The W3C Credentials Community Group

Verifiable Claims and Digital Verification

Go Back

Credentials CG Telecon

Minutes for 2018-05-15

Agenda
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2018May/0030.html
Topics
  1. Introductions and Reintroductions
  2. Reminders
  3. Progress on Current Action Items
  4. Status of Work Items
  5. Call for DID Focal Use Cases
  6. DID issues working session
Action Items
  1. create DID resolver spec but coord with DIF
  2. resolve current action in DID spec
  3. chairs figure out when to schedule a "use case process" session
Organizer
Christopher Allen, Kim Hamilton Duffy, Joe Andrieu
Scribe
Heather Vescent
Present
Heather Vescent, Joe Andrieu, Dmitri Zagidulin, Nate Otto, Dave Longley, Kim Hamilton Duffy, Lucas Parker, Kayode Ezike, Christopher Allen, Ryan Grant, Chris Webber, Mike Lodder, Manu Sporny, John Jordan, David Challener, Adam Lake, Benjamin Young, Dan Burnett, Anthony Ronning, David Chadwick, David I. Lehn, Bohdan Andriyiv, Jeff Orgel, Matt Stone, Ted Thibodeau, Tzviya Siegman, Yancy Ribbens
Audio Log
Heather Vescent is scribing.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: IP policy review.

Topic: Introductions and Reintroductions

Joe Andrieu: Are there any new folks?
Introductions & Reintros: David Chadwick: (choppy)
... worked on VC for a few years (choppy) hospital systems on mobile phones using VC
Mike Lodder: Audio is choppy
Reminders: Consensus is in NY going on.

Topic: Reminders

Joe Andrieu: Moses organized drinks last night. Want to see the new HTC DID phone.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: MyData in Helsinki in August. Status: Working w. Markus into a talk. 3 presenters will talk about identifiers, the ecosystem. Kim will try to do a quick survey of DID methods.
Summer DID Outreach: Have we decided on when the outreach will happen? JoeA: The week of the 16th (Month??)

Topic: Progress on Current Action Items

Joe Andrieu: Two Helsinki things: Panel (work item), the not-panel thing.
Christopher Allen: No update on the not-panel thing. Maybe it's a SSI keynote talk. Possibly Saturday after could be SSI salon rebooting style. Nothing confirmed.
Manu Sporny: 2 Updates. 1) Registry's process: PRs for both. 2)TPAC prep. What to do at TPAC and what to do before TPAC (RWOT related). Coordination needs to be done. On fast timeline due to communication delays with W3C folks. Recommend to have a pow-wow on this topic to ensure no issues/concerns.
Joe Andrieu: TPAC has a prelim schedule. We are schedule for Tuesday (asked for 1:30 timeslot).

Topic: Status of Work Items

Christopher Allen: Which week & where is TPAC?
Kim Hamilton Duffy: It's in Lyon, France 22-26 Oct. https://www.w3.org/2018/10/TPAC/Overview.html
Joe Andrieu: Final draft of Amira into Shannon for edits and then publish.
Manu Sporny: OCAP - putting OCAP into customer systems. Nothing to share publicly yet. But is going into pilot into production systems.

Topic: Call for DID Focal Use Cases

Christopher Allen: Manu off his head last week had a good start, but we didn’t quite captured it in scribe.
Joe Andrieu: Use Cases: partial response from Moses and Dan G. Post something simple to mailing list.
... looking for a few good use cases. Please use this framework.
... JoeA will work to fill in the gaps for the use cases.
John Jordan: Joe we are working on one here in BC
... if you are using DIDs for something, then submit it.
Heather Vescent: Is the only way to contribute with use cases to come up with them on their own? [scribe assist by Kim Hamilton Duffy]
Heather Vescent: I'd rather collaborate with people [scribe assist by Kim Hamilton Duffy]
David Challener: I agree!!
Heather Vescent: We've talked about putting stuff in stories, but this is like throwing them over the fence [scribe assist by Kim Hamilton Duffy]
Joe Andrieu: I'm happy to work with you [scribe assist by Kim Hamilton Duffy]
Heather Vescent: Maybe a call to put some structure in place [scribe assist by Kim Hamilton Duffy]
Heather Vescent: Could collaborate on further developing half-baked use cases [scribe assist by Kim Hamilton Duffy]
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Joe
Joe Andrieu: That's what we're doing here? [scribe assist by Kim Hamilton Duffy]
Christopher Allen: There are 2 targets (external DID submission) small and non-controversial and then Internal that will cover more ground.
Christopher Allen: 3 Issues. 2 targets: 1 is external for DID submission, 1 for ourselves internally (can be more verbose). [scribe assist by Kim Hamilton Duffy]
... JoeA is collecting what we already know as an initial list.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: +1 For time to discuss; I've never really done use case creation before
Kim Hamilton Duffy: At least in a context like this
Christopher Allen: Good to do this as a group discussion on one of these calls later.
John Jordan: Are working on a use case, to understand how it is possible for a person to pass DID control over to a business.
David Challener: Delegation?
John Jordan: Ddc ... yes we are tackling delegation of authority ...
Intros: Samantha on the call. Work in a lot of industries and passionate about SSI and Data Sovereignty. Want to help with the stories and use cases. People can reach out to me on the thread (where is this thread?)
Manu Sporny: Hearing confusion over the process. How to get these ideas into a document. Goals 1) push into the W3C process (hard deadline 1-2 months) 2) covering the space with various use cases.
... there are new people who haven't participated in the creation of use cases before. Suggestion to give people an overview of the process.
... 2) we are at the brainstorming/ideation phase. We need to get some things to talk about. JoeA is asking people to submit those ideas now. The idea is we will end up talking in time, but we have to hit this hard deadline.
How do I raise a hand?
You do q and a plus
David Challener: Work at the Applied Physics lab. The use cases selected need to show why the existing digital signature standards don't work.
... I haven't understood why a new standard is necessary based on reading those use cases.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Dcc -- what's your name again, so we can add you to attendees?
Manu Sporny: We're talking about DID use cases here - not VC use cases.
David Challener: David Challener

Topic: DID issues working session

Kim Hamilton Duffy: Subtopic: DID service naming and identification
David Challener: Manu ..... Thanks!
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Pull request: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/pull/75
Manu Sporny: Has found a cleaner way using the ID. This PR can simplify the algo, while keeping previous abilities of service descriptions.
... simplify the service description syntax.
Christopher Allen: Q for Manu. Are these defined in method specs?
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Subtopic: DID Document versioning
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Should a DID Document have a version number? Proposal is to make this a part of the DID Method, not the DID spec.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Reference: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/issues/64
Manu Sporny: It's in a service description spec
Christopher Allen: Do we have an example?
Manu Sporny: Not yet
Tx dlongley
Bohdin, Manu has more comments.
Manu Sporny: The problem - you need to refer to a specific version of a DID doc in time (eg 6 years ago). You need to refer to that *version* of the DID document.
... how do you address this? One way, can put a version in the DID doc itself. Other way, can associate with metadata. Third, allow DID methods how to do versioning. Some examples might not have versions.
... it's up to the DID method on how to do versioning.
Ryan Grant: +1 To method-specific versioning, where all DID methods are required to address versioning.
Bodin: it doesn't need to be in the general DID spec.
Dmitri Zagidulin: Any interest in standardizing the results of the DID document?
Christopher Allen: Could be useful. Not sure about having a standard, but some base metrics. e.g. the metadata should have information about last update of the DID.
Ryan Grant: This could also be a schema.org sub-schema
... in some cases metadata information might be stored (if secure for that).
Ryan Grant: Re: versioning, is there any one thing the DID spec should not require?
Dmitri Zagidulin: +1 To a separate resolver spec
Kim Hamilton Duffy: +1
Dave Longley: +1
Manu Sporny: Addressing a bunch of comments: we need a resolver spec. We have a section about DID resolution. Suggest: remove this from the spec and create a new working item to discuss this metadata.
Christopher Allen: +1
Manu Sporny: DIF is working on the resolver. Are they working on a specification??? Might want to reach out to Markus and DIF re: this topic.
Ryan Grant: Is the DID spec useful without this resolver issue handled?
ACTION: create DID resolver spec but coord with DIF
ACTION: resolve current action in DID spec
Christopher Allen: We will need lead(s) and a summary for approving a new resolver spec
Manu Sporny: Rgrant, it's not a "useful" question... it's more like splitting the specs up in a layered fashion.
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Subtopic: Extensibility
Manu Sporny: Added a section on how extensibility works in the DID spec
... borrowed from VC WG
Dave Longley: This all depends on whether or not the semantics of what you do understand can *change* based on what you don't understand
Dave Longley: And i recommend that we attempt to prohibit that (go for monotonicity of logic when doing extensibility)
ACTION: chairs figure out when to schedule a "use case process" session
Dave Longley: +1, Wholly agreed about monotonicity [scribe assist by Dmitri Zagidulin]
Dave Longley: Agree w/ ChristopherA. (more, just listen to the audio notes)
Chris Webber: +1000
Manu Sporny: +1 To that!
Dave Longley: Is there a JSON-LD notion of "complete coverage of terms"? [scribe assist by Ryan Grant]
Christopher Allen: +1 Monotonic assumption