15:00:25 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
15:00:25 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/07/13-did-irc
15:00:52 <brent> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:00:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/07/13-did-minutes.html brent
15:01:01 <brent> rrsagent, make minutes public
15:01:01 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', brent.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:01:09 <brent> rrsagent, make logs public
15:01:35 <drummond> drummond has joined #did
15:01:38 <brent> Meeting: Decentralized Identifier Working Group
15:01:43 <drummond> present+
15:01:45 <brent> Chair: Brent Zundel
15:01:55 <brent> zakim, this is did
15:01:55 <Zakim> got it, brent
15:02:02 <brent> present+
15:02:04 <shigeya> present+
15:02:27 <dlongley> present+
15:02:32 <cel> present+
15:02:57 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
15:03:13 <manu> present+
15:03:20 <agropper> agropper has joined #did
15:03:25 <TallTed> present+
15:03:30 <agropper> present+
15:04:21 <drummond> scribe+
15:04:36 <drummond> brent: welcome everyone
15:04:43 <drummond> topic: agenda review
15:05:04 <drummond> first topic: feedback
15:05:14 <drummond> second topic: IETF discussion
15:05:22 <drummond> third: path to a proposed recommendation
15:05:29 <Geun-Hyung> Geun-Hyung has joined #did
15:05:34 <drummond> fourth: DID spec registry issues
15:05:41 <Geun-Hyung> present+
15:05:41 <drummond> fifth: issues and PRs
15:06:20 <drummond> No special topic call this week
15:06:21 <brent> Topic: Status of Implementation Feedback
15:06:31 <markus> markus has joined #did
15:06:54 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
15:06:57 <drummond> manu: summarized on the mailing list
15:07:11 <manu> https://w3c.github.io/did-test-suite/#spec-statement-summary
15:07:11 <drummond> ...ready to go to recommendation as long as we can pass three proposals today
15:07:33 <drummond> ...this is the latest implementation report
15:07:54 <drummond> ...we have suppport for everything except three features
15:08:01 <drummond> ...other than that we're ready to go to PR
15:08:16 <drummond> ...some of the implementation reports are missing names
15:08:33 <drummond> ...some of them had syntax errors in the JSON input files
15:08:52 <drummond> ...the full list is in the test suite reports
15:09:11 <drummond> ...they were all editorial fixes to the test suite
15:09:32 <drummond> ...there were 41 DID method implementations
15:09:49 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:09:58 <drummond> ...that is far more than is typical
15:10:01 <brent> ack markus_sabadello
15:10:24 <manu> q+ to alsoKnownAs
15:10:31 <brent> ack manu
15:10:31 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to alsoKnownAs
15:10:37 <drummond> markus_sabadello: Regarding alsoKnownAs, it does not show up in the implementation report
15:10:46 <drummond> manu: that's a bug in the test suite
15:11:20 <drummond> ...if they don't show up, that means no one has implemented them
15:11:43 <drummond> ...if you search for "insufficient", it will pop up
15:12:35 <drummond> ...but if you go into the tests and you do a grep for specific implementation features you get different results
15:12:46 <drummond> ...there is a bug that will undercount implementations
15:13:02 <drummond> ...so basically we can trust that the numbers are a minimum
15:13:31 <manu> q+
15:13:49 <brent> ack manu
15:13:58 <drummond> brent: If I recall correctly, if alsoKnown was added to our spec, then the ActivityPub spec normatively references our
15:14:06 <drummond> ...spec
15:14:36 <drummond> manu: what it will cause the ActivityPub community to do is to have to define it themselves
15:14:45 <drummond> q+
15:14:49 <cel> q+ alsoKnownAs
15:15:02 <brent> ack drummond
15:15:13 <manu> scribe: manu
15:15:20 <manu> scribe+ manu
15:15:40 <manu> drummond: alsoKnownAs was supposed to be used at Trust over IP Foundation... requirement of all frameworks... disturbed about that.
15:15:53 <manu> drummond: It's also referenced in a section of the appendix -- this is how you can use a DID.
15:15:56 <manu> q+ to speak to appendix
15:16:09 <manu> drummond: proposing to remove it when it's got these clear cases of utility, I'm opposed to that.
15:16:27 <brent> ack KnownAs
15:16:44 <brent> ack manu
15:16:44 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to speak to appendix
15:17:04 <drummond> charles: if two implementation add it to a DID document, woudl that be sufficient
15:17:22 <drummond> manu: yes, it would be
15:17:41 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:17:44 <drummond> ...in addition, the PR would remove all references to alsoKnownAs in the spec.
15:17:48 <brent> ack markus_sabadello
15:17:54 <drummond> q+
15:17:54 <manu> q+ to note timeline.
15:18:28 <dlongley> we have a DID registry ... interested parties should register `alsoKnownAs` there
15:18:41 <drummond> markus_sabadello: I am worried that it did not show up in the test suite reports
15:18:52 <dlongley> s/a DID registry/DID spec registries/
15:18:52 <brent> ack drummond
15:18:53 <drummond> ...it is also important to understanding the use of DIDs
15:19:09 <drummond> ...so I too believe it is important to keep
15:19:55 <manu> drummond: Both Markus and Brent will tell you, if I was aware that there weren't sufficient implementations, I would've flagged this and worked w/ other developers/method implementers that the property was included... as of the last call, it was not flagged.
15:20:02 <manu> Yes, it was flagged :( -- during a call.
15:20:12 <manu> That's why we put it as at risk :(
15:20:41 <manu> drummond: I'd be concerned if we didn't include it... This is how you use a URN to make an alias...
15:20:42 <brent> ack manu
15:20:42 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note timeline.
15:20:59 <drummond> manu: we are out of time. If you look at our charter, this is the end.
15:21:35 <drummond> ...we have, multiple times during working group meetings, we have told people to implement it
15:22:11 <drummond> ...not having it in the core spec does not mean it cannot be added to the DID spec registries
15:22:19 <drummond> q+
15:22:23 <IdentityWoman> IdentityWoman has joined #did
15:22:41 <drummond> ...pushing it off for any further would imperil completing the spec.
15:22:54 <drummond> brent: the actual deadline is the 17th of June
15:22:58 <brent> ack drummond
15:23:21 <manu> drummond: I will put it on record that if the 17th is the deadline, I will do everything in my power to make that happen.
15:23:38 <drummond> brent: I am going to put the proposals in the chat
15:23:50 <drummond> ...everyone should have seen them just before the meeting
15:24:18 <justin_r> q+
15:24:23 <brent> ack justin_r
15:24:42 <drummond> justin_r: Should that be "such as"?
15:25:02 <brent> PROPOSAL: While some of the normative statements around JSON Production did not receive at least two independent implementations (such as datetime, double, integer, and null), the Working Group desires to keep the normative statements in the specification to ensure full JSON data model support so future implementations can use the features if they have a need to express those data types.
15:25:02 <drummond> manu: I believe it's the full list but I believe "such as" should be added to be safe
15:25:06 <manu> +1
15:25:06 <drummond> brent: I will add that
15:25:13 <brent> +1
15:25:13 <drummond> +1
15:25:14 <justin_r> +1
15:25:14 <markus_sabadello> +1
15:25:17 <dlongley> +1
15:25:17 <shigeya> +1
15:25:18 <TallTed> +1
15:25:20 <cel> +1
15:25:22 <JoeAndrieu> +0
15:25:37 <agropper> +1
15:25:47 <Geun-Hyung> +1
15:25:52 <brent> RESOLVED: While some of the normative statements around JSON Production did not receive at least two independent implementations (such as datetime, double, integer, and null), the Working Group desires to keep the normative statements in the specification to ensure full JSON data model support so future implementations can use the features if they have a need to express those data types.
15:26:24 <drummond> brent: the second proposal is wordier
15:26:35 <drummond> ...so I have to paste in two parts
15:27:48 <drummond> ...this full explanatory text is needed for the director's understanding
15:27:55 <drummond> ...any changes to the proposal?
15:29:23 <drummond> TallTed: The proposal is still missing a couple words
15:29:48 <bumblefudge_> bumblefudge_ has joined #did
15:29:54 <bumblefudge_> present+
15:29:58 <drummond> brent: manu has reposted the proposal
15:30:08 <manu> PROPOSAL: While the "deactivated: false" feature only received one independent implementation, the Working Group desires to keep the feature in the specification. Expressing "deactivated: false" is optional. The value space (true/false) for the "deactivated" feature was correctly implemented by more than 2 independent implementations (no implementations used values other than true/false). Implementers could express either "deactivated: false" or nothing,
15:30:09 <manu> and all implementers except for one chose the latter option.
15:30:14 <manu> +1
15:30:19 <drummond> +1
15:30:20 <markus_sabadello> +1
15:30:20 <dlongley> +1
15:30:21 <brent> +1
15:30:23 <cel> +1
15:30:24 <TallTed> +1
15:30:29 <shigeya> +1
15:31:01 <agropper> +1
15:31:10 <Geun-Hyung> +1
15:31:12 <IdentityWoman> +1
15:31:20 <manu> RESOLVED: While the "deactivated: false" feature only received one independent implementation, the Working Group desires to keep the feature in the specification. Expressing "deactivated: false" is optional. The value space (true/false) for the "deactivated" feature was correctly implemented by more than 2 independent implementations (no implementations used values other than true/false). Implementers could express either "deactivated: false" or nothing,
15:31:20 <manu> and all implementers except for one chose the latter option.
15:32:11 <drummond> brent: these are the two proposals we could take up
15:32:17 <drummond> ...please add yourself to the queue
15:32:18 <manu> q+
15:32:20 <drummond> q+
15:32:22 <brent> ack manu
15:33:04 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:33:08 <TallTed> q+
15:33:11 <brent> ack drummond
15:33:17 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:33:46 <markus_sabadello> q-
15:34:37 <manu> drummond: At the risk of repeating what I said earlier -- on this particular feature, I strenuously disagree with Manu -- not only of structure, but additional items we provided, illustrates a critical feature on how DIDs can be used and the value that they can provide. To understand that there are entire specifications that rely on that feature undermines discussing that in the spec... misses the value. I could live with either one of the proposals, will
15:34:37 <manu> ensure that implementations are there... it's explanatory power and that there are folks that rely on that function of that DID spec... removing it from, as well as explanations, devalues it.
15:34:40 <brent> ack TallTed
15:35:36 <drummond> TallTed: Because at least part of the implementation was not shown due to the reportage bug, but when you look to see if this was covered in the testing results, the meeting did not say that the reportage was buggy.
15:35:39 <dlongley> q+
15:35:57 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:36:00 <drummond> ...to the other side, this text could be turn into an informational note
15:36:41 <drummond> JoeAndrieu: I think we don't need alsoKnownAs is the main spec because it is both feature creep and because it is an active correlation between two identifiers.
15:37:07 <drummond> ...if it were truly used by multiple implementations then we should have it
15:37:11 <brent> ack dlongley
15:37:19 <IdentityWoman> +1 a few more days is good.
15:37:31 <drummond> ...but I do support giving a few days to get the implementations
15:37:46 <brent> q?
15:38:02 <drummond> dlongley: I would not recommend any proposal today to see if we have the implementations, and we should stick with the process
15:38:52 <drummond> brent: on the topic of not raising proposals now, we don't want to have the risk of not being able to proceed next week
15:38:53 <dlongley> +1 ok -- I support your reasoning, Brent (that we want a resolution today given the timelines so we can move more quickly)
15:38:56 <brent> PROPOSAL: If at least two independent implementations for the the alsoKnownAs feature are not registered in the test suite by 6pm ET Sunday July 18th 2021, the DID Core specification will remove the feature and notify the ActivityPub community of its removal.
15:39:02 <drummond> ...so I want to run that proposal now
15:39:26 <manu> +1
15:39:27 <dlongley> +1
15:39:29 <JoeAndrieu> +1
15:39:31 <drummond> 0
15:39:32 <justin_r> +0 because the test suite is known to be buggy, this seems to be a targeted removal
15:39:32 <IdentityWoman> +1
15:39:35 <markus_sabadello> +0.5
15:39:36 <brent> +1
15:39:44 <shigeya> +0 because of potential bugs
15:39:46 <cel> +0.5
15:39:46 <agropper> +0
15:39:57 <TallTed> -.05
15:40:02 <Geun-Hyung> +0
15:40:28 <bumblefudge_> humanists and editors have floating-point opinions
15:40:44 <drummond> q+
15:41:34 <drummond> TallTed: the summary report did not show this feature missing, so any other option seem ingenious
15:41:50 <justin_r> s/ingenuous/disingenuous/
15:41:59 <drummond> ...confirmed
15:42:05 <justin_r> s/ingenious/disingenuous/
15:42:07 <bumblefudge_> happens to the geniusest of us
15:42:15 <brent> ack drummond
15:42:52 <dlongley> if this is so important, i'm convinced there will be implementations submitted in the next ~4 days -- we should move on
15:43:09 <brent> RESOLVED: If at least two independent implementations for the the alsoKnownAs feature are not registered in the test suite by 6pm ET Sunday July 18th 2021, the DID Core specification will remove the feature and notify the ActivityPub community of its removal.
15:43:30 <dlongley> +1 to what drummond just said, if we don't have implementations by the deadline, it shouldn't be in the spec
15:43:38 <TallTed> tangential observation -- Because of the somewhat surprisingly large number of methods, there should perhaps be a general privacy note that DID methods with few users pose a more significant correlation risk than methods with billions of users. This might fit into the rubric, if it's not already there.
15:43:56 <drummond> brent: I would encourage those two implementations should be as independent as possible
15:44:03 <brent> Topic: IETF Discussion
15:44:14 <bumblefudge_> @TallTed +1 -- i think it's already in there in some form, though, if memory serves
15:44:49 <drummond> manu: The WG asked Manu to write an email to the IETF directorate with two asks:
15:44:57 <drummond> ...first, please review the DID spec
15:45:27 <drummond> ...second, the DID WG and other related W3C WGs would like to set up a more long-term relationship where we can have more active, ongoing interactions
15:45:57 <drummond> ...the letter is being created because Mark Nottingham was asking what work we were doing that they should be looking at
15:46:11 <drummond> ...many people have jumped in to make comments
15:46:26 <drummond> ...I propose to make the proposed editorial changes
15:46:28 <justin_r> q+ to ask about the liason relationship
15:46:36 <brent> ack justin_r
15:46:36 <Zakim> justin_r, you wanted to ask about the liason relationship
15:46:50 <drummond> ...the expectation is that I will send it off to the IETF Directorate if there are no objections
15:47:07 <drummond> justin_r: Is the intent to jump over the W3C staff and Wendy?
15:47:18 <drummond> manu: No, we should give Wendy a heads up
15:47:21 <brent> +1 to giving Wendy a heads up
15:47:43 <drummond> justin_r: It is in fact the IRTF that requested this, and it's a technically a different group
15:47:51 <drummond> manu: I will make that correction
15:48:08 <brent> Topic: Path to Proposed Recommendation
15:48:51 <drummond> brent: Due to the anticipated minimal differences between our current CR snapshot and our proposed recommendation...
15:49:10 <drummond> ...we don't anticipate this group will need a long review of the final proposal
15:49:37 <drummond> ...we plan to present to the group at the meeting next week the proposal final draft for one final week of review
15:50:06 <drummond> ...during that period we will also run the resolution next week because the resolution also has a seven day window for recision
15:50:43 <drummond> ...the chairs have determined this path makes sense because of the minimal differences between the CR and the proposed PR
15:50:58 <manu> q+
15:51:04 <manu> q+ to note PRs
15:51:18 <brent> ack manu
15:51:18 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note PRs
15:51:53 <drummond> manu: the last PRs include one about public key multi-base - needs Orie
15:52:11 <drummond> ...[missed this second one]
15:52:24 <drummond> ...alsoKnownAs has been discussed
15:52:38 <drummond> ...rearrange order of the appendicies needs editorial review
15:52:57 <drummond> ...updating the IANA guidance needs review
15:53:16 <drummond> ...moving the revision history to an appendix is editorial but needs review
15:53:50 <drummond> ...#780 Update Editors, Authors, and Acknowledgements needs further discussion
15:53:55 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:53:59 <drummond> ...final issue is accessibility of diagrams
15:54:13 <bumblefudge_> alt text?
15:54:30 <brent> ack markus_sabadello
15:54:38 <drummond> ...did Charles did all the alt-text
15:54:43 <drummond> Charles: not yet
15:55:05 <drummond> markus_sabadello: RE the SVG, Markus is planning to complete the rest of them
15:55:12 <drummond> brent: that is also editorial
15:55:50 <drummond> brent: asks Manu to explain the data-based process for PR #780
15:56:26 <drummond> manu: there are three groups of info that need to be decided.
15:56:43 <drummond> ...Acknowledgements is easy: any contributor
15:56:56 <drummond> ...Authors and Editors are determined by contributions
15:57:36 <drummond> ...for Editors, the data is more clear, it is based on the commits. It's fairly clear right now that Manu, Markus, Amy, and then contributions drop off after that
15:57:51 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:57:54 <drummond> ...that is resulted in the proposal that Drummond be dropped off the editors list
15:58:41 <drummond> ...Authors on the other hand recognizes contributions to the overall spec
15:58:54 <drummond> ...Drummond is on the Authors list due to early contributions
15:59:12 <drummond> ...Orie is proposed to be added to the Authors list because of the volume of his contributions
15:59:35 <drummond> ...the general idea is that this process is data driven so that it is a fair process
15:59:37 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
16:00:03 <drummond> JoeAndrieu: Wanted to make a case to keep Drummond as an editor due to leadership provided
16:00:06 <justin_r> +1
16:00:10 <drummond> (thank you Joe)
16:00:31 <JoeAndrieu> Thank you, Drummond.
16:00:40 <drummond> brent: We can continue that discussion in the PR.
16:00:53 <drummond> brent: We are out of time...
16:01:03 <brent> zakim, who is here?
16:01:03 <Zakim> Present: drummond, brent, shigeya, dlongley, cel, manu, TallTed, agropper, Geun-Hyung, bumblefudge_
16:01:05 <Zakim> On IRC I see bumblefudge_, IdentityWoman, Geun-Hyung, agropper, JoeAndrieu, drummond, RRSAgent, Zakim, brent, TallTed, tzviya, Travis, etropea73101, dlehn, faceface, dlongley,
16:01:05 <Zakim> ... manu, hadleybeeman, bigbluehat, shigeya, ChristopherA, wayne, cel, rhiaro
16:01:18 <brent> present+ IdentityWoman
16:01:31 <brent> present+ JoeAndrieu
16:03:36 <brent> present+ markus_sabadello
16:03:47 <brent> zakim, end the meeting
16:03:47 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been drummond, brent, shigeya, dlongley, cel, manu, TallTed, agropper, Geun-Hyung, bumblefudge_, IdentityWoman, JoeAndrieu, markus_sabadello
16:03:50 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:03:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/07/13-did-minutes.html Zakim
16:03:53 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, brent; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:03:57 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did
16:04:02 <brent> rrsagent, please excuse us
16:04:02 <RRSAgent> I see no action items