Re: Notes from 2019-03-21 DID Resolution Spec First Draft Meeting

Weighing in as co-chair.

I never want to publicly call out any community member; I prefer to have
such conversations directly. That said, Michael, I need to respond to this
publicly because there have been several occurrences of you publicly
impugning the integrity/motives of valued community members (which the
chairs can discuss with you directly). Making such accusations *without
basis* derails the group's progress, and possibly jeopardizes the perceived
integrity of the outcome (if the accusation is allowed to stand unchecked).

W3C's Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct is available here:
https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/. We do expect community members to
follow this guidance.

If anyone believes a community member has violated the code of conduct,
please inform the chairs (Joe Andrieu, Christopher Allen, and I) with
specifics so we can follow up. Again, we prefer to have these discussions
directly (not in public forums) unless absolutely necessary.

Michael, you have contributed a great deal to the discussions, as Markus
has said repeatedly. Your rigor is very much appreciated. Collaborating
remotely is challenging, and I think this has been a factor in the
misunderstandings (for example, when you thought github issues were being
closed to squash discussion). The chairs are happy to get involved at any
point of the process if undercommunication is leading to uncertainty.

Lastly, I am not picking sides, but given that he was accused publicly, I
must personally _wholeheartedly_ vouch for Markus' professional integrity
and track record. He has the expertise and, frankly, humility that makes
him excellent at moderating complex discussions with many competing points
of view. If you do actually have concerns, again, the chairs would want you
to express them to us -- ideally directly.

Hoping we can move forward with professional, respectful collaboration,
which includes give our peers the benefit of the doubt.

Sincerely,
Kim (co-chair)


On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 12:58 PM Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com>
wrote:

> Michael,
>
> Within the last 24 hours you have:
>
> - Accused me of violating 6 items of the W3C Code of Ethics and
> Professional Conduct, without providing any explanation or evidence. I have
> responded to each accusation in detail and got no further response from you.
> - Tried to dictate to me the terms under which you would give a long
> unilateral presentation on an upcoming CCG community web meeting, and you
> asked that it would become "your event". I refused.
> - Demanded that I call you on your phone for a "last chance".
>
> I think some of your contributions are genuinely useful, but the manner in
> which you present them and interact with others is not productive.
> If and when this changes in the future, for my part, I would certainly not
> be opposed to collaborating with you again.
>
> Markus
> On 3/28/19 8:36 PM, Michael Herman (Parallelspace) wrote:
>
> Following several back and forth conversations yesterday and today with
> the leaders of the did-spec and did-resolution community calls, they are
> no longer a group that I can continue to work with.
>
>
>
> I won’t be participating in today’s calls nor participating further with
> respect to the completion of the did-spec and did-resolution specifications.
>
>
>
> If you’re interested in tracking with or learning more about Hyperonomy
> Universal Decentralized Identifier URI Specification (did-uri-spec), please
> email and/or checkout:
>
>
>
> *Hyperonomy Universal Decentralized Identifier URI Specification
> (did-uri-spec) *
>
> Webcast:
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLU-rWqHm5p45c9jFftlYcr4XIWcZb0yCv
>
> PPT: https://github.com/mwherman2000/did-uri-spec/tree/master/src
>
> FAQ: https://github.com/mwherman2000/did-uri-spec/blob/master/FAQ.md
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael Herman (Toronto/Calgary/Seattle)
>
> Independent Blockchain Developer
>
> Hyperonomy Business Blockchain / Parallelspace Corporation
>
>
>
> W: http://hyperonomy.com
>
> C:  +1 416 524-7702
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com> <markus@danubetech.com>
> *Sent:* March 27, 2019 3:34 PM
> *To:* Michael Herman (Parallelspace) <mwherman@parallelspace.net>
> <mwherman@parallelspace.net>; W3C Credentials CG
> <public-credentials@w3.org> <public-credentials@w3.org>; Drummond Reed (
> drummond.reed@evernym.com) <drummond.reed@evernym.com>
> <drummond.reed@evernym.com>
> *Subject:* Re: Notes from 2019-03-21 DID Resolution Spec First Draft
> Meeting
>
>
>
> Hello Michael,
>
> Thanks once more for your input, there is definitely much value in this!
>
> I think what's not going to work is you unilaterally presenting >60 slides
> for an hour.
>
> I continue to see a few fundamental challenges regarding your work, e.g.
> mixing Indy-specific functionality into the DID layer, or your assumptions
> that "The two current specs were misspec'ed" and that there is a need for a
> separate "Hyperonomy Universal Decentralized Identifier URL Specification".
>
> But having said that, I can say that your work is great input that has
> triggered a lot of thinking for me, and I look forward to listening to your
> latest insights tomorrow.
>
> Markus
>
> On 3/27/19 9:42 PM, Michael Herman (Parallelspace) wrote:
>
> For tomorrow’s DID Resolution (and/or DID Spec) community calls, I’d like
> to pick up on the did-url grammar discussion from the last week when my
> Internet connection went down.
>
>
>
> I can speak for an hour on the topic of the did-url grammar; including
> the lower-level did-url use cases.  I have some prepared content:
>
>
>
> PPT Presentation and spreadsheets (most recent versions):
> https://github.com/mwherman2000/did-url-spec/tree/master/src
>
>
>
> [I’ve also pre-recorded a version of the talk on YouTube:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7e-15mivNs&index=4&list=PLU-rWqHm5p45c9jFftlYcr4XIWcZb0yCv&t=9s
> ]
>
>
>
> Please confirm.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael Herman (Toronto/Calgary/Seattle)
>
> Independent Blockchain Developer
>
> Hyperonomy Business Blockchain / Parallelspace Corporation
>
>
>
> W: http://hyperonomy.com
>
> C:  +1 416 524-7702 <(416)%20524-7702>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com> <markus@danubetech.com>
> *Sent:* March 22, 2019 4:45 AM
> *To:* W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
> <public-credentials@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Notes from 2019-03-21 DID Resolution Spec First Draft Meeting
>
>
>
> Zoom recording, chat logs, and slides for the (now weekly) DID Resolution
> Spec First Draft Meeting are here:
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/meetings/tree/gh-pages/2019-03-21-did-resolution
>
> List of attendees and call notes are here below. You can also read them on
> the meeting page
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BKbwWCS9ZT1Aawxv2YVvGUUOv9WfPqMK9MiWh1s9dLo/>
> .
>
> Markus
>
> *DID Resolution Spec First Draft Meeting Page*
>
> *This page is for taking notes of weekly meetings held in 2019 of members
> of the **W3C Credentials Community Group*
> <https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/>* who are collaborating to
> complete the First Draft of the **DID Resolution specification*
> <https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-resolution/>*. Meeting notes are listed in
> reverse chronological order.*
>
> *Note: This meeting directly follows the weekly **DID Spec Community
> Final Draft Meeting*
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qYBaXQMUoB86Alquu7WBtWOxsS8SMhp1fioYKEGCabE/>
> *.*
> Call Information
>
> Time: Every Thursday, 14:00-15:00 PT
>
>
>
> https://zoom.us/j/7077077007
>
>
>
> Or iPhone one-tap:
>
>    US: +16465588656 <(646)%20558-8656>,,7077077007 <(707)%20707-7007>#
>  or +16699006833 <(669)%20900-6833>,,7077077007 <(707)%20707-7007>#
>
>
>
> Or Telephone:
>
>    Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current
> location):
>
>         US: +1 646 558 8656 <(646)%20558-8656>  or +1 669 900 6833
> <(669)%20900-6833>
>
>         United Kingdom: +44 (0) 20 3051 2874 <+44%2020%203051%202874>  or +44
> (0) 20 3695 0088 <+44%2020%203695%200088>
>
>     Meeting ID: 707 707 7007 <(707)%20707-7007>
>
>    International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/q6mghCSZ
> Links (Generally Useful to the Group)
>
>    - DID Spec <https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-spec/>
>    - DID Resolution Spec <https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-resolution/>
>
> Thursday 21 March 2019 Attending
>
>    - Markus Sabadello
>    - Jonathan Holt
>    - Drummond Reed
>    - Joe Andrieu
>    - Michael Herman
>    - Stephen Curren
>    - Dmitri Zagidulin
>    - Dan Burnett
>    - Nader Helmy
>    - Amy Guy
>    - Adrian Gropper
>    - Chris Boscolo
>    - Yancy Ribbens
>
> Agenda
>
> 1. Community governance: issue resolution and closure policies
>
> 2. What does it mean to dereference a DID URL?
>
> 3. 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)
> Meeting Notes Topic #1: Understanding DID URLs and “Resolution” and
> “Dereferencing”
>
> Markus explained the overall topic using this slide:
>
>
>
> Michael pointed out that the “defererencing” category also splits into two:
>
>    1. A DID URL that dereferences to a subcomponent of a DID document.
>    2. A DID URL that undergoes a transformation to address a resource
>    external to the DID document via a service endpoint.
>
>
>
> Markus went on to explain the following slide:
>
>
>
> Jonny asked how much DID resolution is actually parallel to DNS resolution.
>
>
>
> Michael said that he has a set of proposals for how a set of DID
> resolution operations can work, e.g., how to query the capabilities of a
> resolver, or how to get a list of DID documents.
>
>
>
> Michael whether returning a DID document is “access”?
>
>
>
> Joe responded that access to a DID document is an open issue. Some
> proposals are to encrypt a DID document.
>
>
>
> Drummond proposed that “DID resolution” be the set of steps that a DID
> method takes to return a DID document. He agreed with Joe that a particular
> DID method may in fact impose access control on obtaining a DID document.
> He then said that once a DID document is returned, you move into the
> “dereferencing” stage, and that can divide into the two types discussed
> above.
>
>
>
> Dan: The DID document is not itself the resource, but a means of
> determining how to access the identified resource.
>
>
>
> Markus next talked about this slide:
>
>
>
> Drummond: Let’s avoid the HTTP Range 14 rathole! Let’s be clear that a DID
> never identifies a DID document! A DID identifies a DID Subject. That DID
> Subject MAY be a network-accessible resource. In that case a DID document
> describes how to access that resource. But the DID document may identify a
> non-network resource (like a person), in which case the DID document
> describes how to access service endpoints associated with the resource.
>
>
>
> Jonny: IPLD is a type of resource that a DID may identify.
>
>
>
> Joe: The resource when a DID is dereferenced is always on the network.
>
>
>
> Markus spoke to this slide:
>
>
>
> Joe and Drummond discussed the analogy with DNS and URL-identified
> resources. Drummond said that the DNS record that is retrieved in order to
> access the web page or RDF document. The DNS record is not the resource
> being identified by a URI. Therefore it is the equivalent of a DID document.
>
>
>
> Markus next discussed this slide:
>
>
>
> Dan dove into this “HttpRange-14” issue by suggesting that a DID subject
> was not actually a person. “+1 that action on a DID for a physical resource
> could be to return a URL for a file .”
>
>
>
> Drummond suggested that if a DID always identifies a DID subject, and that
> DID subject may be *either* a *real-world resource*
> (non-network-retreivable) or a *network resource*. If a DID identifies a
> real-world resource, then the DID document describes options for
> interacting either with that real-world resource via some type of network
> connection, or accessing other descriptions of that real-world resource.
> But the DID itself still identifies the real-world resource.
>
>
>
> If the DID identifies a network-retrievable resource, then resolving the
> DID to the DID document will enable obtaining the actual URL that *also*
> identifies that network-retrievable resource. That means the DID and the
> URL would actually be “synonyms”, but at different layers of abstraction.
>
>
>
> Drummond also said this addresses the “two URI” problem from Web ID. The
> DID that identifies Alice is URI #1, and the URL that identifies some
> resource describing Alice (*not* the DID document) is a second URI.
>
>
>
> Joe mentioned that this means that a “naked DID” by itself should not be
> considered a URL. We should need to add a delimiter at the end of the naked
> DID to turn it into a URL for the DID document.
>
>
>
> Drummond seconded that suggestion. It could be either the empty path, or
> the empty fragment.
>
>
>
> Dan said that he had clarity that a DID document is about how to *describe
> how to interact with a resource*, but not describing the resource itself.
> That’s why a DID document is never the resource identified by the DID.
>
>
>
>
> Action Items
>
>
>
>
> --
Kim Hamilton Duffy
CTO & Principal Architect Learning Machine
Co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group

kim@learningmachine.com