:47 TallTed has joined #did 15:22:51 ... to complete the URL dereferencing. So I'm not fully sure on the… it's a bit of a hack, apparently, of the system. Maybe Jay can speak to it more. But, um 15:22:53 q? 15:22:58 ... So the real thing is, we have to get to see how with something. As soon as possible 15:23:11 ... And once we're in CR, it just gives us much more options and, I guess, like, safety 15:23:17 q+ 15:23:19 ... for how… We can progress to work. So, I think that's all I've got. Are there any questions, concerns, comments? Like, does anyone disagree? 15:23:21 ack ottomorac 15:23:28 q+ 15:23:30 Otto Mora: Uh, I put myself in the queue just to say a great presentation, Will. I think it's very, uh... 15:23:37 ... grounded in in in reality. Yeah, definitely. Most people do care about the resolution 15:23:41 ... That dereferencing… I mean, it is important and not to, like 15:23:50 ... dismiss the… some of the, you know, the stuff that Joe has pointed out needs to be tightened up in dereferencing, but 15:24:01 ... Uh, yeah, by and far, most folks just care about resolution and getting… you know, your dead document back. Um… So yeah, I think, uh 15:24:15 ... it is raising some good valid points, and also, like, you know, realistically, yeah, like, even if… even if we have made some really good progress in recent weeks, I… You know, the current direction doesn't 15:24:18 ... Wouldn't show that we would be able to fix 15:24:23 ack swcurran 15:24:25 ... the, uh, the referencing in time. I agree with that. Um, okay, I see Steven 15:24:32 Stephen Curran: Yeah, I mean, I agree with what you said, Will... 15:24:43 ... I don't quite know… my purpose here is to just try to move things forward. I think not completing is a far bigger deal. We have 15:24:51 ... Two people that have expressed that they're gonna formally object depending on what we do, so we have to… It would be nice to figure out 15:24:58 ... You know what we could do 15:25:07 ... to leave this… I… I guess what I want… was wondering, Will, is are you saying we leave this back as it is with the… did URL dereferencing, or remove it entirely? 15:25:10 Will Abramson: uh... 15:25:13 ... Yeah, so concretely, um 15:25:17 Stephen Curran: Is that the way you want to go forward? I'm just not sure what you're suggesting on. Did you say?... 15:25:34 Will Abramson: I guess we would… I'd probably defer to Pierre for how he's on the call, but I think it would be the initial version that we moved to CR, you know, maybe we mark the sections as, like, non-normative, or at risk, or, you know, potentially we remove them. I think, ideally, we... 15:25:38 ... We wouldn't remove them until, like, the final calendar wreck, but 15:25:45 present+ 15:25:49 q+ 15:25:54 ... I think we… we make it clear when we're moving to CR which bits of the spec are, like, normative, um, part of the standard that we're trying to get to wreck in this candidate wreck. Like, part of the candidate wreck, and which parts are still very much 15:25:58 ... unstable and could be either removed or need further iteration 15:26:01 ack pchampin 15:26:02 ... I don't know, PA, maybe if you can speak to Howie, yeah, yeah 15:26:06 Otto Mora: But go ahead, Pete... 15:26:13 Pierre-Antoine Champin: Yes, thank you. I hope you don't pick up the background noise too much. Is that okay?... 15:26:18 Otto Mora: Uh, it's okay, yeah... 15:26:21 Will Abramson: Yes... 15:26:36 Pierre-Antoine Champin: Okay, cool. So, yeah, marking some features as at risk is a way to warn people that, and I think it fits quite well the situation we're in... 15:26:40 ... Well, to some extent, marking a feature as at risk means this might go away before we go to rec 15:26:54 ... So we are not, the working group is not entirely confident that we can gather enough implementation experience on that. And if we don't, then it won't be part of the REC 15:27:10 ... So that would be one way to go. I mean, at least marking it as at risk gives us this backdoor to move forward despite the absence of 15:27:14 ... of implementation feedback 15:27:19 ... But as Will stated, in fact, once we have a CR 15:27:27 ... There are really two ways to move forward. Either we publish it as is 15:27:37 ... Potentially by removing the at-risk part, and then hope to make the missing… to add the missing part in a future version of the REC 15:27:57 q+ 15:28:00 ... Or we could just remain in CR for a while and publish. And you see our snapshots, which is something which is becoming increasingly common in working groups. And I'm not even sure that we have to decide this beforehand or that we have to clearly announce that 15:28:16 ... I guess… I guess we need a straight story, uh, when we ask for a recharter, so probably if we… if we can clearly announce what's the plan, it would be better. But, um… But again, yeah, to strengthen Will's point 15:28:33 ... I do agree that we need a CR to have something to show for our work. And then how we move on from that, there are several options. Yep, that's it 15:28:35 ack Wip 15:28:40 Otto Mora: Yep... 15:28:43 Will Abramson: Yeah, I guess I'm wondering... 15:28:51 Otto Mora: Go ahead, Will... 15:28:58 Will Abramson: You know, this option to stay in CR and continuously iterate, in both situations, we kind of need to reach out directly, aren't we? So, like, what are the pros and cons on each of them? Um, I guess one of the negatives I see about, like... 15:28:59 q+ 15:29:05 ... staying in recharger… in… in Candidate Rec and never getting to Rec is… we never get to a Rec for 15:29:15 ... Oh, it takes much longer for us to get to Iraq for bid resolution, which people can then depend on and rely on. Um, yeah, I'm interested to hear your thoughts 15:29:17 ack pchampin 15:29:20 Otto Mora: Go ahead, Pete... 15:29:28 Pierre-Antoine Champin: Um, yeah, the, the, for me, the nice… thing about... 15:29:48 ... remaining in CR is if people feel that a half-baked recommendation is worse than no recommendation at all. And I'm not sure if that's anyone's position in the group, but I anticipate that some people might feel… I've heard things 15:29:55 ... That makes me makes me think that some people might be against having a recommendation 15:30:03 ... rubber stamps by W3C that do not go as far as DDRL resolution 15:30:21 ... If the plan is, we are not publishing, we are showing that we have something to show for our work that is a CR, it's better than nothing, it's definitely better than a working draft. But there is still work to do, and we will do that in CR 15:30:41 ... until we finally reach consensus. In, in any case, yes, of course, we need, we need a re-charter, and the goal is to make, to, to, to, to, to have, uh, as much chances as possible that this re-charter is, is accepted, and that the 15:30:45 ... The objectors to the did work cannot take this as an argument to stop us 15:30:46 q? 15:30:48 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm... 15:30:59 Will Abramson: Um... 15:31:05 q+ 15:31:11 ... Yeah, I mean, I guess we can move on. I mean, just to hear from anybody else, if you're not speaking and you have an opinion or thought about this, but 15:31:12 Grace Rachmany: Maybe... 15:31:15 Will Abramson: I'll share this, probably, with the mailing list... 15:31:23 ... the email, the timeline? Do you think that's alright? Like, maybe the private paperwork and group one? Just the numbers 15:31:24 Grace Rachmany: When you say we can move on, I don't hear that you made the decision about what to do. Do you want to make a decision?... 15:31:27 Otto Mora: It's a bit... 15:31:29 Grace Rachmany: The same time frame... 15:31:32 Otto Mora: Could you speak a little closer to the mic, Grace? Sorry... 15:31:44 Grace Rachmany: Not sure. What?... 15:31:48 Otto Mora: I think you might… Ian... 15:31:49 Will Abramson: God, hey... 15:31:52 Otto Mora: Yeah, I can't hear you quite well... 15:31:54 Grace Rachmany: I think this is better. How's that?... 15:31:57 Otto Mora: Yep. Yep. Perfect. Perfect. Go ahead... 15:32:04 Will Abramson: Okay... 15:32:07 q+ 15:32:07 Grace Rachmany: I just had to turn off some Bluetooth things. Like, you're saying you want to move on, but I don't hear a decision, and I do hear that it's time critical. Like, is… like, the proposal on the table seems to be to remove certain parts... 15:32:10 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm... 15:32:26 Grace Rachmany: And maybe you can be explicit about what the proposal is and ask for a consensus, because it doesn't feel to me like you want to wait another week until a vote is given on what to do to move forward. If you've only got 7 weeks till you actually have to submit something, like... 15:32:31 ... Now seems like a good time to agree upon next steps 15:32:35 ack Wip 15:32:39 Otto Mora: Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead... 15:32:42 Will Abramson: Maybe I can just respond to that. Sorry, Steven. Yeah, I mean, I think —... 15:33:00 ... I think you make a great point, Grace, and we could figure out some proposal text. I'm a little hesitant about doing that without Joe and Manu, and I think for me, like, I think the bits that need deciding are just this end bit about what do we do around video or LD reference. thing, like… unless I hear someone strongly 15:33:07 ... objecting to this, I think the chairs feel strongly that we need to turn all of our energy towards 15:33:13 ... finalizing those bits around DID resolution. So that is finalizing the DID resolution horizontal review issues 15:33:16 ... Sourcing out the threat modeling, and um 15:33:24 ... I think that was it. Oh, and this… the inputs to the DID URL… to the DID resolution algorithm 15:33:30 ... discussion. So, like, for me, like, that is what the chairs are gonna focus the group on next 15:33:40 ... And then, the question that we will try and get to a resolution on, but I would like the input of Manu, and Joe at least, and maybe Marcus too, is 15:33:52 ... Um, how do… how does the group proceed once we have got into a REC, in terms of, are we gonna try and stay in this candidate REC phase, or are we gonna 15:33:58 q- 15:33:58 ... Finish, move it, you know, completely wrecked, and then recharter around a, you know, 1.1 15:34:01 ... spec, or whatever that just defines the URL that you're referencing 15:34:20 Grace Rachmany: Great. And I think it would make a lot of sense to be really specific about what, what, at what upcoming meeting you'd like to make the decision about what to submit to. I'm sorry, I don't know all the terminology, but it sounds like you need to send, submit this to review within seven weeks... 15:34:43 ... And I think that it would be really useful to say on this date, we're going to make that decision. That way, Joe and Manu and all of the rest of us who are here today will know this is the date on which this is going to be voted on, and then anybody. Who doesn't show up on that date knows that they're missing that 15:34:44 Will Abramson: um... 15:34:47 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm... 15:34:53 Will Abramson: Yeah, okay, uh, we could pick a date, I mean… That's a good point... 15:34:54 q+ 15:35:00 ... Maybe, I would say, 2 weeks' time? The 9th of July? 15:35:09 ... Um, we could touch on it briefly next week, uh, and then… You know, and to bow in 15:35:18 ... I'm gonna have to drive just to make this decision about what we're doing, if we're going to… how we're handling going direct once we are in there with a… Minimal viable version 15:35:21 smccown has joined #did 15:35:28 present+ 15:35:37 Dan Pape: Sorry, well, I was about 10 minutes late, um, so I may have missed it. Is your hesitancy to make everyone vote next week because a bunch of people are still gonna be out, or… I don't know, it seems like we're kinda… And we got a... 15:35:40 Stephen Curran: Yep... 15:35:43 Dan Pape: make some decisions... 15:35:53 Will Abramson: Um, okay, well, I respond to that too. My hesitancy for voting next week is, like, I think next week, like, it's not like this vote is blocking us... 15:35:59 ... Right? Like, there are things that we absolutely need to do on bid resolution that are 15:36:07 q+ 15:36:10 ... independent of the decision that we need to make with this vote. So, like, two weeks feels like a bit more time for people to think about what they want to do, and I will share this 15:36:24 ... slide deck in… with the mailing list, and I'll put that date thing in there, just so, like, two weeks is a bit more time for people to prepare to make sure that they're here if it's really important to them. And because it's not… okay, it is time critical, but it is not blocking the things that are also time critical 15:36:26 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm... 15:36:29 Will Abramson: On progress... 15:36:33 danpape has joined #did 15:36:36 Grace Rachmany: And then maybe just say, if we do have all of the key players next week, we'll do it next week, and if not, we'll… the official date is 2 weeks from now... 15:36:40 ... Just because, like, you don't want it to end up being blocked again because somebody doesn't show up 15:36:44 ack pchampin 15:36:45 Will Abramson: Yep. Feather is cute... 15:36:50 Otto Mora: Yeah, sorry. Yeah, go ahead, Pierre... 15:36:56 Pierre-Antoine Champin: Yeah, my suggestion would be to plan the vote on next week... 15:37:02 ... Uh, and the reason is, or the rationale, is that anyway, any decision made during a call 15:37:16 ... always has a, by our process, has a one week, how do you call that? People have one week to react. So I think — 15:37:35 ... scheduling the votes during next week's call, people, some people, everyone, but everyone will be aware. Those who want to participate to the live discussion will make their best to be here during the call. Then there will be a vote. Then the people who 15:37:44 q? 15:37:51 ... could not make it, still have the opportunity to chime in, and if there's no minus one during the call, somebody can still issue a minus one on the mailing list on the following week. So, uh, I think if we want to have a final decision in two weeks 15:37:54 Ok lets do that then 15:37:58 ack swcurran 15:37:58 ... Scheduling the votes in next week's call is a right way to go 15:38:03 Otto Mora: Thank you. Uh… Steven?... 15:38:03 Decisions made in a call are *provisional*, until a week has passed 15:38:09 Pierre-Antoine Champin: Provisional is the word I was looking for. Sorry, any decision made during a call is provisional during a week... 15:38:12 Otto Mora: Oh, okay... 15:38:22 Stephen Curran: I think the biggest challenge is making what you're proposing, what the proposal is very concrete. We have... 15:38:31 ... 5, 6 PRs that go off in different directions. Uh, we have an existing spec, we have merged one that 15:38:39 ... is 15:38:43 ... stated as being partial. What is the proposal? And so that's the big thing to figure out 15:38:59 ... Then I think we need something very, very concrete, because we have very little time to execute on it. I think the threat model work is, as far as I know, it's writing. I don't think anyone's going to want to debate it for very long 15:39:17 ... They are… we did a session, Joe hosted a session where he collected a number of threats and did the threat modeling. I think it's a… I hope it's just a matter of writing that up in a way that's reasonable, and I don't think there's going to be a lot of discussion or 15:39:23 ... about that. It's more getting the work done. I'm much more concerned about what 15:39:27 ... you want done to this to the did resolutions back regarding 15:39:41 ... The did URL question and the did URL dereferencing. What state do you want it? 15:39:43 q+ 15:39:45 ... left in when we go to Cr, so we can go to that direction. Right now we're going in 6 different directions 15:39:47 ack Wip 15:39:49 ... That's it 15:39:56 Otto Mora: Go ahead, Will... 15:40:04 Will Abramson: Yeah, um, I guess, you know, what I'm suggesting is we stop going in all of those directions. I think that has been a distraction, and it's unfortunate, but we should... 15:40:18 ... I mean, we can vote on this, too, next week, but I guess there's two proposals. The first proposal is the group stops putting its time and energy into DigURL dereferencing until we have a 15:40:31 ... provisional, you know, a REC that the group's comfortable with, that is, like, minimum viable, and it includes resolution. And then the second proposal is about, once we have a REC, how does the group want to 15:40:41 ... Um… move out of that wreck. Moved out, moved out of that candidate wreck 15:40:48 ... into a recommendation, or do we want to continue this sort of iterative approach? So, like, the proposal is we're going to mark all of the digital URL dereferencing bits at risk 15:40:50 q? 15:40:57 ... And… Um… move forward like that. Like, that will be acceptable, I think, is what PA is saying, to move it into rep 15:40:57 Link to Presentation from Will: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1aXwUMyvv37Iz0VfTl2jMlbqeJFWPIPgoYh0o5HAGbpM/edit?usp=sharing 15:41:08 ... Uh, into a CR, rather. And then, obviously, before we moved out of… before we move out of CR, we would have a decision about, okay, how do we tidy up those, um, at-risk sections? 15:41:14 q? 15:41:25 Otto Mora: Sure... 15:41:31 Stephen Curran: Sorry, I can't get to my the chat room right now. So I'm going to jump in the queue if I could... 15:41:32 ... But does that mean, Will? Do you mean like we? 15:41:35 Otto Mora: Go ahead, go ahead... 15:41:45 Stephen Curran: go back to where the spec was 6 months ago on DID resolution, and just say, okay, we're gonna leave it at that. Is that what you're saying?... 15:41:48 Will Abramson: Um... 15:42:06 ... Well, I think we need to get resolution, like the resolution algorithm, to a state that the group. Is, um, you know, willing to live with 15:42:10 Stephen Curran: Yeah... 15:42:12 Will Abramson: Like, whatever that is, we still have to get to consensus on the state of the DID resolution algorithm. That is part of the work that we will be doing over these 7 weeks... 15:42:15 Stephen Curran: And and my concern is, there's the passion is so high that that... 15:42:20 q+ 15:42:42 ... that that's not really possible. I'm… I'd like to state that I don't care. I don't think it matters whether it's six months ago, whether the one we're going on. We're… we're… they're just… They come down to minor issues, in my opinion, but people think, you know, are very 15:42:45 Will Abramson: No... 15:42:47 q+ 15:42:57 Stephen Curran: passionate that absolutely, positively, this must happen, and they're conflicting, and that's where we've got a problem. I think it's… it's all on the margins, and whether we word it this way or we word it that way, it really doesn't matter... 15:43:07 ... Um, so… But we have to have a definitive, okay, this is the direction we're going to go 15:43:20 ... Um… Because saying, oh, we're going to resolve the DID resolution question, I think will take months. Um, given where we are and the… and the… progress we're making. I'm willing to close all my PRs on it. I'm 15:43:29 ... I write PRs to try to express the will of what I interpret the DID Working Group is saying, and right now, I don't have a clue 15:43:38 ... Um, because we're off in so many directions, so my preference would be we just go back to what it was at the beginning, and 15:43:53 ack pchampin 15:43:53 Will Abramson: Yeah, thanks... 15:43:56 Stephen Curran: If we go into CR with that, I would like to see PATH added, but that would be just controversial, and therefore I don't want to see it, because I don't want any more controversy. I just want to see us get to CR, because if we don't get to CR, DIDs are seriously at risk... 15:44:01 Otto Mora: Beer?... 15:44:14 Pierre-Antoine Champin: Okay, here's my potentially naive view on the topic and how we could move forward. For me, there are two aspects to the dissent in the group. One of them is... 15:44:32 ... Should there be two entry points or just one? The previous version of the spec had two entry points, resolve that took a did and dereference that took a did URL 15:44:39 ... And now it seems, if I understand correctly, we're moving toward a single entry point, which would therefore accept the URL 15:44:48 s/Otto Mora: Beer?/Otto Mora: Pierre?/ 15:44:59 ... The second source of dissent, and that's also why it took so long, is, uh, what about… how do we exactly manage did URLs that are not just dids? And there's a number of, uh, tricky issues there that… That makes that we don't have consensus 15:45:07 ... So in order to move forward, the general plan is to leave aside the second source of dissent 15:45:19 ... and focus on, okay, you give me a DID, I give you a DID document 15:45:19 q+ 15:45:33 ... I think we could implement that in both of the… the first problem, really, both options allow to do that. Either we have two entry points, and therefore we just specify the first one, and we leave the second one for further work 15:45:39 ... Or we have just one entry point, and then we say, okay, at the moment, that entry point, that function or algorithm or whatever 15:45:53 ... it's supposed to accept arbitrary DID URLs, but at the moment, it is only specified for the subset of DID URLs that happen to be just DIDs. So. Again 15:45:59 ... I, I, I, uh 15:46:16 ... we need consensus on the first one, I guess, and that has been a large part of the discussion recently. The idea is to leave aside the second part, which is then, what do we do about those URLs that have paths and parameters and everything? 15:46:23 ... But at least that divides the problem so that we only have to find consensus on that single part 15:46:29 ack danpape 15:46:30 ... But yes, we still need consensus where it might still be hard to find 15:46:35 Otto Mora: Yeah. Thank you. Dan?... 15:46:44 Dan Pape: Oh, I was just going to ask, um, our… These... 15:46:49 ... Will made the comment of, you know, PRs are going in all these different directions. Are any of these directions 15:46:55 ... In the sense of just removing that thing completely, because if not, then yeah, hopefully 15:47:00 ... It would be easier to make people see the sense of, you know, let's 15:47:12 ... Just, you know, at least agree on something for these at-risk sections, and then, you know, yeah, if we can definitely iterate on them. After CR. Then, you know, hopefully that could 15:47:35 ack Wip 15:47:39 Otto Mora: Thanks, Dan... 15:47:42 ... Will? 15:47:47 Will Abramson: um… forgot what I was gonna say. I, I... 15:47:48 Dan Pape: you know, get some people to, you know, come together a little bit. Like, for instance, I mean, yeah, if we need to put a pause on URL dereferencing, or at least, you know, at least put it in, just say, look, you know, this is still... 15:47:49 Will Abramson: I mean, I think, Dan, for the moment, we aren't talking about removing it... 15:47:49 Dan Pape: trying to be finalized or something, then yeah, that's… seems better than if there is someone who just doesn't want us to talk about it at all, which I don't recall there being, but I could be wrong... 15:47:52 Will Abramson: Like, removing it completely from the spec... 15:47:59 ... Um, but that may happen once we're in CR, dependent on what the group wants to do 15:48:14 -1 to removing DID URL Dereferencing from the spec :-) 15:48:18 ... I think the big… I mean, Pierre, you sort of hit the nail on the head. The big question that I have for the group, which we need to resolve, is what are the inputs to the resolve algorithm? You know, we've just had this long debate about switching from DIDs to DID URLs 15:48:30 ... now, potentially, there's a reason to switch back, but are people gonna be happy with that? Like, I, I, um 15:48:40 ... I think that is the big, um, blocker that we have to decide on. I mean, with my chair hat on… off, rather, I… Have 15:48:43 ... a lot of sympathy for what Steven is saying, like, maybe we just roll back 6 months, and 15:48:56 q? 15:49:01 ... And is that a version of the spec that is minimum viable and the group could get behind? And that would be great to know. So, at least we have something that we're comfortable with. Uh, I don't know if that is the case with some members of the group, though, so 15:49:01 Otto Mora: Yeah... 15:49:04 Will Abramson: We'll have to see... 15:49:17 Otto Mora: Okay, well, I think we've, you know, I think the sense of urgency has been communicated. I agree with Grace as well about needing to cap to vote... 15:49:21 zakim, next item 15:49:21 agendum 3 -- Revisiting Resolving DID URLs (20 min) -- taken up [from agendabot] 15:49:24 ... And maybe we should move on to the next topic of of the the changing of the. um 15:49:28 Will Abramson: Hmm. Okay... 15:49:31 Otto Mora: potential changing of, uh… revisiting of the date URL as input. Um… Perhaps... 15:49:49 Will Abramson: Sure. Yeah, there's not that much time for this. Um… I don't know… Steve… Steven Cam, how well are you up to speed with this, uh… I think you and Joe came up with this reason that changing to dig URLs is maybe not a good idea?... 15:50:06 ... Um, I have… I have a pre… like, a very short thing that I can just go over with the group, um, if that's useful, but it's really just what Joe sent me. I haven't had a chance to talk to him, um, so Steve, if you are able to speak to this issue. Might be better 15:50:20 Steve McCown: Yeah, Joe and I talked quite a bit about this, basically... 15:50:20 ... Uh, well, long story short, um, it's probably good to review what he sent. He's more eloquent about that than I am 15:50:20 Will Abramson: Okay... 15:50:20 s/Cam,/McCown,/ 15:50:21