New PR needed if did:key/multibase is going to be in scope

[bumblefudge]

feel free to assign me, Orie suggested closing #51 and starting over, which I plan to do next week before or after wednesday's meeting.

[brentzundel]

there is nothing in the current text of the charter that would prohibit did:key/multibase from being in scope for the new WG. There are already deliverables with input documents that refer to these things.

It is not clear to me what changes are needed in the charter to support this. I recommend closing.

[msporny]

@bumblefudge wrote:

It is not clear to me what changes are needed in the charter to support this. I recommend closing.

Agree, specifically @bumblefudge the definition of Multikey exists in the Data Integrity specification (which is an input document):

https://w3c-ccg.github.io/data-integrity-spec/#multikey

What do you feel is missing in the current charter?

[quartzjer]

Could this issue be combined with #97 as they seem to me to be discussing the same thing?

[kdenhartog]

Could this issue be combined with #97 as they seem to me to be discussing the same thing?

+1 I've added some details to frame #97 better so that this issue can be closed and discussion can be consolidated over there.

[brentzundel]

closing based on meeting conversation

[iherman]

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2022-03-23

• no resolutions were taken

View the transcript

2.7. New PR needed if did:key/multibase is going to be in scope (issue vc-wg-charter#83)

See github issue vc-wg-charter#83.

Brent Zundel: New PR needed if did:key/multibase is going to be in scope.

Manu Sporny: I think this is already covered by the charter.
… The WG can decide whether multikey should go to recommendation.

Manu Sporny: In other words, this is clearly in scope and the VC2WG can discuss whether or not they want to make this a REC..

Brent Zundel: Any other comments on this before I close it on the basis that no changes are required in the charter?.
… We are at our final issue.