Meeting minutes
burn: one note: we know the TPAC minutes aren't published. We're working on it.
… Apologies
Agenda Review, Introductions
burn: A bit of follow up for TPAC. Then we changed the order, swapping the order of resolution and core so we have the opportunity to get through resolution
… Changes or additions?
[room is silent]
… Any new folks?
… Ok. On to TPAC follow ups
… First, we had decided to publish the DID resolution FPWD on a particular date, but there is a publication moratorium on that date
… so we'll need to publish later.
… Markus, might you have a resolution to propose regarding FPWD?
Follow-ups from TPAC
<markus_sabadello> https://
markus_sabadello: I can do that. We already voted on publishing, but we need to update the date.
… This is basically the same spec that was voted on, just with a new date. Now Nov 5, 2024.
… A little bit of flexibility in those dates
… Adding the short-name
burn: please remember to "present+" in IRC
<markus_sabadello> Proposed: Publish the document at https://
<burn> +1
<manu> +1
<JoeAndrieu> +1
<TallTed> +1
<Wip> +1
<decentralgabe> +1
<markus_sabadello> +1
<smccown> +1
burn: get your votes in
RESOLUTION: Publish the document at https://
burn: Ok. RESOLVED.
… Next item: the publishing of the extension documents
decentralgabe: I was hoping PA was going to be here. Might need to break these into three separate specs
manu: The problem has to do with how publication process goes
… We just need to work through the details with PA.
… You can't auto publish secondary documents/multiple documents at once
… I think we can use the same repo, but would need different echidna setups in different targets. It's doable, we just need to figure it out.
burn: not sure if we need a resolution, but if you think so, Manu, let's do that
manu: Yeah, we might need to
burn: it would permit that as an alternative if we need to
manu: [mumbling to himself]
… [continued mumbling as he writes up the proposal]
JoeAndrieu: we might need to identify what is each extension list
… it's an echo of the did properties extension just with shorter names
manu: we need to be careful with these lists. it's clear what's in DID Methods and DID resolutions
JoeAndrieu: my only pushback, each extension list felt ambiguous. I understood what you said as "we want to retain some flexibility" so maybe that's the best tradeoff, what you already have
manu: I tried separating did methods
joe: I'm good with that language
burn: any other comments on this?
<manu> PROPOSAL: In the event that the did-extensions cannot be published under /TR/did-extensions, the WG approves the publication of each extension list at the following short name locations: did-document-extensions, did-resolution-extensions, and did-methods
burn: ok, let's run it
<JoeAndrieu> +1
<markus_sabadello> +1
<burn> +1
<decentralgabe> +1
<Wip> +1
<TallTed> +1
<JennieM> +1
<manu> +1
RESOLUTION: In the event that the did-extensions cannot be published under /TR/did-extensions, the WG approves the publication of each extension list at the following short name locations: did-document-extensions, did-resolution-extensions, and did-methods
burn: as the third of the TPAC follow ups, an update here.
… there are a number of items the group needs to discuss, including extensions, the rubric, use cases.
… We'll provide a 10-15 slot in each meeting where we will rotate through those different items
… So every 3-4 weeks each topic will get some time in the regular meeting.
DID Resolution Issue/PR Processing
burn: Contact the chairs if anyone would suggest an improvement
markus_sabadello: let's start with new issues
<markus_sabadello> https://
markus_sabadello: first with pending close issues
burn: note that, in the agenda email, we listed these issues.
… We'll be using this process until the end of the thursday meeting to object to the close.
<TallTed> I strongly recommend such searches be ordered by "least recently updated" to keep the churn active, e.g., https://
burn: the point is, we'll review these quickly today, but the expectation is that you are too look for these in the agenda and speak up or comment in the issue if you have an objection
… so we will not be spending time unless there is a concern (as a general rule)
<markus_sabadello> w3c/
markus_sabadello: Proposal to rename one of the resolution functions
… Resolve and ResolveStream
… This issue is a proposal to rename ResolveStream. That's already happened. I posted a comment 2 weeks ago. No further discussion
burn: any objections to closing?
markus_sabadello: I'll close them after the call
<markus_sabadello> w3c/
markus_sabadello: Issue 30, several years old. Has to do with dereferencing discussion at TPAC
… "The result of dereference can be a DID document, but it can also be something else"
… Looking at this issue after a long time, I think the current specification addresses this. I see 3 thumbs up to that comment.
… So, if no objections, we'll be closing this.
<markus_sabadello> w3c/
markus_sabadello: also several years old, about the definition of the term did resolver.
… In the current specification, both terms are defined formally in terminology section. Also two thumbs up.
… Any objections?
<markus_sabadello> w3c/
markus_sabadello: Issue 21 about removing the term DID Reference from DID core to DID Resolution.
… I think this is now obsolete. We don't use that term in any spec.
… Same discussion was also in did-core, which was closed. So I think this one can be as well.
… Any objections?
<markus_sabadello> w3c/
markus_sabadello: All methods must have a name of at least three characters.
… This seems like a DID Core issue, not in DID Resolution
… Similar issue in DID-core, which has also been closed.
… For all of these issues, it seems straightforward to close them.
… Since they are older issues, we may not be getting engagement from the initial poster, but unless there are objections, seems like we should close
decentralgabe: If we mark it pending close and give it a week, that would address the older participants
burn: requirements vary from group to group. In past groups, we've made the point to actively reach out by email and ask for engagement. Then you can comment that in the issue.
… so ping in the issue, then email, then document that email in the issue.
… That let's us show we've done what we can to address the concerns of the original poster
… For these, I think we're good, but going forward that's a nice improvement to our process
burn: you have 10 more minutes if you like
<markus_sabadello> https://
markus_sabadello: one other thing. A few issues are tagged as "Good First Issue"
… Two of them have been assigned. One has not.
… These are a good way to contribute, especially if you might not be familiar with deeper technical issues.
… We'll try to find more like that and encourage PRs
… A few that might be ready to close
<markus_sabadello> w3c/
markus_sabadello: Issue 23 is about result of dereferencing
<manu> JoeAndrieu: Looking at the backlog. There is an opportunity here to make a distinction -- how we talk about a DID with and without a trailing slash... but I don't know if that helps us. I need to look at this in more detail, it's five years old, we can close it, if problem still exists, we can raise a new issue again.
<manu> markus_sabadello: I think this might be obsolete by now?
<manu> JoeAndrieu: Yeah, sounds like it might be.
<manu> markus_sabadello: We will have until next call to look at it or raise a new issue if this comes back.
<manu> JoeAndrieu: Sounds good to me.
manu: I'm wondering what is the ... I'm fine with closing it. I'm wondering where did we land?
… the response from a resolver is a resolution result, which might contain a did document?
… Is that where we landed?
markus_sabadello: that's right the resolution response might contain a did document, but dereferencing might return something else
manu: i think it's already addressed (as opposed to an older issue that isn't valid)
markus_sabadello: this was from when we didn't have a did resolution result, we were just returning DID documents
… That has been addressed
<JoeAndrieu> +1
manu: +1
markus_sabadello: also to be aware of, from discussions at TPAC, when we talked about path, query, and fragment parts.
… we talked about different patterns in the past and how much of that should be in the resolution spec itself or in did core, or in both.
… If people come up with certain features that use the path or query string, how does that fit in and where does it get specified?
<markus_sabadello> w3c/
markus_sabadello: There are two open issues for new DID parameters with certain functionality
<markus_sabadello> w3c/
markus_sabadello: The first introduces version-type the second XYZ as parameters
… Please comment about where these should go and whether or not it should be did-method-specific or standardized across methods
burn: ok, you have about another 5 minutes if you'd like
markus_sabadello: ok. I'm wondering if we can merge that pull request
<markus_sabadello> w3c/
markus_sabadello: or if anyone has new thoughts about the discussion we had about primary resource and secondary resource
… there is an open PR where I tried to improve the headings
… to help with that. I'm wondering if people have opinions.
… I would actually prefer not to merge because it makes the headings longer
… But the algorithm talks about dereferencing the primary resource and secondary resource
… This PR adds explanation to the headings
manu: I think it is unfortunate that the initial wording was primary and secondary resource, as that is so abstract it is confusing.
… +1 to comment about section titles get hard
<TallTed> +1 to manu's suggestion
manu: maybe we can call it derereferencing a DID? or a #fragment
… +1 to not merge this, but maybe we can have did document and fragment as the terms
markus_sabadello: there is something that right now is called a primary resource.
… there needs to be a name for what you get when you dereference the did document
… For example, dereferencing the DID URL resource may be a better phrase
manu: yes. that was my thinking. Name the types of things you can dereference.
… A use case where you get a DID Document. A case where you dereference a fragment in a resource. And a third case where it's neither of those.
… Related Resource? (Not suggesting that, but if we name it, it will help)
markus_sabadello: this needs to be extensible. we can't imaging all the things they dereference to.
… but i think we can use better terms than Primary & Secondary. I'll try to do that.
<manu> JoeAndrieu: I would like to try my hand at writing this PR, don't know when I'm going to get to it, but want to help.
DID Core Issue/PR Processing
burn: ok. Excellent. Manu, you have a pending close issue
burn: issue 862.
<burn> w3c/
manu: it's working. This is fixed.
… so we can close
manu: any objections to closing?
[room is silent]
w3c/did-core#863
manu: something to think about. Issue 863 about our media type
… We should reconsider application/vc and application/vp
… We had a conversation with TAG, when you are using JSON-LD and it could also be JSON, we'd feel better if the spec says ANY interpretation cannot be different between the two. Any difference is either a specification bug or an implementation bug.
… This feels like it addresses some outstanding confusion.
… In which case we can just be application/did
… but fundamentally, no software system should interpret one over the other.
… I'll bring this up again the next time we discuss the issue
burn: Any other items?
burn: Thanks everyone