14:05:52 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
14:05:52 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/04/21-did-irc
14:05:54 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:05:55 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:06:45 <ivan> Meeting: DID Working Group Telco
14:06:45 <ivan> Chair: brent
14:06:45 <ivan> Date: 2020-04-21
14:06:45 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2020Apr/0012.html
14:06:45 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2020-04-21: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2020Apr/0012.html
14:56:53 <nat_holloway> nat_holloway has joined #did
14:57:49 <nat_holloway> present+
14:58:34 <brent> brent has joined #did
14:58:43 <brent> present+
14:58:46 <burn> burn has joined #did
14:59:54 <burn> present+
15:00:20 <Orie> Orie has joined #did
15:00:21 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
15:00:47 <markus_sabadello> present+
15:01:23 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #did
15:01:26 <rhiaro> present+
15:01:38 <dbuc> dbuc has joined #did
15:01:39 <dbuc> present+
15:01:49 <paulmadsen> paulmadsen has joined #did
15:01:56 <manu> present+
15:01:59 <ivan> present+
15:02:00 <Orie> present+
15:02:03 <dmitriz> present+
15:02:06 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #did
15:02:21 <selfissued> present+
15:02:23 <phila> phila has joined #did
15:02:25 <selfissued> scribe+
15:02:45 <ivan> present+ manu
15:02:49 <ivan> present+ dlongley
15:02:49 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
15:02:54 <ivan> present+ rhiaro
15:03:01 <justin_r> justin_r has joined #did
15:03:09 <justin_r> present+
15:03:17 <ivan> present+ phila
15:03:36 <ivan> present+ JoeAndrieu
15:03:37 <dlongley> present+
15:03:48 <selfissued> brent: Reviewed proposed agenda
15:03:56 <paulmadsen> present+
15:04:05 <JoeAndrieu> present+
15:04:07 <drummond> drummond has joined #did
15:04:09 <drummond> present+
15:04:20 <timcappalli> timcappalli has joined #did
15:04:47 <ivan> present+ adrian
15:04:55 <ivan> present+ timcappalli
15:05:01 <selfissued> timcappalli: Introduced himself.  On the Microsoft identity standards team.
15:05:06 <timcappalli> present+
15:05:07 <drummond> Welcome Tim
15:05:18 <brettmcdowell> brettmcdowell has joined #DID
15:05:21 <selfissued> brent: Next topic call at 6pm US Eastern
15:05:26 <agropper> agropper has joined #did
15:05:28 <selfissued> ... E-mail sent last week
15:05:30 <brettmcdowell> present+
15:05:33 <selfissued> Same zoom link
15:05:35 <agropper> present+
15:05:42 <burn> did-topic is the channel for the topic call
15:05:42 <identitywoman> identitywoman has joined #did
15:05:52 <selfissued> The IRC channel will be did-topic
15:06:16 <selfissued> brent: Next topic: Editorial trust
15:06:37 <chriswinc> present+
15:06:41 <selfissued> brent: There have been concerns about whether some editorial actions were taken in a trustworthy way
15:06:50 <selfissued> brent: The chairs have confidence in the editors
15:07:15 <yancy> present+
15:07:16 <selfissued> brent: We strive for transparence. Everything is done in public.
15:07:29 <ivan> i/next topic/Topic: editorial trust/
15:07:53 <selfissued> burn: I agree
15:07:53 <justin_r> s/transparence/transparency/
15:08:07 <manu> q+
15:08:12 <selfissued> brent: Next topic: DID Resolution
15:08:17 <brent> ack manu
15:08:47 <selfissued> manu: Proposal from Justin on DID Resolution
15:08:47 <ivan> i/DID Resolution/Topic: DID Resolution/
15:09:00 <selfissued> manu: PRs by Marcus and Justin refined by Manu
15:09:06 <jonathan_holt> jonathan_holt has joined #did
15:09:10 <selfissued> manu: Special call last week on this topic
15:09:42 <selfissued> manu: The DID Resolution contract is in scope
15:10:08 <selfissued> manu: Goal to get clarity from the WG that this work is in scope
15:10:40 <justin_r> q+ to talk about deleting things
15:10:58 <selfissued> manu: We want to be able to write tests for the resolution contract
15:11:15 <selfissued> manu: Do the chairs want to consider them one-by-one or as a batch
15:11:33 <brent> ack justin_r
15:11:33 <Zakim> justin_r, you wanted to talk about deleting things
15:11:39 <selfissued> brent: Let's take them in bite size chunks
15:11:53 <selfissued> justin_r: I have an alternative proposal for testing ones
15:12:18 <jonathan_holt> present+ jonathan_holt
15:12:32 <selfissued> manu: I have three proposals and then Justin has another proposal
15:12:38 <dbuc> So 7 proposals total?
15:12:42 <dbuc> this should be fun
15:12:46 <manu> yes, 7 total.
15:13:32 <manu> PROPOSAL: It is in scope for the DID WG to normatively define the parameters of a concrete set of processes that take a DID as input and provides a DID Document as output.
15:13:55 <drummond> +1
15:13:56 <manu> +1
15:13:57 <justin_r> +1
15:13:57 <ivan> +1
15:13:58 <dlongley> +1
15:13:58 <dbuc> What is a process?
15:13:58 <phila> +1
15:13:59 <Orie> +1
15:13:59 <markus_sabadello> +1
15:14:00 <identitywoman> +1
15:14:02 <burn> +1
15:14:03 <brent> +1
15:14:04 <selfissued> +1
15:14:05 <dmitriz> +1
15:14:05 <JoeAndrieu> +1
15:14:08 <dbuc> +1
15:14:09 <paulmadsen> +1
15:14:10 <timcappalli> +1
15:14:15 <justin_r> @dbuc process is what we define, as I would interpret it, fwiw
15:14:35 <JoeAndrieu> present+
15:14:45 <identitywoman> present+
15:15:13 <manu> RESOLVED: It is in scope for the DID WG to normatively define the parameters of a concrete set of processes that take a DID as input and provides a DID Document as output.
15:15:18 <manu> PROPOSAL: It is in scope to normatively define the parameters of a concrete set of processes that take a DID URL as input and provide a resource result as output.
15:15:25 <justin_r> for the notes, this is my proposed list: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2020Apr/0017.html
15:15:33 <ivan> +1
15:15:44 <manu> +1
15:15:45 <drummond> +1
15:15:46 <selfissued> No objections heard
15:15:46 <markus_sabadello> +1
15:15:47 <dlongley> +1
15:15:47 <justin_r> +1
15:15:47 <Orie> +1
15:15:48 <burn> +1
15:15:48 <selfissued> +1
15:15:51 <phila> +1
15:15:51 <dbuc> +1
15:15:53 <brent> +1
15:15:54 <timcappalli> +1
15:16:04 <JoeAndrieu> -1
15:16:37 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:16:57 <selfissued> JoeAndrieu: The term "resource result" could have many interpretations, some of which I wouldn't support
15:16:57 <brent> ack markus_sabadello
15:17:09 <manu> q+ to note it's defined in the spec now.
15:17:10 <ivan> +1 to markus_sabadello
15:17:15 <dbuc> When this says 'parameters', does it refer to DID URL Parameters, or parameters in some other sense?
15:17:17 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:17:20 <drummond> +1 to what Markus is saying
15:17:23 <brent> ack manu
15:17:23 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note it's defined in the spec now.
15:17:27 <selfissued> markus_sabadello: Clarified
15:17:37 <justin_r> +1 to markus's clarification
15:17:41 <selfissued> manu: "Resource" is defined in the spec
15:17:43 <justin_r> q+ to clarify resource result
15:17:56 <selfissued> JoeAndrieu: It's "resource result" that is the issue
15:18:18 <brent> q?
15:18:22 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:18:29 <selfissued> brent: Asks is there a concrete proposed modification to the proposal
15:18:30 <selfissued> ?
15:18:32 <drummond> q?
15:18:42 <brent> ack justin_r
15:18:42 <Zakim> justin_r, you wanted to clarify resource result
15:18:51 <selfissued> justin_r: This is intended to include dereferencing
15:18:57 <dbuc> q+
15:19:09 <brent> ack dbuc
15:19:10 <joel> joel has joined #did
15:19:16 <selfissued> justin_r: It's the thing what comes out the end
15:19:17 <joel> present+
15:19:26 <drummond> q+
15:19:50 <selfissued> justin_r: It's explicitly parameters outside the DID URL itself
15:20:02 <selfissued> justin_r: There's a concept called input options
15:20:28 <selfissued> justin_r: It's within our scope to include these input options
15:20:40 <drummond> q-
15:20:49 <selfissued> brent: I'm giving us 5 more minutes for all of this
15:21:05 <ivan> q+
15:21:11 <selfissued> JoeAndrieu: There isn't language including dereferencing that I would support
15:21:26 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:21:28 <selfissued> JoeAndrieu: But I understand that I'm an outlier on this one
15:21:57 <brent> ack drummond
15:22:01 <selfissued> JoeAndrieu: I might consider a formal objection but I'm trying to understand how to avoid the privacy problems we're headed towards
15:22:03 <brent> ack ivan
15:22:10 <burn> q+ to explain what we're doing now
15:22:20 <selfissued> ivan: We are not defining the contracts at this moment
15:22:32 <markus_sabadello> q-
15:22:33 <selfissued> ivan: Simply, if we go in that direction, is it in scope?
15:23:00 <burn> q-
15:23:02 <selfissued> ivan: The only thing we're clearing up here is whether considering this is within scope of the charter
15:23:11 <selfissued> brent: Let's consider the next proposal
15:23:14 <manu> FAILED RESOLUTION: It is in scope for the DID WG to normatively define the parameters of a concrete set of processes that take a DID as input and provides a DID Document as output.
15:23:21 <manu> PROPOSAL: It is in scope to make these processes take in options and provide back a document along with different classes of metadata (e.g., document metadata and resolution metadata).
15:23:41 <dbuc> What does "take in options" mean?
15:23:49 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:23:55 <brent> ack markus_sabadello
15:23:58 <dlongley> "take in options" => additional parameters?
15:24:39 <dbuc> ok, so URL Params?
15:24:41 <selfissued> markus_sabadello: When dereferencing a URL, there can be additional inputs considered as part of the dereferencing process
15:24:48 <justin_r> no, not URL parameters
15:24:59 <dlongley> "additional" here means beyond just the URL, i believe.
15:25:09 <selfissued> markus_sabadello: For instance, header parameters can influence HTTP URL resolution
15:25:11 <drummond> +1
15:25:11 <manu> +1
15:25:13 <justin_r> +1
15:25:14 <ivan> +1
15:25:14 <phila> +1
15:25:14 <markus_sabadello> +1
15:25:14 <dlongley> +1
15:25:17 <JoeAndrieu> +1
15:25:20 <burn> +1
15:25:21 <brent> +1
15:25:21 <selfissued> +1
15:25:22 <Orie> +1
15:25:25 <dbuc> +1
15:25:26 <timcappalli> +1
15:25:32 <dmitriz> +1
15:25:38 <nat_holloway> +1
15:25:42 <paulmadsen> +1
15:25:48 <justin_r> q+ for process clarification
15:25:49 <manu> RESOLVED: It is in scope to make these processes take in options and provide back a document along with different classes of metadata (e.g., document metadata and resolution metadata).
15:26:04 <selfissued> brent: Seeing no -1s, this is resolved
15:26:18 <brent> ack justin_r
15:26:18 <Zakim> justin_r, you wanted to discuss process clarification
15:26:34 <manu> s/FAILED RESOLUTION: It is in scope for the DID WG to normatively define the parameters of a concrete set of processes that take a DID as input and provides a DID Document as output./FAILED RESOLUTION: It is in scope to normatively define the parameters of a concrete set of processes that take a DID URL as input and provide a resource result as output./
15:26:45 <selfissued> justin_r: Pointed out a cut-and-paste error in the notes
15:27:14 <selfissued> justin_r: Back away from language about how things are tested - just that they are tested
15:28:19 <selfissued> selfissued: I asked that Justin paste his language into the chat
15:28:45 <selfissued> manu: I will paste it in
15:29:01 <manu> PROPOSAL: It is in scope to add tests to the test suite that exercise these processes to test the inputs (DIDs, DID URLs, and input metadata) as well as the outputs (DID Documents, resources, and output metadata).
15:29:14 <ivan> +1
15:29:17 <markus_sabadello> +1
15:29:18 <phila> +1
15:29:18 <justin_r> +1
15:29:18 <dbuc> +1
15:29:18 <dlongley> +1
15:29:19 <manu> +1
15:29:19 <burn> +1
15:29:20 <brent> +1
15:29:21 <selfissued> brent: I hear no objections
15:29:22 <timcappalli> +1
15:29:22 <Orie> +1
15:29:23 <selfissued> +1
15:29:50 <manu> Here's the current test suite -- https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-test-suite/
15:29:51 <JoeAndrieu> +1
15:29:54 <dbuc> Probably did:key, I would imagine, if we want to really mail it in
15:30:01 <manu> Here's the current implementation report -- https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-test-suite/implementations/
15:30:02 <selfissued> dmitriz: Which DID methods will we be testing?
15:30:05 <manu> RESOLVED: It is in scope to add tests to the test suite that exercise these processes to test the inputs (DIDs, DID URLs, and input metadata) as well as the outputs (DID Documents, resources, and output metadata).
15:30:09 <selfissued> brent: That's still to be determined
15:30:18 <selfissued> brent: Seeing no objections, this is resoloved
15:30:52 <selfissued> brent: We have three more of these, which we will consider even though we are over the time originally allocated
15:31:05 <burn> q+ to explain a bit about process
15:31:25 <brent> ack burn
15:31:25 <Zakim> burn, you wanted to explain a bit about process
15:31:50 <selfissued> burn: The plan is to get resolutions here and then confirm them on the mailing list - because this has to do with the charter
15:32:09 <brent> Q?
15:32:15 <manu> PROPOSAL: It is out of scope to normatively define DID Method specific details of implementing DID resolution.
15:32:34 <selfissued> q+
15:32:41 <drummond> q+
15:32:48 <brent> ack selfissued
15:32:54 <manu> selfissued: I have no idea what this means or how to make it actionable.
15:32:54 <dbuc> Me either
15:32:54 <ivan> scribe+ manu
15:33:01 <manu> selfissued: I do not know what is being ruled in or out of scope.
15:33:19 <manu> selfissued: This seems like... inputs and outputs are in scope... how are the details in scope or out of scope.
15:33:19 <burn> q+
15:33:28 <brent> ack drummond
15:33:34 <manu> brent: I believe it's the details.
15:33:47 <manu> s/the details/the details of DID Method details/
15:34:06 <manu> drummond: This wording doesn't necessarily say that.
15:34:13 <selfissued> drummond: I think I know what this means, but that's not what it says
15:34:24 <brent> ack burn
15:34:26 <dbuc> q+
15:34:37 <selfissued> justin_r: The keyword is details
15:34:40 <manu> burn: The keyword here is details... the keyword is "DID Method specific details"
15:34:51 <selfissued> burn: What's not is scope would be DID Method-specific details
15:35:03 <selfissued> q+
15:35:19 <brent> ack dbuc
15:35:22 <justin_r> +1 to brent's interpretation
15:35:34 <burn> s/The keyword here is details.../Justin said the keyword here was details, but actually/
15:35:39 <selfissued> dbuc: We're not going to impose on DID Methods - that would create a minefield
15:35:41 <manu> q+ to ask about dlongley's proposal
15:35:43 <brent> ack selfissued
15:35:56 <drummond> An alternative wording would be, "It is out of scope to normatively define how any specific DID method implements method-specific details of DID resolution."
15:36:04 <manu> selfissued: I would propose that we not consider this proposal because the wording is so ambiguous that it ends up being meaningless. Let's revisit it on another call.
15:36:17 <dbuc> +1 to that wording
15:36:19 <manu> q?
15:36:33 <brent> ack manu
15:36:33 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about dlongley's proposal
15:36:54 <selfissued> manu: I suggest we consider Drummond's wording
15:37:01 <manu> PROPOSAL: It is out of scope to normatively define how any specific DID method implements method-specific details of DID resolution.
15:37:06 <dbuc> +1
15:37:10 <manu> +1
15:37:12 <ivan> +1
15:37:12 <Orie> +1
15:37:13 <markus_sabadello> +1
15:37:13 <drummond> +1
15:37:13 <brent> +1
15:37:14 <dlongley> +1
15:37:15 <burn> +1
15:37:16 <justin_r> +1
15:37:18 <selfissued> +1
15:37:21 <joel> +1
15:37:26 <timcappalli> +1
15:37:26 <dmitriz> +1
15:37:27 <JoeAndrieu> +1
15:37:31 <nat_holloway> +1
15:37:41 <manu> RESOLVED: It is out of scope to normatively define how any specific DID method implements method-specific details of DID resolution.
15:37:43 <selfissued> brent: I hear no objections
15:37:50 <selfissued> brent: This is resoluved
15:37:51 <manu> PROPOSAL: It is out of scope to normatively define DID Resolution protocols.
15:37:57 <dbuc> What does that mean?
15:38:01 <selfissued> brent: This is resolved
15:38:12 <selfissued> q+
15:38:14 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:38:25 <brent> ack selfissued
15:38:39 <justin_r> q+ to talk about protocols
15:38:40 <manu> selfissued: Again, I do not know what's referred to as "DID Resolution Protocols".
15:38:44 <brent> ack markus_sabadello
15:39:06 <dbuc> What is an example of the thing exactly that we won't do?
15:39:10 <brettmcdowell> Can we get an example for how each of these proposals would manifest in a real world implementation (as each proposal is discussed)?
15:39:18 <selfissued> markus_sabadello: We also refer to DID Method Bindings
15:39:24 <brent> q?
15:39:25 <manu> An HTTP Protocol woudl be one such example (as out of scope)
15:39:27 <brent> ack justin_r
15:39:27 <Zakim> justin_r, you wanted to talk about protocols
15:39:48 <markus_sabadello> s/DID Method Bindings/DID resolver bindings/
15:39:49 <ivan> present+ brettmcdowell
15:40:00 <selfissued> justin_r: For example, we don't want to define how to do proxy resolution or make a network call to a remote resolover
15:40:19 <selfissued> justin_r: All these are protocol-level things that are up to particular DID method implementations
15:40:23 <selfissued> q+
15:40:44 <drummond> Possible alternative wording: "It is out of scope to normatively define bindings between the DID resolution contract and any specific DID resolution protocols."
15:41:15 <selfissued> justin_r: This is creating layers of abstraction
15:41:28 <selfissued> justin_r: We're not going to assume whether you can make a network call or not
15:41:31 <brent> ack selfissued
15:41:32 <dbuc> Aside from inputs into the resolution mechanism, all functions internal to it performing that resolution will not be defined by this group?
15:41:48 <manu> selfissued: Why don't we reword this to "It is out of scope to specify how DID Methods are implemented"
15:41:53 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:42:09 <manu> justin_r: Again, this isn't charter text, this is interpretation of charter text and specifically it is out of scope to define protocol.
15:42:14 <brent> ack markus_sabadello
15:43:09 <selfissued> markus_sabadello: Talked about the relationship between bindings and DIDcomm
15:43:40 <selfissued> q+
15:43:45 <justin_r> It is out of scope to normatively define the details of invoking the DID resolution process and any protocols associated with that implementation.
15:43:51 <brent> ack selfissued
15:44:13 <manu> selfissued: WHy don't we make it simple - it is out of scope to define whether protocols are used for DID Method implementations or to define those protocols.
15:44:32 <selfissued> I agree with this wording
15:44:35 <brent> PROPOSAL: it is out of scope to define whether protocols are used for DID Method implementations or to define those protocols.
15:44:47 <ivan> +1
15:44:50 <selfissued> brent: Asked for objections
15:44:51 <dbuc> +1
15:44:54 <phila> +1
15:44:55 <manu> +1
15:44:55 <drummond> +1
15:44:55 <brent> +1
15:44:56 <brettmcdowell> Are there proposals currently that would be dismissed as out-of-scope as the result of these new "out of scope" statements?
15:44:57 <selfissued> +1
15:44:59 <JoeAndrieu> +1
15:45:01 <dlongley> +1
15:45:11 <markus_sabadello> +1
15:45:15 <dmitriz> +1
15:45:21 <justin_r> +1
15:45:27 <justin_r> q+ to talk about the last one when we get there
15:45:34 <brent> RESOLVED: it is out of scope to define whether protocols are used for DID Method implementations or to define those protocols.
15:45:37 <selfissued> brent: Seeing no objections, this one is resolved
15:46:41 <manu> PROPOSAL: It is out of scope to test concrete DID Resolution protocols and data formats beyond the necessary process to demonstrate interoperability between the test suite and an implementation.
15:46:45 <dlongley> q+
15:46:47 <manu> q+
15:46:51 <justin_r> ack justin_r
15:46:51 <Zakim> justin_r, you wanted to talk about the last one when we get there
15:47:08 <dlongley> q-
15:47:15 <brent> ack manu
15:47:35 <selfissued> justin_r: I changed protocols to implementations
15:48:01 <ivan> +1
15:48:02 <manu> +1
15:48:03 <drummond> +1
15:48:03 <dlongley> +1
15:48:04 <justin_r> +1
15:48:04 <markus_sabadello> +1
15:48:19 <selfissued> JoeAndrieu: I'm still trying to understand it
15:48:24 <phila> Looks very woolly to me but OK +1
15:48:29 <brent> +1
15:48:30 <Orie> +1
15:48:34 <JoeAndrieu> +0
15:48:42 <selfissued> I agree that this seems wordy
15:48:51 <nat_holloway> +1
15:48:56 <selfissued> I also agree that it's fairly vacuous, as dlongley wrote
15:49:11 <phila> Word of the day: vacuous
15:49:12 <ivan> q+ to ask a process questiion
15:49:13 <manu> RESOLVED: It is out of scope to test concrete DID Resolution protocols and data formats beyond the necessary process to demonstrate interoperability between the test suite and an implementation.
15:49:27 <selfissued> brent: Seeing no negatives, this is resolved
15:49:37 <manu> q+ to explain what happens now wrt. PRs.
15:49:38 <selfissued> brent: This took longer than budgeted but it was time well spent
15:49:39 <brent> ack ivan
15:49:39 <Zakim> ivan, you wanted to ask a process questiion
15:50:07 <selfissued> ivan: Who is nat_holloway?
15:50:21 <selfissued> ivan: He's not on the member list and yet he voted
15:50:45 <dbuc> Keyser Söze
15:50:55 <selfissued> ivan: At a minimum, I have to remove this vote
15:51:38 <selfissued> ivan: The AC rep of USAA has to add him to the working group
15:52:03 <selfissued> brent: Next topic: Regarding issue #204
15:52:19 <selfissued> brent: This work is closely related to the work that the VC group did
15:52:48 <selfissued> brent: We will use common terminology unless a specific terminology change is approved by the working group
15:52:54 <justin_r> +1 for property, property name, property value
15:52:56 <phila> -> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/204 Issue 204
15:52:59 <selfissued> brent: This is the chairs' position
15:53:00 <manu> q?
15:53:13 <brent> ack manu
15:53:13 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to explain what happens now wrt. PRs.
15:53:28 <nat_holloway> nat_holloway has left #did
15:53:33 <selfissued> manu: I want us to outline what happens next
15:53:38 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pulls
15:54:04 <selfissued> manu: I have attempted to take the PR that Justin did using Markus' text and split it into multiple different portions
15:54:13 <jonathan_holt> github appears to be down for me. 500 error.  anyone else?
15:54:33 <phila> q+
15:54:42 <markus_sabadello> justin_r's PR: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/253 based on my earlier PR: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/247
15:54:45 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/262
15:54:49 <selfissued> manu: There is a normative section on DID resolution
15:54:58 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/263
15:55:06 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/264
15:55:15 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/265
15:55:18 <selfissued> manu: 264 is blocked
15:55:40 <dlongley> q?
15:55:59 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:56:01 <brent> ack phila
15:56:04 <selfissued> brent: Asked Joe to look at 264
15:56:16 <brent> ack markus_sabadello
15:56:23 <selfissued> phila: I made comments on these.  I look forward to responses.
15:56:32 <justin_r> q+
15:56:44 <brent> ack justin_r
15:56:55 <selfissued> markus_sabadello: Should we be discussing this in Justin's PR or in the split ones?
15:57:00 <manu> q+
15:57:06 <selfissued> justin_r: I am concerned that these are intertwined
15:57:29 <selfissued> justin_r: There are comments in 253 that are not reflected in the split ones
15:57:53 <selfissued> justin_r: 252 is incomplete
15:58:02 <brent> ack manu
15:58:04 <markus_sabadello> my original PR https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/247 will be closed soon, any outstanding content from that one can potentially be re-introduced to the new PRs
15:58:04 <drummond> +1 to working on the split PRs. Thanks to Justin for helping move his PR over.
15:58:14 <selfissued> justin_r: It's going to take effort to ensure that things remain consistent
15:58:36 <selfissued> manu: When I split the PR apart, I made sure that the internal references continue to work
15:58:48 <selfissued> manu: As long as we don't rename sections, things should keep working
15:59:09 <selfissued> manu: If something didn't make it over, let's bring it in
15:59:24 <selfissued> brent: My dream of considering issues has been dashed
15:59:37 <phila> phila: Thanks to selfissued for scribing today
15:59:40 <drummond> Thank you for scribing Mike
15:59:42 <selfissued> brent: Thanks us for the good discussion and thanks Mike Jones for scribing
15:59:55 <agropper> agropper has left #did
15:59:58 <selfissued> brent: We will continue some of this on the special topic call today
16:00:08 <Orie> github is down.
16:00:47 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has left #did
16:01:27 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
16:01:27 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been nat_holloway, brent, burn, markus_sabadello, rhiaro, dbuc, manu, ivan, Orie, dmitriz, selfissued, dlongley, justin_r, phila, JoeAndrieu,
16:01:30 <Zakim> ... paulmadsen, drummond, adrian, timcappalli, brettmcdowell, agropper, chriswinc, yancy, jonathan_holt, identitywoman, joel
16:01:30 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:01:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/04/21-did-minutes.html Zakim
16:01:32 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:01:37 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did
16:01:51 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
16:01:51 <RRSAgent> I see no action items