Meeting minutes
<ottomorac> transcriber-bot, connect
<ottomorac> transcriber-bot, stop
Joe Andrieu: Well, when we are ready to go, I do have an agenda item I'd like to add. It's a small logistical thing, but I wanted to bring it up...
Otto Mora: the agenda, we have the introductions, a GDC conference we're briefly touching upon. I know that at least Will is attending, and maybe some other folks are. I am in touch with some folks that also are interested in that...
Joe Andrieu: Uh, it's something else, but I am excited to talk about where we're at with the rubric...
Otto Mora: Then, uh, also some update, I think, on the DAD rubric, was it, uh, Joe, is that the topic you wanted to touch upon, or is it something separate? Perfect...
… And then we were reviewing the Pr. For candidate Rick. So the idea being trying to review that. And then we also have the one which is the 3, 4, 4, which is the dereferencing one
… And that was what we had. But then, yeah, what else would you like to touch upon, Joe?
Joe Andrieu: Uh, yeah, I just noticed some, um, legacy text in our, uh, calendar invite...
… Um, say that we rely on IRC in our weekly call to encourage meeting participation, yadda yadda yadda. Um, I think we… this has been a successful experiment in terms of how we've been logging our chats. And so if that's true. Maybe we should remove that and let people know
IRC Logistics
Joe Andrieu: that we are not using IRC, really. Some of us
Otto Mora: Right. Yeah, go ahead, Will...
Will Abramson: But yeah, I was gonna say, we do still use IRC...
Stephen Curran: Except we log into it every week, don't we?...
Will Abramson: But we just, um...
Stephen Curran: Sorry, Will's on the queue...
Otto Mora: Mm-hmm. Okay...
Joe Andrieu: That's a good point. Yep...
Will Abramson: we aren't recording, you know, we aren't being the recorder, but I think IRT, for me, is very useful for queue management, and, like, just to be able to see the agenda getting transcribed live is kind of useful. I actually haven't been using the...
… transcription… I haven't very often looked back at the transcription, so it'd be interesting to hear from folks who have about how useful they've been finding it
… I don't think AIC is still part of our toolkit
Otto Mora: Yeah, I think, yeah, mainly mainly for the...
… So, the queue management… I mean, we do… we… there was a request from… from Pierre to add a feature for, I guess, detecting hands-up on Zoom, where that gets reflected on IRC, which would be kind of cool. I'm looking into that
… It does require some some
Joe Andrieu: Okay, cool, thanks...
GDC Conference
Otto Mora: So I'm looking into how to match either the IRC names or just completely just using the name from Zoom and stuff like that, but yeah...
… Uh, so we can
… I mean, I'm in the process also of moving this bot from my computer onto, like, an actual cloud server. So, yeah, we're gonna hopefully soon transition to the W3C Zoom account back again, hopefully
… Um, alright
… Cool
… Yep. Okay, so the next topic is the GDC conference. So that's the 1st to the 3rd of September
… We do have a few folks I know representing there, specifically from this group. We have Will attending. A lot of the conversation is around government adoption in particular, but also like other use cases
… In my case, I'm in touch with the folks from the European Decentralization Institute, which is Arno Lubin and Alessandro Malventano. So they're also interested in, I think, trust framework discussions. They have this idea of what they call the pan-European trust framework
Will Abramson: Yeah, um… I don't have too much on this, I mean, I'm gonna attend, because I have a cousin who… I mean, I haven't planned travel or anything, but unfortunately I have a cousin who lives out there, and I definitely want to go back...
Otto Mora: Taking some inspiration from the Canadian one. But yeah, they have that conversation. But I'll let Will kind of take over here as well. But yeah, the idea being, if you are attending, please let us know now so that I can get you in touch with other people that are attending. Whatnot, we can showcase the work being done...
Will Abramson: conference last year. I guess the question is, yeah, really, who else is attending? And I haven't tuned in that much, but I think there is some sort of, like, agenda curation going on. Like, I think...
Otto Mora: Go ahead, Will...
Will Abramson: They have, like, sort of an unscheduled or less scheduled bit...
… And, you know, if there are folks attending, is there something that… we as a group should be thinking about talking about is one of the questions. I mean, I think it's good just to attend and represent decentralized identifiers. Uh, be there in the session, but maybe also we could
… Put on a session. This is just a thought across my mind
Otto Mora: Mm-hmm. Right, right. A decision could be proposed. That's true. Uh, Joe?...
Joe Andrieu: Um, yeah, I know Simone will be there, um, so I'd reach out to him, Will. Um… The...
Will Abramson: Agree...
Joe Andrieu: uh, if they have an unconference sort of thing that they're doing, sort of late binding to proposals, um, then, uh, yeah, that would be a good idea. Um, the formal proposals, um...
… required all sorts of approval. Like, I worked with Simone to try and get his
Otto Mora: Perfect. Ah, excellent...
Joe Andrieu: uh, sessions adopted, and it was a… it was a bit of a headache, uh, because you needed multiple organizations to sponsor your idea. So you had to go hat in hand to other, uh, sponsoring organizations to… to, you know, rally enough people to say yes...
Otto Mora: Hey, Will...
Will Abramson: Yeah, just on that. I mean, yeah, I think I'll… like I said, I haven't really tracked it that closely, but I will start exploring. I think reaching out to Tony is a good idea, and, like, you know, I think auto-connecting with some folks who are trying to put on a session. uh...
Joe Andrieu: Um, but if they have an unconference thing, you know, I think you should grab it. I think that would be fun and interesting...
… Um, and I just recommend reach out to Simone
Otto Mora: Thanks. Perfect. Let's see, I don't see anybody...
Will Abramson: So yeah, just figuring out exactly how all that is working would be interesting, and I'll let folks know as I know more...
Otto Mora: It's in your hands, but yeah, ping me or Will if you're attending, and we can… I think there's also a brief comment here from Steven. Open Well Foundation clinical advisory committees can help you...
DID Rubric Update
Otto Mora: Oh, okay, so yeah, yeah, because that's true as well, that the point here on this conference is that for a talk to happen, two of the co-organizers have to back it, I think, at least two of them. I think that's good, uh, thanks for that point, Steven
… Point it out
Joe Andrieu: Cool...
Otto Mora: Okay, uh, excellent. So, next topic, um, DAD Rubric Update...
Joe Andrieu: Um, so Will and I I don't know how long it's taken It's a little embarrassing to say it's taken so long. Um but we have transformed the um did rubric into a JSON driven...
Otto Mora: Um, cool. And I'll yield the floor to, um, Joe, because I know you sent an email about this, and...
… You can share more details
<ottomorac> https://
Joe Andrieu: Rendering, repo. So that in theory, it should be easier to manage contributions. So someone wanted to, add a, add an assessment or add a new criteria. It's now much more...
… constrained and able to do that. And we now think this is ready to be proposed as a formal W3C registry
… So, I think the… the next step, uh, sort of organizationally, is I think this… us as a group should probably have a proposal and say, yes, we want to turn this into a registry. We do not have to do that today, but that's the… that's the next step for, I think, us group to come to a consensus round. If, uh, we had agreed to do that before
… Now, Will and I have done the work so that it's ready to formally pull the trigger on that, and that would include a call for horizontal review, um, and then it does go before the AC to have the, uh, the rules of the registry reviewed
… And the main value of all of this is that once the rules are approved, then the registry survives this working group. Like the registry explains what can be updated, what the format of the data needs to be to update it, and how that those updates are going to be curated and edited
… And it has an authority that goes beyond the working group which is something the note version of the did rubric does not have. So in order to update the did rubric as a note there must be a working group embodied and chartered to in fact maintain that document So this is
… Um, I don't know if there have been any other formal W3 registries that have gone through this process, but we are definitely one of the earlier ones to do so. Certainly the first one I know of
… Um… So, uh
… I guess we could look at it. I don't know where we're at. I see Will jumped on the queue
Otto Mora: Yeah, well...
Will Abramson: Yeah, thanks, Joe. Yeah, I mean, like I said, I mean, Joe's just been hacking on this slow and steady, but it is now ready, and I think, really, we would just appreciate your review, as much time as, obviously, you have...
… uh… just to have a look over it, and then we're obviously going to work with PA to, like, do this transition, you know, like, I think the horizontal review we're hoping is going to be very light
… Because, right, it's not a technical spec, but that's gonna be interesting, because I think Joe's right, we maybe are the first people to even be attempting this
… Uh, and then the other thing I wanted to flag is
… maybe, like, one of the reasons or triggers for this was, like, how do we integrate DID traits, right? We did talk about that, we passed some resolutions around that, and… and now, this, uh, is in a much better place where we can start to do… start to think about how DID traits might be integrated, but… Obviously, that is only
… like, like, we kind of would like the DID tradespeople to say, okay, let's, you know, we're gonna take that forwards, and we would help them, right? Like, we'd work with them, but
… I don't know if the trades are going to get in, like, in this working group, but as Joseph says, maybe that also doesn't matter, because the registry will waft beyond that. But I think it would be great to get those two pieces of work integrated
Otto Mora: Mm-hmm...
Manu Sporny: Um, yeah, it's scanning through the document now, and it looks really great, guys, so thank you very much for doing this. Um, I'm just looking at, like, the criteria, um, and it's, like, really nicely laid out. Um...
Otto Mora: Uh, yeah. Mano?...
Manu Sporny: Uh, so plus one to that, and, um, I do agree that the Detroit stuff could probably be folded in...
… my hope is fairly easily, I'd like to kind of understand, uh, Joe, Will, what you guys think about, you know, is it just a matter of, like, looking at each trait, and then figuring out how to
… you know, put this in there, um, you know, that sort of thing. Um, there are a couple of things where I'm like, I don't know if we… Need. These specific things. Um, in the document, like, you know, possible additional criteria
… Um
… But you know, I think those are kind of like
… semi-minor type thing. So, um
… So a couple of questions on this
… Did
<Wip> Yep they are here - https://
Manu Sporny: you know, looking at… so I'm… this comment's coming from, like, you know, been working on the threat model stuff and was trying to struggle with the JSON
… you know, layout and finding that, at least for me, it was much easier to think about people contributing, you know, providing some YAML instead of having to, like, you know, fix JSON syntax errors and have these long line wrapping things, you know, going on and things of that nature
… Um, did y'all take a look at, like, you know, what it might take to
… Make it easier for people to… Uh, contribute. Um, and then as far as
<Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to discuss did traits and the extensions registry
Manu Sporny: I guess all the criteria is just, like, a bunch of JSON files. And, you know, looking at them, like, it's pretty… I don't think it's going to be easy for people to contribute to this unless they, like, really want to do it
… and I don't know if, you know, changing it to YAML makes it really that much easier. Um… but, I mean, plus one to making it data-driven
… Um, so
Otto Mora: Go ahead...
Manu Sporny: So, so anyway, interested in your thoughts on that, like, plus one, like, I think we could make it into a registry right now, like, let's get that process started, and then there's a little bit of cleanup process, which is gonna need, you know, um, volunteers, and then there's refinement after we get it in there, so… I'm interested
in any thoughts on any of that that either of you have. That's it...
Joe Andrieu: Yeah, okay, so that brings up four things. So first on the possible criteria section, I agree with you. Actually, I thought we got rid of it in our last round. But we didn't. So things like that, feel free to add a quick issue. Some of those are in there just for legacy reasons, like how we had structured it before...
… We didn't want to lose some data and it felt like that was the right way. And in hindsight, we've cleaned out a bunch of cruft. And I welcome cleaning more cruft
… As we're going to YAML, the JavaScript is the easier way. If you want to submit a PR to
… Undo everything that we've just done with JavaScript
… we would welcome that, we would consider it, but literally, we just took a couple years making it easier, making it JavaScript instead of HTML. So, I don't think, personally, Will and I have much of an appetite to figure out how we would do it as a YAML
… But what I put myself on the queue for was to speak to two things about did traits. One is we want to get did traits into the registry. And I think it is on some level just a matter of someone. Translating did traits into a criteria
… the challenge is that, um, the current DID traits do not have the metadata that we need. Um, specifically, they… they do not have, um, uh
… The individual who made the assessment is one of the things that's that's a gap
… Um… and I think there were some other data model issues where someone has to fill in the details. Um
… Uh, so that's one thing with did traits. I think it is ready to start, like, uh, curating that. We could create issues, if we want, for did traits in general, or for every did trait we want to add. Could go either way. Um
… But we've got to figure out what are the missing gaps between the two data models, and we need to fill that in
… The other thing that I think we want to do, Will and I talked about this. I don't think the group has in terms of the solution that we are thinking of
… The real request by the folks behind did traits, is to update the did methods extension registry so that did traits can be used to filter, different did methods, which I think is a cool idea
… That likely needs a different representation, like, so what we… what our thought was, let's
… Um, get DIT traits into the rubric, and then figure out a way to have the rubric, uh, be able to be a source, um, at least conceptually for this kind of functionality in the extensions registry. We think there's a different data format that you would want to put
Otto Mora: Right...
Joe Andrieu: Into the registry that a method might provide, which is probably just a dictionary lookup of values so that they could easily be sorted by. And the way the rubric is structured, it's not just an assessment. What we really want. Is a, um, a way to have this concise set of assessments...
… Um, which are the evaluations of answers to the rubric. Um
<Wip> https://
Otto Mora: Okay, and we'll...
Joe Andrieu: and so I think that's… that's the next task with regard to figuring out how do we support the work of the DID trace guys, because I… I do think it would be useful to go to the DID method registry and sort by DID trace. Um, we just haven't quite figured that out yet...
Will Abramson: I am on the queue, I was on the queue. I wanted to, uh… I mean, there was a lot. I kind of forgot some of the things I was gonna say, but one of the things I wanted to draw focus attention to in the document, actually, just, you know, things that have changed, or are...
Otto Mora: Were you on the queue, Will? Maybe I lost you...
Will Abramson: who we're proposing change is this retired criteria section. So, like, there are some criteria that have either been superseded or we have just removed, and the point of this retired section is so, like, every criteria has a, like, persistent...
… URL, and that URL will always take you to the current rubric document, and if it's been retired, then it's going to take you to this section, and then you'll be able to go to the persistent URL of the version of the rubric that has that criteria in. That's how we handled that
… Uh, the other thing I want to talk about is YAML. I actually don't think, Joe, it's going to be that hard. I mean, I don't know. I mean, theoretically, YAML and JSON are just the same, right? Like, they're just a different representation of the same data. Like, probably Claude could convert all of that stuff
… YAML easily, and the whole thing would still work, but I don't know if we want to do that. Like, for me, the solution around
… How do we make it easier for people to do this, to submit these things, is, uh, somebody
… build some tooling around this, right? Like, just a static run-yourself UI that allows you to draft. these
… criteria, and export it to the format that you submit into the registry, right? Like, that's a very simple tool to create. And then the other thing that Joe and I also have explored, but, you know, again, it's just, like, time, right? There's lots of things we could do, but haven't done, is, like, a tool for
… Producing evaluations, right? Like a tool for selecting a set of criteria that you care about, and then a set of methods that you're going to evaluate, and then creating the assessments that produce, you know, that
… evaluation. So, you know, like, there are future things that maybe one day we'll get to, but haven't yet
Otto Mora: Buttons...
Manu Sporny: Yeah, I think a plus one to that, you know, looking at some of this, Jason, I think you're right, Will and Joe, like, it doesn't really matter. Like, if we want to make this thing easy to use for people, we're going to have to empower people with the tool to do it...
… Because hand editing that file does not seem like something, you know, most folks are going to be able to do easily. Maybe modifying it, but you're not really expecting people to modify these things too much. You're expecting them to generate it
… and kind of generate it per did method, like the one they're, you know, looking at people's motivation, they're going to want to show up and be listed for particular, you know, rubrics, criteria, whatever. And so, having a tool that helps them do a full evaluation or add to the
… database of knowledge is probably the thing that… that we need, and of course, clearly, like, all of us are super busy, and it might be another two to three years before that tool ends up appearing. So, um
… So yeah, that's fine. I retract the whole, you know, JSON versus YAML thing. I don't think it's gonna make hardly any difference. It's the tool that's probably gonna make the difference long term. But in the meantime, like, you know, we should celebrate this win and try to get it into a registry and
… You know, registries start with manual processes, and then can be turned into more automated… you know, nicer UI-based mechanisms. That's it
Otto Mora: Excellent...
… Alright, well, yeah, thank you. I think, uh, yeah, great, great work, uh, Joe and Will, and
Review PR for Candidate Rec
w3c/did-resolution#348
Otto Mora: I'll keep following it up, and yeah, I'll discuss with Will more on how do we start that process
… Okay, if
… So just quickly shifting to the other one, which is the reviewing this Pr. For candidate Rec. So let me subtopic
… PR itself. So, on this one, the 348, which I know Joe had shared, there have been a few reactions. Um… So
Joe Andrieu: Sure, um, I just...
… Pulled the, um
Otto Mora: this… I think it does this, uh, transition to CR, uh, but then I noticed that also, like, there was a question for Marcus as well, so maybe we can, uh, just kind of have a quick overview from… from Joe for the group, and then, uh, also try to address this Marcus's, uh...
Joe Andrieu: current GitHub.io through the respec export mechanism, and cleaned up what I thought needed to be cleaned up, which are things like version...
Otto Mora: a comment there...
Joe Andrieu: Um...
… And that was about it, because it wasn't intended to have any content changes whatsoever
… But I do want to note that I think the echidna is not quite Like, I don't know if it's not set up at all. And that's a known thing, but typically, like if you go to the resolution itself. Um
Otto Mora: Okay. We can look into that possibly, I think. Uh… yeah, it's more about...
Joe Andrieu: Usually the latest drafts or the current drafts have, um, date stamps in the URL...
… Um, it's something we actually leverage in the rubric so that you could date stamp the version of a criteria to the version of the document. Um… So that was something else that I noticed as we put that together, and I wasn't sure if that was something in the config that should be addressed here, um, that we just haven't set up yet. Um,
there's a good chance. We maybe should address that before we finalize this snapshot
Markus Sabadello: Uh, yeah, just to explain my… my comment, uh, I think we have a resolution that we want to mark the… the referencing algorithms at… at risk, because there are… there are two of them, and they're being...
Otto Mora: Deployment thing. Marcus?...
Joe Andrieu: But I think that's a question for staff, at least. I'm not sure what the right answer is...
Markus Sabadello: discussed a lot, and… and so I was just surprised that this also marks the… the resolution architectures and the DDRL dereferencing result...
… as at risk. I know there have been some explanations on the GitHub issues, but I don't understand the explanations, right? One
… One, uh, explanation was about, uh, the box-it resolution, but if… if that's problematic, why don't we just mark, uh, that subsection?
… at risk, and the TTRL dereferencing result
… I'm just wondering why we're marking that at risk because I think it's independent of the algorithm discussion
Otto Mora: I think we did, uh...
… We have that discussion
… And we did say that the rest of it would go to 3, 4, 7. Um
… Yeah, so it was part of this conversation and then also part of this PR where we brought that up
… pointed out a few things. And I think also Will had added a comment, the marking section
Joe Andrieu: Yeah, the reason it's marked at risk, Marcus, is because if we don't, then we have to re-trigger a full CR after we're done arguing about this argument you and I are inevitably going to have. I think there's a lot of content in there that's problematic for me. Um, and so we need to talk about it. And if we don't mark it at risk, then
we are setting ourselves up for a whole logistical resetting of candidate rec...
… Um, if… if we don't end up simply accepting your… your current text as it is. So
Otto Mora: Okay...
Joe Andrieu: There deserves to have this debate and the conversation. At risk is how we have it. Because otherwise, either we can't go to CR right now, or we go to CR with something that's a time bomb waiting to happen...
Otto Mora: We believe that more alignment, more discussion is required to be able to get them. Um… So yeah, I think that's part of the reasoning for that. I think there's also strong...
… a
Markus Sabadello: Yeah, I understand it doesn't… it doesn't mean that we have agreed to… to remove it, I understand that part, but I'm trying to understand what the sections are that...
Otto Mora: opinions from Joe on, on, uh...
Markus Sabadello: people find, well, problematic, uh, like, like, what is it about the DTRL dereferencing wizard? Uh, that's, that's problematic, and in...
… Deep resolution architectures, I
Otto Mora: You know, the overlap between the architecture and the...
Markus Sabadello: I would disagree with replacing that with the thread modeling. I think the thread modeling is really useful, but I think it's complimentary. I don't think it's a replacement to the bit resolution architectures, and… Um… So, yeah, a bit more… clarity maybe about what it is that's problematic in those sections would be
helpful...
Otto Mora: and some of the threat model aspects, but I'll let you kind of expand. Uh, yes, so Marcus first, and then Adam...
… Okay. Mano?
Manu Sporny: Uh, apologies, I have to drop, but I feel like we're rehashing discussions we've had over the past two months, again. Um, uh, we have said what these issues are, Marcus, they're in the minutes. Um, just really quickly, you know, we, Digital Czar, are also concerned about the current...
… contents of the sections, um, not, you know, well, I mean, did resolution result makes it seem like that's a normative section, it's not marked as informative, um, there are examples there that, you know, um, uh
… like, this is normative, right? And even though the example is supposed to be non-normative, it's not clear, so that's the issue there that needs to be resolved. Um, for did-resolution architectures, there's some architectures in there that, you know, we don't necessarily feel are the right architectures. Yes, you know, there are ways people
could do it, but
… Should that be what we tell people or architectures that the group is okay with? No. You know, our current position is it's not. But again, it's this is, you know, marking something as is at at risk is we're going to continue discussing it
… It requires discussion, right? Because we have not been able to actually have a conversation around, you know, is this architecture that's explained in here the right way to do things or do we not want to actually suggest it? So the proxied resolution thing is problematic, right? I'm not gonna get into the details there, but that's specifically
why
… at least it was our one section marked as, uh, at risk. Um, and then the didURL dereferencing result is, like, there's just an example there. There's not much, um
… Uh, other than that, why is that not, you know, integrated in the main specification? Uh, you know, why do these examples kind of just float out there by themselves? Um
… why are they normative when there's no normative content, you know, things like that. So those are the reasons, Marcus, but we've mentioned that multiple times over the past
Otto Mora: Okay, then after that, uh, we have Will...
Will Abramson: Yeah, sorry, I was on mute. Um...
Otto Mora: You're on mute...
Will Abramson: Yeah, I mean, I think just to reiterate what Mario said, like, we're just saying we need more discussion. I think the fact that we are discussing this just emphasizes that this needs a bit more discussion, and I know it can be frustrating, because we've had a lot of time, but, you know, the group feels this needs more discussion, so
it needs more discussion, and we just want to get something into...
… DR, and I think that's the path that we're going down. I actually had a separate
… uh… thing I wanted to bring up, which is about section 12, the binding section. I don't see any
… any flags in this section about at-risk? And, like, we do talk about the derel dereferencing, uh, you know, just based on what Joe is saying, like, if we think this needs more discussion, then
… maybe it should be marked at risk? Question mark? I mean, I don't know, like, there are some bits in there that… I'm
… Yeah. I was just interested to hear what people think, if that should have been marked at risk and whether we forgot about it
Otto Mora: Yes...
Markus Sabadello: Okay, I understand the explanations. I mean, I still haven't heard or read any...
Otto Mora: Okay, yeah, it could be that this section titles...
Markus Sabadello: reason or any anything about why the deep resolution architectures section is problematic except for the proxy resolution, which is a sub subsection. Right? So why don't we mark that at risk as opposed to the entire section. I really don't remember any discussion or reading anything about anything being controversial in that
section other than the proxied stuff...
… if we mark it, could we… could we maybe change the text that says it is likely to be replaced with the deed resolution thread model? Like, would you… would show our
Otto Mora: Uh, Marcus?...
Markus Sabadello: Others, would you be fine with maybe saying that it will be complemented, or it will be aligned, or something like that? Because I really don't think it should be replaced with the threat model...
Otto Mora: Go ahead, John...
… Okay, yep, that sounds good to me. Uh
Joe Andrieu: Yeah, I'll just jump in and say, I don't mind removing that. I don't know that alignment is right either. I think there's a debate about that we need to have. And so, but I would...
… I'm happy just saying this section is currently marked at risk
Otto Mora: Steve… uh, yes, Steven...
Stephen Curran: Making that change delays going to CR by a couple of weeks, and leaves the...
… further risks all of the work that's being done in DID resolution and the DID community. I don't think we should make any changes, and we should move on as the working group has requested
… To have the conversation when it's the appropriate time to have the conversation and quit
… and stop debating these things endlessly that really don't matter, because ultimately, it doesn't say we will replace it, or we will do this, or we will do that. All we're saying is things could change
… And it really doesn't matter
Will Abramson: I do take Stephen's point, like, obviously making this change will mean we have to do another CR, and...
Otto Mora: Well...
… Got it
Will Abramson: I think… I think, as Steve says, it isn't gonna make a material difference. Like, we are gonna have a discussion about this whole section, and… I mean, I think, Marcus, your point about, like, we're gonna try and align with the threat model is kind of… you know, makes sense to me, at least, right? We are gonna try and do that,
and what that looks like is up to the group to decide. I mean, for example, the diagrams that have been produced as part of the threat modeling probably should go in this section, right?...
Otto Mora: Yeah, ma'am...
Will Abramson: There's work to be done, basically, is the main thing, and… We want to get to CR and then continue doing the work. I think it's just the highlight...
Otto Mora: Yeah, I mean, I don't think it's particularly bad to just market the way that Joe suggested. I mean, if we just do that quickly in his...
… in his PR that he's suggesting, and we try to get that merged in. This one I meant
… then that's
Markus Sabadello: Yeah, I'm also, I'm also fine with that. We just update this one marker to say, just say it's at risk then. Then that's fine...
Otto Mora: I think it's 3, 4, 4. That would be fine, at least by me, but I think it's just an editorial decision at the end of the day, so both you and...
Joe Andrieu: I am, yeah...
Will Abramson: Sorry, I just wanted to just build… confirm, so...
Otto Mora: And, uh, Joe and Steven have that final call on that...
… Uh, I see Marcus again. Yep
Will Abramson: Joe, really, you are gonna do that, right? Like, the work is… I think it's an editorial change, so, like, you could just, you know, do that, like, we don't need to get PR approval over it, or whatever, right?...
Otto Mora: Mm-hmm...
Will Abramson: Text change, I think that's fine, but then you're gonna re, uh, cut the CR release, right, once that text change has come...
Otto Mora: Okay...
Will Abramson: Okay. Okay...
… Okay. Cool
Joe Andrieu: Um, no, I'm actually trying to do it right now, and it will update that PR...
… And, um, we can look at the PR and approve the PR today. That's my hope. So, if you just give me a few minutes. It's such a small edit, it just needs to go through the GitHub loop
Otto Mora: And then, I think, Joe, you said you're fine with that, so...
… So we just… okay, so we just go… move forward with that. Okay, so that's good for that part. The… the other thing here is then, is there any other, uh, um
Will Abramson: Great. Mm, mm...
Otto Mora: Yes...
… That's fine
… Okay, no, that's that's perfect. Thank you. The yeah. The other thing here was, yeah, it
… I guess you're… you're highlighting, Will, um… sorry, this is 345, I meant 348. You're highlighting the, uh… Second, uh, that you thought maybe… Could be
Will Abramson: Yeah, I actually have some thoughts on that. I think… I think… because I think I remember we have talked about this, and I think it's really this top feature at risk, right, which we're saying is covering that bit of the section, right? Like, by having this, like, high-level feature thing, did you… are you referencing? Is that
at risk?...
… I think that gives us, uh, the ability to change the dig URL, the referencing parts of that section, so… I think it's fine, actually. Not worth changing
… Yeah, that's my sense
Otto Mora: um… potentially considered for… uh...
… marking it at risk, potentially, because it does have some, some, uh, components that also depend on that other, uh, dereferencing aspect
… um
… Any reactions from
… Alright, alright
Stephen Curran: Will's on the queue right now...
Will Abramson: Yep...
Otto Mora: Okay, so we don't need any other change then. Okay...
DID URL dereferencing algorithm
w3c/did-resolution#344
Otto Mora: That would, effectively put us in CR. Oh, sorry
… I think that was from earlier, maybe. That was from before, right, Will? Yep. Okay
Joe Andrieu: Yeah...
Otto Mora: Yeah. Sorry. So the other topic, yes...
… Did you already referencing algorithms? Uh… this one… Uh
Joe Andrieu: Yeah, so I believe I got that change in, so I believe it's propagated, but we should check it...
Otto Mora: I know that Joe has provided some updates on this one, and then there was another...
Joe Andrieu: And someone look at the preview...
Otto Mora: comment here, uh, most recently from...
… Uh… several folks. Uh
… Yeah, and then also Ted had, uh, had pointed out a few things. Um… I… I don't know. I was just sensitive to the fact that Joe is kind of doing work on the fly right now, but I guess the main point being we will be… addressing some of these other comments, right?
Joe Andrieu: Um, but I updated my branch, which is the source of the PR, and that should update and go through. And I just… I just removed that extra bit about, you know, this is likely to be replaced by, or whatever. Um, so, just at risk for that section...
Otto Mora: Uh, yeah, go ahead, Sean...
… Mm-hmm. Yep
Joe Andrieu: Um...
Otto Mora: That sounds fair. Yeah, if you wanna...
Joe Andrieu: uh...
… We can go do that now. I think that would be useful, but let me let me speak to where we're at with this, PR, the other PR
Otto Mora: You just take, like, the last, uh, 10-15 minutes to...
Will Abramson: Yeah, no, that was what I was just gonna say. Let's do that...
Otto Mora: Look at that...
Joe Andrieu: Um, which is, I have an updated document, um, and the updated document should be in the PR. It doesn't preview well, because PR preview doesn't deal with… with local files like that. Um, but I'm… I'm ready to share it if we want to go through the algorithm...
Will Abramson: Okay...
… I thought we already did one, but I guess we could do
Otto Mora: Uh, yeah, that as well, uh, I see Will...
Will Abramson: Let me check...
Otto Mora: Okay, okay. Which...
Joe Andrieu: And I have I have not updated the text. Because I didn't wanna do that for a third time given that if we have changes to this diagram the check text is gonna have to be updated quite a bit. And my intention is...
… Uh, if this diagram, uh, and this algorithm, uh, gets the group's blessing, then I will update the text, and in updating the text, I will also go through all of those comments. Many of them will be addressed
Otto Mora: Oh, okay, okay. So we will. We… Did the one marking it at risk. I mean, essentially, that's what the proposal said...
<Wip> https://
Joe Andrieu: Because we've been addressing them in the discussion about the algorithm. I just, given that the algorithm's in flux, there were too many things to potentially go and check off. So that was the order I was planning on doing it is, if we can get some blessing on the diagram, then I'll rewrite the prose for the description of the
algorithm...
… Um, and then I'll double check and make sure that I have addressed and responded to all the comments
Will Abramson: Yep...
Otto Mora: Mm-hmm...
Joe Andrieu: Okay, did we want to get this other PR?...
Otto Mora: Okay...
Joe Andrieu: Accepted...
Will Abramson: Yeah, maybe you can draft something, Otto. I just wanted… I just shared the link to the resolution that we did pass, which was publish the DID resolution specification as a candidate recommendation once PR346 has been merged...
Joe Andrieu: Because I think we need a formal proposal for that...
Will Abramson: I think that...
Otto Mora: Oh, okay, okay, okay. So, if you just give me… go ahead, yeah...
Joe Andrieu: To go to CR, I think. That's my understanding...
Otto Mora: One's 3, 4, 6. Yes...
TallTed // Ted (he/him) Thibodeau Jr (OpenLinkSw.com): Sorry, what's up...
Will Abramson: What's wrong?...
Joe Andrieu: Um, the thing we voted on before was the intention to go to CR, but we didn't have specific spec text. In fact, we have now changed it. So what… technically, what we approved before, um, didn't have a… a formal instantiation for people to have… That's why I think we need a resolution for this particular transition document. Oh.
I just… I just did it wrong...
… Um… I'm sorry, I edited the wrong file
… Um… Who's our most senior? Maybe it's Ted. I don't know
Will Abramson: Mm-hmm, mm...
Joe Andrieu: The, um...
… So I'm a little confused about this transition mechanism, and I was even more confused when I went and looked at some other documents transitions
… Um
Otto Mora: Like this index.html on the root...
Joe Andrieu: My understanding was that in the transitions folder you put all the files needed for that spec to be moved into or be finalized and locked into place...
… Um, and so the index.html… in the CR is not updated with the things that are in the transitions documents
Otto Mora: There...
Joe Andrieu: If that makes any sense. Like, there's now a transitions folder, transitions 2026, CR. That has an index dot HTML, and the other file assets that are needed to render that. Um...
TallTed // Ted (he/him) Thibodeau Jr (OpenLinkSw.com): Yeah, just so it's said, I don't have a clue on this. I have not handled the transition in...
Otto Mora: It's probably our best shot, unless somebody else has any ideas...
TallTed // Ted (he/him) Thibodeau Jr (OpenLinkSw.com): A bunch of years...
Joe Andrieu: Ah...
Otto Mora: Mm-hmm...
Stephen Curran: I think you've gotta update both, right? You need, uh...
… index.html that you updated changed, and then you need to make a snapshot
Joe Andrieu: But the… the root folder is not updated. Like… Correct. And so what I… the error I just made is I tried to do this quick change for the at-risk stuff...
… As I updated the index.html at the root and not in the transitions. That was, I mean, I can go fix that right now, but it did raise this question that I had about, am I doing this right?
Stephen Curran: Which is going to use the index.html as source...
Joe Andrieu: Um, and I think I am, but I don't know if anyone has more experience with this...
Stephen Curran: I think… I'm assuming that's the process. I don't know any of the details, I don't know how you created it. I highlighted that. the file in the snapshot is double the size of the index.html, and I assume that's because of… there's some process you ran on it to create it. Is that right?...
Joe Andrieu: Manu has left already, and I think I would make him answer the question. Sure. OK. Fair enough. Thanks. Um...
Otto Mora: Oh...
Joe Andrieu: However, if I go and update the correct document, then I think, we would all be good...
Stephen Curran: Right. Okay...
Joe Andrieu: Um… Um, that is probably correct. The process, I think, that did that is the export. So...
Stephen Curran: See, so this is the tricky part, is you've got to get that into the index.html so that you can then do the export, right? Which is why I'm not sure you can do it all in one… in one PR...
Joe Andrieu: You, in github.io, whenever you have that respec little pill up in the right-hand corner, um, you can click on that, and you export, and it does some pre-processing of the live rendered page...
… And I'm not sure what's happening there, but that's probably where the doubling happened. Um, uh
… So, while we could do it all in one PR, but the process I was anticipating being okay was to get approval on this
Stephen Curran: Okay. Hmm. Okay...
Joe Andrieu: Um, and then I think it's an editorial matter to update. what's in root to reflect what the snapshot was...
Otto Mora: Okay...
… But strangely, so, the part that really confuses me right now, between what you said, like, I see the diff here, where you're effectively doing what Marcus… Uh, was, uh, talking about
… But… What else is not being… I mean, it seems to be that if we merge this, it should be fine
Joe Andrieu: Yes, but look at crindex.html, and it doesn't have it yet. Yes. My understanding is that snapshot in the transitions...
Will Abramson: Mm-hmm...
Joe Andrieu: is what the CR is...
Will Abramson: Yeah, I guess I put myself on the queue to say, like, I mean...
… I'm also not sure if we should be doing it the way Steven is kind of suggesting. I don't know, I mean, maybe it is fine, but
Otto Mora: At least that's my interpretation of this. Oh, the sub...
Joe Andrieu: The rest is still our working repo. Index.html is our working repository. The snapshot is saying this is what we are asking to go into CR...
Will Abramson: It feels like the more normal way is, like, you don't edit, you shouldn't be hand-editing these files in the transition folder at all, and they should just be a snapshot of a published. Back...
Otto Mora: Ahhh… Yes. Mm-hmm. Yes...
Will Abramson: I know this is, uh… a hack, and maybe it's fine, but I don't know if it's some processes, right, that… We might be not understanding and messing up in the process...
Otto Mora: Oh...
Joe Andrieu: Okay. For my part in this quagmire, that is part of the conversation today. I did just update what is now in the transitions index dot HTML...
… Um… So that should bubble up to the PR. And now the snapshot has what we just negotiated with Marcus as to how we can as a group move forward. And so I think we can approve this snapshot for CR
Otto Mora: Go ahead...
Will Abramson: Oh, yeah, I think that was from before, actually, but I do have a comment, which is just… so, just to ask...
Joe Andrieu: Um, and then we… you and me, Steven, I'll… I mean, I'll do it realistically, but the editors can now take it as an editorial to update, um, the repos. Uh, to match the snapshot...
Will Abramson: Do we think there is a proposal that we should pass that is transitioned to VR, to CR? I'm pointing out this. tax...
Joe Andrieu: Which would include updating the version and some other things. Um, but I am still worried about the Echidna stuff as well...
Otto Mora: That's it. 3, 4, 8...
Joe Andrieu: Uh, so I'll follow up with, um, PA about that...
Will Abramson: 58348...
Otto Mora: Okay...
… Yeah, that we can do
… Um
… I just saw one. Okay
Joe Andrieu: I see you did jump on the queue, Will...
Otto Mora: Okay, so...
… It would be
… Um
… Publish the TID resolution, specifications, candidate wants PR number 348. has been merged
Joe Andrieu: Yes. Yeah, I think that would be good to do...
Otto Mora: Yeah, include the one too...
… Oh, okay
Joe Andrieu: Uh, I just drafted something real quick, and I moded it. Um...
Otto Mora: Personally...
… Yeah, that's fine too, right? No problem
<ottomorac> Proposal: Accept PR#348 and advance the snapshot in /transitions/2026/CR to candidate recommendation
Otto Mora: Uh, okay. So
… Personal. Please vote
<Wip> +1
<JoeAndrieu> +1
<markus_sabadello> +1
<JennieM> +1
<swcurran> +1
Otto Mora: Okay
<TallTed> +1
<smccown> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept PR#348 and advance the snapshot in /transitions/2026/CR to candidate recommendation
Otto Mora: Yep, that's it. Well, everybody voted plus one
… Yep. Okay, cool, so… uh, results
… Uh, yeah, so that's… that makes it formal. Ahm. And then, yeah, we just gotta… Get that down
… Let's start. Let's change. Done
… So let's
… If there's anything else, I guess next week we might continue with, uh
… Ah
… The, uh, the 344, which is the, uh… the resolution algorithm in more detail once Joe has had a chance to
Joe Andrieu: Yeah, I think that would be good. The diagram hasn't incorporated everything that I believe we've talked about. Of course, I may have missed some stuff, so I'm welcome to, you know, but I think doing a deep dive in the subtopic call And then hopefully, you know, we can just finalize it on Friday...
Otto Mora: incorporate some of the other aspects, and maybe perhaps even during the work, the special topic, I was thinking, will we dive into that diagram...
Joe Andrieu: And then I'll… I'll put the pros together, um, and get a draft update of that as my last task before, um...
Otto Mora: ah. Just more at our own time...
… Mm-hmm. Yep
… So we have a nice, uh, wedding gift for Will, which is a CR
Will Abramson: Mm-hmm...
Otto Mora: Actually already spec and potentially puzzle resolution algorithm. Cool...
… For sure, uh, as well. Thank you
Joe Andrieu: Uh… I leave for my travel. I think that's how the timing's gonna end up. Many prosperous and healthful years for you and yours well...
Will Abramson: Yeah, I put myself on the queue, actually, to say, uh, maybe in the interest of, like, you know, we're moving to CR, and we want to have a...
… of nice, friendly-looking repo for folks to look at. Could we tidy up some of these? PRs that are… ah
… That we know are not gonna get merged. I know, Joe, you said in the past you'd prefer to keep them open, but it does feel like we're aligning around 3, 4, 4. I don't know if you think there's
… value still in these old PRs. I mean, obviously, closing them doesn't mean they're, like, deleted or anything
… Yeah, that was just my thought. Just so someone comes to our repo and doesn't see all of these
… Right
Joe Andrieu: Well, I… I think… I think it actually explains to someone who's concerned about what are the… why are there 2D referencing sections? Um...
… I mean, I think… I think rather than people seeing us as incompetent, I'd rather see this
… Have them see us as embroiled in deep debate
Otto Mora: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm...
… Along with that, I know that Steven did do a pass at labeling these issues now. um. Was there anything else? I mean… I know you had mentioned that in the coworking group
… Oh, it didn't
Stephen Curran: I did a path. I didn't label them. I didn't label them. What I did was I did a path to the issues...
… closed a bunch of them, and then I have a spreadsheet of those
Otto Mora: Uh-huh...
Stephen Curran: Um, and I can't… and I will update the labels on them. Uh, concern I had was...
… 2 things. We have many, many labels. I'm wondering if we can. I don't know again what the process is that
… that we're allowed to do, but can we eliminate a pile of labels? Is that just… Right
… stuff we manage, and then a few of the labels are subjective and probably should be removed. In that, they don't
… They're not the basis to to operate on
Otto Mora: Right. Um, I mean, we could probably...
Stephen Curran: Does anyone know the W3C, the W3C rules on those, or is it just totally up to the working group, but we can do what we want?...
Otto Mora: Will's the right person for that. Go ahead, Will...
Will Abramson: Yeah, I don't know, uh, and it would be good to talk to PA, because I know a lot of those labels are just inherited from the W3C, and, like, they have some that do have specific meanings...
Stephen Curran: Hmm. Okay...
… Okay
Will Abramson: uh, people who are going to review us, so, like, that's partly why there's so many. But, you know, if there are ones that you think really should be removed, we can have a conversation, and we can ask the PA as well. Hopefully...
Otto Mora: Mm-hmm. Down...
Joe Andrieu: Yeah. Just just to comment...
Otto Mora: That's fine...
Stephen Curran: I did close, uh, I did close 11 of them, um, that I think were, uh, for, for good reason, um, obviously all with comments so that people can see they've been closed and can reopen them if it's appropriate...
Joe Andrieu: Um...
Otto Mora: Oh, that's… that's commentary, Joe. Okay...
Joe Andrieu: Yeah, I just want to say I'm pretty certain that the repo we can do whatever we want with. I don't think these labels are part of process. I've never seen anything in the W3C process saying you have to do anything with any particular repo in any particular way...
… Um, there are habits and traditions, and so having these be sort of the standard ones makes it easier for people who aren't, you know, embedded in their work to understand what they are. Um… But we're free to curate and edit those labels. To whatever suits our needs
Otto Mora: Okay...
<ottomorac> transcriber-bot, pause
<ottomorac> m2gbot, link issues with transcript
<m2gbot> comment created: w3c/
<m2gbot> comment created: w3c/