- From: rhiaro <amy@rhiaro.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:04:05 +0100
- To: public-credentials@w3.org
Hey folks, Logs for both calls from IRC are here: https://w3c-ccg.s3.digitalbazaar.com/minutes/2019-03-21-irc.log Thanks to Dave Longley for activating the bots to generate these! Cheers, Amy On 22.3.19. 00:49, =Drummond Reed wrote: > These were the attendees and notes from today's first call. We expect > these to continue weekly at the same time until the end of April (and > the completion of a Community Final Draft). You can also read them on > the meeting page > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qYBaXQMUoB86Alquu7WBtWOxsS8SMhp1fioYKEGCabE/edit?usp=sharing>. > > > Amy also took notes in the CCG IRC and she will send a link to that too. > > Markus will be sending the the DID Resolution Spec call that > immediately followed this one. > > =Drummond > > DID Spec Community Final Draft Meeting Page > > This page is for taking notes of weekly meetings held in March & April > 2019 of members of the W3C Credentials Community Group > <https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/>who are collaborating to > complete the Community Final Draft of the DID specification > <https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-spec/>. Meeting notes are listed in > reverse chronological order. > > Note: This meeting is directly followed by the weekly DID Resolution > Spec First Draft Meeting > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BKbwWCS9ZT1Aawxv2YVvGUUOv9WfPqMK9MiWh1s9dLo/>. > > > Call Information > > Time: Every Thursday, 13:00-14:00 PT > > > https://zoom.us/j/7077077007 > > > Or iPhone one-tap: > > US: +16465588656,,7077077007# or +16699006833,,7077077007# > > > Or Telephone: > > Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current > location): > > US: +1 646 558 8656 or +1 669 900 6833 > > United Kingdom: +44 (0) 20 3051 2874 or +44 (0) 20 3695 0088 > > Meeting ID: 707 707 7007 > > International numbers available:https://zoom.us/u/q6mghCSZ > > > Links (Generally Useful to the Group) > > * > > DID Spec <https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-spec/> > > > Thursday 21 March 2019 > > > Attending > > * > > Markus Sabadello > > * > > Jonathan Holt > > * > > Drummond Reed > > * > > Joe Andrieu > > * > > David Longley > > * > > Ken Ebert > > * > > Stephen Curren > > * > > Dmitri Zagidulin > > * > > Dan Burnett > > * > > Nader Helmy > > * > > Amy Guy > > * > > Adrian Gropper > > * > > Chris Boscolo > > * > > Yancy Ribbens > > * > > Manu Sporny > > > Agenda > > 1. > > Attendance and Introductions > > 2. > > How we want to operate as a subgroup of the CCG > > 1. > > Short-term group > > 2. > > Goal: a completed Community Final Draft by the end of April > > 3. > > Community governance: Issue resolution and closure policies; > did-spec issue remediation > > 4. > > Weekly calls, but also use the CCG list and github issue for > progress > > 5. > > Notes from each call sent to the CCG list > > 3. > > Discussion of priorities and agenda topics > > 1. > > Presentation of the above README: did-url-spec - Decentralized > Identifier URL (did-url) Specification as well as the > spreadsheet: > https://github.com/mwherman2000/did-url-spec/tree/master/src > (latest numbered version) > > 2. > > Relationship of DID Spec and DID Resolution Spec (5 mins) > > 3. > > Status report from Amy/Dmitri/Manu on editorial (5 mins) > > 4. > > Logging new features (instead of adding them to the spec) (5 > minutes) > > 5. > > JSON-LD context(s) (10 mins?) > > 6. > > ABNF Plan of Action (20 mins) > > > Meeting Notes > > Drummond: The main focus of this group is the DID spec. Other issues > should be submitted to the CCG as a new work items. We need to have > direct discussions regarding issues and move items forward with a goal > of closure by the end of April. Amy and Dmitri have done a tremendous > amount of editorial work. > > > Topic #1: Agenda > > Drummond: Normally we will agree on the agenda items. (see above). Any > additional items for the agenda? I'll add status report to the agenda. > > Jonny: What is the status of the DID working group? > > Drummond: The CCG is responsible. We want to be able to hand off the > DID spec when the working group is formed. > > … Any additional topics? I'll set time guidelines for topics. > > ... Prioritization of topics (see agenda above). > > > Topic #2: Presentation of the README deferred to second call; > > > Topic #3: Relationship of the DID Spec and the DID Resolution Spec > > Markus: The DID Spec covers DID identifier syntax, the abstract data > model of DID Documents, and concrete syntaxes (e.g. JSON-LD) for DID > Documents. > > The DID Resolution deals with how to go from a DID using the method to > arrive at the DID document. > > Drummond: DNS is an example of a specification that combines the URI > and the resolution. > > … The DID Resolution Spec arose out of the need to have a separate > specification to address the details of how to achieve this. > > Dan: I know Markus understands the difference between the idea that > resolution does not always result in a document. Dereferencing has > multiple actions associated with it. The key is that resolution is > about getting the rules, policies, etc. for dereferencing a resource, > while dereferencing is about taking an action on a resource. The > default action may be to return something, but we should be careful > not to always assume that dereferencing means to return a document. > In particular, the “resource” here is not necessarily defined (yet) to > be a DID document. > > Manu: here’s the link for the DID Working Group > <https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-wg-charter>Charter. > > Drummond: The DID resolution group has already had several calls. > Slides are available to distinguish between resolution / dereferencing. > > Manu: It's basically use cases and syntax. When we feel like the DID > Resolution has at least 2 implementations and we are ready to work on > it, we can start on a standardization effort. > > Drummond: More discussion? > > Jonny: Where do we draw the line between the format and the > serializations? We need common ground that we are going to transform > into JSON / JSON+LD. > > Manu: Ted always says "It's a data model. Not protocol." The protocol > is out of scope for the VCWG; it is in scope for CCG. > > Jonny: I think if we state it clearly that we are formulating it in > JSON/JSON+LD > > Joe: There are protocolish things who will be using the data models > that can be captured in the use cases. > > Drummond: Data model/serializations: DID Spec is a data model and one > serialization. > > Jonny: I can work with that. > > Drummond: I think that is sufficient for our current work. > > Dan: Protocol work can happen in W3C, but we are chartered to not > address this so that we can reach easier consensus. Protocol work can > happen in other groups or later, perhaps, in this group. > > > Topic #4: Status Report on Editorial > > Amy: We still have a large list of items to resolve. At rebooting we > closed 23 issues at RWoT. Some issues have followup on Michael's issues. > > Drummond: Are there areas where you would like feedback? > > Amy: Not right now. The Intro and abstract sections will be > overhauled. Some content will be moved to other documents. A PR is coming. > > Drummond: As someone responsible for early content, I give you license > to pare the spec down to more proper content. > > Amy: I will edit with greater confidence. ;) > > Drummond: Our goal is to have the explanatory document, with Ken and > Dan, by IIW. > > > Topic #5: Logging New Features Instead of Adding Them to the Spec > > Manu: We will have a few calls to clean up the spec on its path to the > WG. During the meetings of the DID WG will also be a time to request > new features. Please log the issue in the issue tracker for current > CCG work or for the DID WG to discuss. We want to focus on editorial > cleanup on the current spec. The issue, if critical, can also be added > to the spec now for future consideration. If we follow these > guidelines it will make the editors' job easier. > > Manu, please add link here to the issue tracker: > > Drummond: I know that some obvious future features could be added to > the list. > > > Topic #6: JSON-LD Contexts > > Drummond: There are questions regarding JSON-LD contexts in the VCWG. > Do all of the issues surrounding contexts applicable here? > > Manu: Yes, we have the same set of conversations as the VCWG. If we > make the same decisions, all of the concerns could be addressed in the > same manner. Such as "What is the final URL for the VC Credential > context?" We can decide that the string is the identifier without the > deep concerns for centralized control. Regarding immutability, it is > OK to hard code or locally cache the files or build them into the > application. Content-based addressing or hash-links are also possible > solutions. As long as we use the same methods for resolving these > issues as the VCWG, we should be ok. > > Yancy: Re: contexts not being centralized, in the VCWG is the context > is mandatory? > > Manu: The string is mandatory, but you don't have to retrieve the > context from the network, you can cache it or build it into the > application because it is not supposed to change. In the event of > something catastrophic happening, the community can resolve to use a > standard definition instead. > > Jonny: If there is an issue of trusting that URL, why not just define > its contents? > > Manu: It helps the generic JSON-LD processors continue to function. It > is less disruptive to the rest of the web. It allows those who want it > at a URL and those who want it immutable, to both be happy. > > Jonny: I can live with that. > > > Topic #7: Closed Github Issues > > Micheal: Can items that were closed in editing without resolution be > re-opened? > > Amy: There were a few that closed. Github needs to be adjusted to > allow the person who entered the issue to re-open it if they feel it > was not properly handled. My apologies, I thought the issues had been > addressed. I'll re-open those that need to be. > > Michael: We need full discussion. > > Drummond: What is "full discussion"? > > Michael: Consensus is different than majority rule. Most issues were > handled well. A few with specific unaddressed comments should be reopened. > > > Action Items > > # AMY: Re-open issues that have been closed so they can be fully > discussed. > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 22 March 2019 09:04:36 UTC