W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > February 2019

[MINUTES] W3C Credentials CG Call - 2019-02-05 12pm ET

From: <kim@learningmachine.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 18:17:29 -0800
Message-Id: <1549678649904.0.27542@Kims-MacBook-Pro.local>
To: Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Thanks to Jonathan Holt for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's Credentials CG telecon are now available:

https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2019-02-05/

Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes.
Audio from the meeting is available as well (link provided below).

----------------------------------------------------------------
Credentials CG Telecon Minutes for 2019-02-05

Agenda:
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2019Feb/0002.html
Topics:
  1. Introductions and Re-introductions
  2. Announcements and Reminders
  3. Work Item Review
  4. DID Issue Review
Organizer:
  Christopher Allen and Joe Andrieu and Kim Hamilton Duffy
Scribe:
  Jonathan Holt
Present:
  Andrew Hughes, Dmitri Zagidulin, Mike Lodder, Kaliya Young, Will 
  Abramson, Christopher Allen, Dan Burnett, Michael Herman, Ted 
  Thibodeau, Markus Sabadello, Dave Longley, Adrian Gropper, 
  Samantha Mathews Chase, Vaughan Emery, Bohdan Andriyiv, Manu 
  Sporny, Jeff Orgel, Jonathan Holt, Ganesh Annan, Ryan Grant, Kim 
  Hamilton Duffy, Drummond Reed, Heather Vescent, Justin Richer, 
  Brent Zundel, Ken Ebert, Brent Shambaugh, Moses Ma
Audio:
  https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2019-02-05/audio.ogg

Christopher Allen: Hmm, the gateway phone isn't answering
Vaughan Emery: Vaughan+
Christopher Allen: 
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2019Feb/0002.html
Jonathan Holt: Jonathan holt (aka jonnycrunch) is the scribe
Jonathan Holt is scribing.
Will Abramson: I also have never managed to connect - from 
  Edinburgh :(

Topic: Introductions and Re-introductions

Jonathan Holt:  Hi Jonathan Holt, clinical geneticisct physician, 
  startup founder (TranscendX) credentialining, health records. 
  Also named Chair of WG for IEEE - DLT technologies in healthcare, 
  focused on identity. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]

Topic: Announcements and Reminders

Christopher Allen: http://rwot8.eventbrite.com
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Folks who can't connect: if you already have 
  a SIP client, can you try connecting via sip:ccg@96.89.14.196?
Christopher Allen: 
  https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot8-barcelona/tree/master/topics-and-advance-readings
RWoT 8 in Barcelona, Spain
Ryan Grant: Present- cannot connect to audio
There is a public meet-up Thursday night, VCWG face-to-face march 
  4-5th
Christopher Allen: 
  https://github.com/w3c/verifiable-claims/tree/master/f2f/2019-03-Barcelona
Christopher Allen:  IIW coming up in Mountain View
Drummond Reed: Dan,this Drummond, I'm planning on attending
Dan Burnett:   Please contact us in CCG or VCWG if you are 
  interesting in attending

Topic: Work Item Review

Christopher Allen: 
  https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22action%3A+review+next%22
Christopher Allen:   Linked data key format reqistry needs a repo 
  (new home) do we have any volunteers?
Kim Hamilton Duffy:   We have a link in place but it is going in 
  DID spec repo.  We probably went thru the process. Kim will set 
  it up and will need to close the issue.  Does anyone know who has 
  the files?
Christopher Allen: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/56
Manu Sporny:   What we are trying to do with the linked data 
  format is key format.  I think all we need is the suite format.  
  Don't think we need another repo. just need one registry format 
  and signature format update the table?
Christopher Allen:   Please respond to the issue.
Christopher Allen:   Still open PRs.  "Kim is there intent to 
  address them?
Christopher Allen: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/42
Kim Hamilton Duffy:   I think we can close it out.  We have been 
  closing them as needed.
Christopher Allen:   "Manu: what is the status?"
Manu Sporny:  It would be great if someone could pick it up.  we 
  need the crypto suite updated first. looking for volunteers
Kim Hamilton Duffy:   I think manu is responding to 56 not 42.  I 
  will make a note and close it out. Manu: agree

Topic: DID Issue Review

Christopher Allen:   The remaining time is regarding Michael 
  Herman, bunch of changes, suggestions. some were problems lacking 
  document, or draft is not up to date. he then posted 4 key 
  questions
Christopher Allen: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/issues/157
Christopher Allen:   First one is #157. the underlying purpose .. 
  have we really defined our underlying audience.
Michael Herman:   I think the thing to focus on is who is the 
  audience?   My background in blockchain dev, I wanted to use 
  these for non-fungible entities.  but it wasn't permeable .  Is 
  it for software devs?  Once with understand who it is then is the 
  DID a lower level technology.  we need a high level of precision.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: I have to drop early today, at the 30 minute 
  mark
Drummond Reed:   Finding mute button ..  Even though the first 
  audience was very broad around self-sovreinty.  Audience is 
  broad, not just developers.  there are people who won't implement 
  the spec, but would be involved.  Manu is a past-master of the 
  spec.  dive down into the spec
Michael Herman:  Not talking about the details of the spec. but 
  where is the spec going (bow of the ship)
Michael Herman:  Can't be precise without understanding where it 
  is going
Drummond Reed: The primary target audience is "implementers".
Manu Sporny:   If we had to pick one it would be developers
Drummond Reed: BTW, I think Manu is one of the best in the 
  business at doing what he just said—writing understandable specs.
Manu Sporny:  There are enormous about of details for 
  implementers, but we write it in a way that could be readable and 
  get an general understanding followed by more details and can 
  write interoperable software.  Reason why you might not follow is 
  we haven't done the documentation.  need more work on 
  introduction for broader audience.
Manu Sporny: @Drummond -- aww, thanks buddy :) -- thrilled to be 
  working w/ a great communicator such as yourself as well :)
Kim Hamilton Duffy: That is great context Manu, thanks. I want to 
  work that into an FAQ
Christopher Allen:   Some of the people who are reading the spec 
  are managers.   other don't like blockchains or other 
  assumptions.   I had discussion with colleague and he missed 
  really important concepts.  We need to be better and make it more 
  approachable.
Michael Herman: Chris, this is a good dovetail to the next issue 
  #158 ...which talks about scope
Michael Herman: ...Normative ...informative...
Justin Richer:   With my experience in writing spec.  you need to 
  approach it with and engineering hat, precision and focus. It is 
  very tempting to use standard spec to make a point regarding 
  greater vision.  I would very strongly caution the group to not 
  spend time on dense philosophical arguement, rather than just 
  building it.
Christopher Allen: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/issues/158
Christopher Allen:   We are finding balance.  moving on to the 
  scope of normative issue #158
Christopher Allen:   When do we say it is out of scope and need 
  to re-think the approach.
Michael Herman:   It was update just in the 30 min.
Michael Herman:   What you see in the diagram is "indy sovrin ... 
  whole ecosystem". frame the work for normative discussion.
Michael Herman:   We have been talking about the direction. 
  separating the ID from the ??
Manu Sporny:   The ecosystem can get large very quickly.  we 
  should focus on the core. "what is informative and what is 
  normative?"
Michael Herman:   What is normative and in scope and what is 
  informative and out of scope. back to restucturing.
Manu Sporny:   Expectation, beginning of the spec is for 
  grounding.  next section talk about DID, and why a DID url.  what 
  you get back is a normative model and what features you get back. 
  after that we will talk about concrete syntax, then DID method 
  spec.  if you write a DID method spec it is very difficult to 
  write. When it get to W3C, if it doesn't boil down to a test then 
  not normative. we want very specfic specs there.  the DID spec 
  won't talk about  ???
Markus Sabadello: Reminder: DID Resolution kickoff call, 7th Feb 
  2019, 9pm Vienna CET = 3pm US Eastern = noon US Pacific, 
  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2019Feb/0000.html
Michael Herman: If people have feedback on the diagram at the 
  bottom of https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/issues/158, 
  Drummond and I and others are discussing it here: 
  https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/issues/151
Manu Sporny:  The question is "is this a good place to end up?"
Drummond Reed:   I do feel the benefits now rather then when we 
  first wrote it, i think our ability to define what the DID spec 
  needs to do.  For example URI analogy,  the difference they all 
  are identifer specs.  it is in scope to define what the DID 
  method spec need to do,  define the socpe of the DID method spec. 
   line will be clearer. hope to get some work done at RWoT.
Christopher Allen: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/issues/151
Michael Herman:   The devil is in the details.  any feedback on 
  issue #158 and #151
Christopher Allen:   Moving on the #151, data model. we don't 
  name it. there has been some comments in the list and issue 
  regarding DID and DID doc that is causing some confusion in the 
  community
Drummond Reed: Just to clarify, I was saying that there is a 
  clear analogy between the URI spec as a generic spec from which 
  others create specific URI scheme specs and the DID spec as a 
  generic spec from which others create specific DID method specs.
Michael Herman:    It is about the DID data model.  the 
  conversation wandered.  I'm satified that we are going to have 
  this data model.  save the rest of the conversation of another 
  time
Manu Sporny: https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/
Manu Sporny:   Regarding Data Model:  I don't think we had 
  clarify on the data model and syntax regarding how it all fits 
  together.  we have some more clarity now and the group feels 
  happy were we ended up.  intro discussed broad concepts.  Lessons 
  were learned after writing this mostly needs testing to pass 
  muster with w3c.  if you look at this spec you can get what we 
  are working towards
Christopher Allen: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/issues/155 
  & https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/pull/159
Manu Sporny: +1, That's a discussion we need to have.
Michael Herman:   I'm cool with that.  I've added a comment.    
  Can DID be used without DID documents?  There is a strong case 
  for using DIDs without DID docs.
+1, This an important foundational concept here
Michael Herman: What do you mean by DID Object?
Christopher Allen:   Issue #155 and #159.  is it a URL, URI.  it 
  really comes back to the DID document.  one is created implcitly. 
   With Bitcoin, everything come from the blockchain. not the 
  endpoints,  yet, it always creates something.  Who is the 
  consumer of the DID document?  Who is the creator of the DID 
  document?
Christopher Allen: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/issues/151
Michael Herman:    The backend of #151 is a good primer for the 
  conversion.  End to end Alice get a job, transcipt.  soup to nuts 
  that uses DID but don't use the DID document.   There is a 7 
  layer model.  I'm questioning the DID is only relevant with DID 
  document.
Drummond Reed: +1 To dlongley's point that the term is "DID 
  document". We no longer call it a DID Object or DDO.
Dave Longley: "Generation of a DID document from a DID" is just 
  another way to do "resolving"
Drummond Reed: +1
Dmitri Zagidulin: Yeah, +1 to that
Dmitri Zagidulin: It's /still/ a DID Document, even if it's like 
  a data: url
Manu Sporny:   We are having a mismatch.  Have heard the 
  argument.  maybe there is an argument that the DID document can 
  be generated via an algorithm.  there are difference use-cases.  
  we are not on the same page yet. what should you be able to do 
  with a DID?
Markus Sabadello: DID Resolution draft has some early thoughts on 
  this in the Introduction: 
  https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-resolution/#introduction
Drummond Reed: Thanks Markus
Christopher Allen:   There is history Drummond and I created a 
  CID just with the key, but missing key rotation.  old language 
  keeps coming in.
Ken Ebert:   If DIDs are about control and proving ownership,  if 
  you are removing .... need namespace resolution
Dave Longley: Notes that you can delegate where the keys come 
  from for that
Ken Ebert:   But if you waterdown the DID and remove the 
  neceessity for the description of the key it removes the main 
  purpose of the DID
Manu Sporny: +1 To control of an identifier! :)
Dan Burnett: +1
Dave Longley: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/issues/153 <-- 
  delegating the "controller" for the identifier to another DID 
  document.
Drummond Reed:   Control of the identity is not the control of 
  the identifier
Dave Longley: +1 Control of an identifier
Drummond Reed:   DIDs future is extraordinary and we don't want 
  to lose it
Brent Shambaugh: +1 To talking more about this
Drummond Reed: I do NOT like the term "Verifiable DIDs".
Manu Sporny: +1 To not be unnecessarily exclusionary -- we want 
  broad applicability for these things.
Drummond Reed: I will argue very strongly against it.
Dave Longley: Another note about the history of DIDs -- the first 
  implementation some ~5 years ago did consider key rotation, 
  however, bringing in CIDs a few years later as a way to 
  cryptographically "claim" a DID really helped complete the 
  design.
Michael Herman:   I agree with Manu, my main point. we should not 
  be exclusionary . This 7 layer model enforces this approach.  in 
  layer 3, addresses the middle ground.  I think we can be more 
  inclusive on all of these things.
Michael Herman: Thank you for the great discussion "this morning"
Drummond Reed: I will be on the absolute warpath against adding 
  that modifier, because it completely destroys the core meaning of 
  a DID.
Christopher Allen:   Good points.  where we draw the line.
Christopher Allen:   Another plug for RWoT post a topic.
Moses Ma: Bye everyone!
Received on Saturday, 9 February 2019 02:17:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 9 February 2019 02:18:00 UTC