Calendar invite for bi-weekly DID Resolution calls

All, find attached a calendar invite for the bi-weekly DID Resolution
calls. Next will be on Thu, February 21st 2019.

We'll send an agenda in the next few days in a separate e-mail.

Markus

On 2/11/19 6:58 PM, Markus Sabadello wrote:
>
> Here are notes from the kickoff call for the DID Resolution work item,
> on Thu, February 7th 2019:
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-resolution
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *RECORDING
> *https://github.com/w3c-ccg/meetings/tree/gh-pages/2019-02-07-did-resolution*
> *
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *ATTENDEES*
>
> Adrian Gropper, Dave Longley, Dmitri Zagidulin, Jonny Crunch, Kim
> Duffy, Markus Sabadello, Michael Herman, Nader Helmy, Paul Knowles,
> Stephen Felt, Tom Jones, Victor Grey
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *NOTES*
>
> *1. Introductions*
>
> Why is everyone on the call and what are your interests.
>
> *2. Mode of operation:*
>
> This is a work item of the W3C Credentials CG.
> IPR rules apply, you must be a member of the CG to contribute.
> Zoom seems to work for everyone - we will continue to use it.
> We will record the Zoom calls.
> We will use IRC and the queuing feature.
> We will try to use the scribing feature on the next call if possible.
> We will have bi-weekly calls at 9pm Vienna = 8pm GMT = 3pm US Eastern
> = noon US Pacific.
> Jonathan Holt proposed to use Waffle for organizing work around Github
> issues.
>
> *3. Scope and structure of the DID Resolution spec:*
>
> At this point we are discussing the high-level scope and structure of
> the spec, and how it relates to the main DID spec
>
> Some discussion points [please excuse the rough notes, next time we
> will try to use the regular scribing feature]:
>
> - Should the DID Document be defined in the main DID spec or DID
> Resolution spec. See https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-resolution/issues/15
> - DmitriZ: The DID Document is not an exclusive artifact of DID
> Resolution; it can have use outside of resolution.
> - DaveL: The draft DID WG Charter covers the data model, the DID
> Resolution spec should therefore point to the main DID spec.
> - DaveL: This is a common pattern in W3C to separate the data model
> and protocol (also see Verifiable Claims WG).
> - MarkusS and JonnyC: The data model and syntax are also separate, so
> DID Resolution could theoretically return a DID Document in a syntax
> that is not JSON-LD.
> - Should we define a "DID Resolution Result" data structure, which
> includes the DID Document plus additional information about the
> resolution process? See
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-resolution/issues/23
> - While the DID Document describes the DID subject, the "DID
> Resolution Result" would describe the DID Document and could include
> validity data, expiration, and other metadata.
> - TomJ: This data structure should be a high priority, under section 4.
> - DaveL: An input parameter could be introduced that controls what
> type of output you want.
> - Is it possible to enumerate all DID Documents on a ledger? This may
> be a method-specific feature. See:
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-resolution/issues/20
> - Is it possible to resolve an earlier version of a DID Document? Yes
> there seems to be consensus that this should be supported; it may be
> method-specific. See: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/issues/64,
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-resolution/issues/12,
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-resolution/issues/10
> - How will points of contention of this group be managed? Discussion,
> then attempt resolution, we want to achieve consensus.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *NEXT DID RESOLUTION CALL
> *
>
> Thu, February 21st 2019
>