14:56:57 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
14:57:01 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/07/17-did-irc
14:57:03 <Wip> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:57:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/17-did-minutes.html Wip
14:57:11 <Wip> rrsagent, make logs public
14:57:20 <Wip> Meeting: Decentralized Identifier Working Group
14:57:24 <Wip> Chair: Wip
14:57:30 <Wip> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2025Jul/0006.html
14:57:36 <Wip> present+
14:57:44 <ottomorac> present+
14:58:47 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/07/10-did-minutes.html
14:58:47 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/07/24-did-minutes.html
14:59:46 <TallTed> present+
15:00:00 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
15:00:05 <markus_sabadello> present+
15:00:27 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
15:02:37 <ottomorac> scribe+
15:02:49 <JoeAndrieu> present+
15:03:37 <pchampin> present+
15:04:19 <Wip> Topic: Agenda Review
15:05:04 <ottomorac> Wip: We will discuss a few topics today including ISO WG Liason, DID Resolution issues among others...
15:05:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/17-did-minutes.html TallTed
15:05:16 <Wip> Topic: ISO/TC 307/JWG 4 Liason
15:06:22 <ottomorac> pchampin:  Yes to update everyone. I met with Julien Bringer in Geneva. We are figuring out if we have type C or type A liasion.....
15:06:47 <ottomorac> pchampin: Type C is for WG only, type A is for comittee level liason....
15:07:17 <ottomorac> pchampin: We need to decide makes the most sense for W3C. Julien will circle back with me with his feedback on this.
15:07:30 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #did
15:07:33 <KevinDean> present+
15:07:43 <ottomorac> Wip: I know that Kevin Dean is intending in participating in this group....
15:08:33 <ottomorac> Kevin Dean: Yes, the focus of the ISO TC 307 is focused on Blockchain and DLT. The work item that is of interest is the security, privacy, and identity item....
15:09:12 <smccown> smccown has joined #did
15:09:31 <ottomorac> KevinDean: There is no indication of any future work on that...
15:10:38 <ottomorac>  KevinDean: the other area of interest is "Smart Contracts and their application"...  There has been a preliminary report issued on that item.
15:11:21 <ottomorac>  KevinDean: This group is set to reconvene on November in Australia. There has not been much recent activity on the group.
15:11:26 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to mention GDC
15:11:39 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
15:11:39 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention GDC
15:12:11 <KevinDean> q+
15:12:13 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: One of the sessions at GDC was run by this group, they were discussion on organizational identity on blockchain...
15:12:15 <Wip> ack KevinDean
15:12:46 <pchampin> q+
15:12:50 <Wip> ack pchampin
15:13:45 <ottomorac> Wip: Perhaps we should have Pierre reach out to Julien Bringer so he can briefly present us more details about this ISO TC 307 effort...
15:13:46 <KevinDean> q+
15:14:07 <Wip> ack KevinDean
15:14:35 <ottomorac> pchampin:  The main liason we were aiming to link with was WG 4, related to identity
15:14:52 <Wip> Topic: DID Test Suite Special Topic - 23rd July
15:15:05 <Wip> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/92
15:15:42 <ottomorac> Wip: We will hold this special topic call focused on test suite, I have run the Digital Bazaar script to extract all the MUST statements from the spec...
15:16:07 <Wip> q?
15:16:09 <ottomorac> Wip: We will discuss what a test might look like.. if you are interested in this work please join the wg call next week
15:16:16 <Wip> Topic: HTTP Post Binding for DID Resolution
15:16:25 <Wip> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/161
15:16:39 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #did
15:16:45 <JennieM> present+
15:17:26 <ottomorac> markus_sabadello:  if a client calls a resolver over https right now this is done using GET, however the issue poster would like to also allow this to be done with PUT...
15:18:12 <Wip> s/PUT/POST/
15:18:34 <ottomorac> markus_sabadello: There is a potential issue when resolution option parameters are too many this may cause issues with using GET...
15:19:07 <Wip> q+
15:19:25 <Wip> ack Wip
15:19:36 <ottomorac> markus_sabadello: These issues have to do with HTTPS binding... so the question is do we want replace the GET approach or allow both GET and POST
15:19:54 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:19:59 <ottomorac> Wip:  What are the good arguments to keep using GET?
15:20:01 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
15:20:36 <ottomorac> markus_sabadello: GET is simpler and it works directly in the browser... Also there are some caching semantics that work better with GET than POST...
15:20:51 <JoeAndrieu> FWIW, The ISO blockahin discussion at GDC was about ISO 23042 (Reference architecture for blockchain-based decentralized identity systems)
15:20:51 <JoeAndrieu> From https://globaldigitalcollaboration.org/agenda?day=2025-07-02
15:20:51 <JoeAndrieu> ---
15:20:51 <JoeAndrieu> Security and Interoperability Standardization for Wallets
15:20:52 <JoeAndrieu> One-hour workshop at GDC 2025 uniting BGIN and ISO experts to present ISO 23042 (Reference architecture for blockchain-based decentralized identity systems) under development and forthcoming wallet-security related standards, showcase BGIN cybersecurity streams, and engage regulators, vendors, and researchers on implementing and managing secure,
15:20:52 <JoeAndrieu> interoperable digital wallets.
15:20:52 <JoeAndrieu> Speakers
15:20:52 <ottomorac> Wip: I think then perhaps we should keep both of them
15:20:53 <JoeAndrieu> Julien Bringer (ISO/TC 307/JWG 4, BGIN) Mitchell Traves (BGIN) Carole House (BGIN) Paolo Campegiani (ISO 23042) Shin'ichiro Matsuo (Moderator)
15:20:53 <JoeAndrieu> ---
15:20:59 <bengo> bengo has joined #did
15:21:03 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:21:04 <pchampin> q+
15:21:09 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
15:21:33 <ottomorac> markus_sabadello: I am interested to hear other opinions but I think we should indeed keep both....
15:22:00 <brent> brent has joined #did
15:22:00 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:22:04 <Wip> ack pchampin
15:22:19 <pchampin> https://httpwg.org/http-extensions/draft-ietf-httpbis-safe-method-w-body.html
15:22:20 <ottomorac> markus_sabadello: perhaps GET can be used when you have fewer resolution options and use POST when want to have access to all functionality and not be restricted
15:22:50 <bengo> Oh yes I have been planning to use QUERY for wallet.storage
15:22:51 <ottomorac> pchampin: there is also some work on IETF that allows you to add payloads to a query...
15:23:05 <ottomorac> pchampin: this could be interesting here
15:23:07 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
15:24:17 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: I am not  in favor of keeping both because it could harm interoperability. However would like to ask about http and https?
15:24:25 <pchampin> q+
15:24:40 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:24:45 <Wip> ack pchampin
15:25:18 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu:  The 4000 character limit is just a platform limitation, I would like to see more examples of GET actually breaking and not being sufficient...
15:25:47 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello#
15:25:47 <ottomorac> pchampin:  I have seen some examples with SPARQL, but this is not a big issue really
15:26:00 <bengo> q+ to talk about interoperability *of intermediate caching proxies* which is imho where GET/POST is not enough but is critical to scalability which is not something SPARQL endpoints are known for.
15:26:35 <ottomorac> markus_sabadello: Yes in SPARQL, both are allowed however Joe might be right that the character limit is not a good argument
15:27:09 <ottomorac> markus_sabadello: There could still be ways that we can do resolution without using POST
15:27:47 <ottomorac> markus_sabadello: The DID resolution could also be encoded as JSON in the QUERY string
15:27:55 <Wip> ack bengo
15:27:55 <Zakim> bengo, you wanted to talk about interoperability *of intermediate caching proxies* which is imho where GET/POST is not enough but is critical to scalability which is not something
15:27:58 <Zakim> ... SPARQL endpoints are known for.
15:28:52 <ottomorac> bengo: Yes Cloudflare is one of the Authors in that QUERY ietf draft
15:29:25 <ottomorac> bengo: You could also use the content-type header....
15:29:31 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
15:29:57 <Wip> Topic: DID Resolution PR Processing
15:30:10 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/157
15:30:36 <ottomorac> Wip: This one has been open for a month...
15:32:29 <Wip> q+
15:32:50 <ottomorac> smccown: Depending on how DID methods are implemented they can be somewhat centralized... I was talking to Stephen Curran that may not always be the case with did:webvh... You can still host your did-docs in a variety of locations...   This also applies to did:keri because of the way they structured the infra....   This could be interesting to discuss and analyze....
15:32:55 <Wip> ack Wip
15:33:39 <ottomorac> Wip: Yes I think you are then agreeing with the PR and we could discuss this other item in a separate issue...
15:33:50 <Wip> q?
15:33:52 <bengo> +1 to merge
15:33:56 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/164
15:34:01 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:34:07 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
15:34:28 <ottomorac> markus_sabadello: yes this came out of a discussion of another issue related to the created metadata...
15:35:07 <ottomorac> markus_sabadello: I realized that the metadata items needed to re-organized....
15:35:22 <ottomorac> markus_sabadello:  They are mainly editorial and re-organization changes...
15:35:29 <Wip> q?
15:35:35 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/165
15:35:48 <ottomorac> Add OpenAPI definition as an informative resource. 
15:36:23 <ottomorac> markus_sabadello: Yes this PR indicates that the Open API reference is informative....
15:36:49 <Wip> q?
15:36:52 <ottomorac> Wip: Yes please review folks
15:36:54 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/167
15:38:04 <ottomorac> markus_sabadello: Yes it a simple one. We discuss that https binding can also be local...
15:38:16 <Wip> Topic: DID Resolution Issue Processing
15:38:18 <Wip> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20sort%3Aupdated-asc
15:38:34 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/13
15:38:46 <ottomorac> Validate signatures/proofs of DID Document #13
15:39:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/17-did-minutes.html TallTed
15:40:15 <ottomorac> markus_sabadello: This is related to trust in the resolution process and architectures....  I am planning to address this with an upcoming PR...
15:40:18 <JoeAndrieu> q+ isn't it the resolver result that should be signed? VDR proofs might be in metadata
15:40:25 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to ask isn't it the resolver result that should be signed? VDR proofs might be in metadata
15:40:39 <ottomorac> Wip: Could you please link this to ther other issues that it is related to?
15:40:52 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
15:40:52 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to ask isn't it the resolver result that should be signed? VDR proofs might be in metadata
15:41:11 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: I think proofs are not ended documents....
15:41:13 <bengo> q+ to ask markus: why would this be in did-resolution vs a did method or trait specification?
15:41:34 <bengo> q+ to ask: are did documents non conformant if they have properties other than what is in DID-Core spec?
15:41:36 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: This seems to be looking for a proof where there isn't one...
15:41:57 <Wip> ack bengo
15:41:57 <Zakim> bengo, you wanted to ask markus: why would this be in did-resolution vs a did method or trait specification? and to ask: are did documents non conformant if they have properties
15:42:00 <Zakim> ... other than what is in DID-Core spec?
15:42:13 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:42:28 <ottomorac> Wip: No...
15:42:49 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
15:42:53 <ottomorac> bengo: Why does this need to be did-resolution instead of did-traits?
15:43:42 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to mention non-standardized properties are ok, just not standardized
15:43:46 <ottomorac> markus_sabadello: Yes the did-document is extensible. Also like Joe said proofs can be added by the resolver....
15:44:11 <ottomorac> markus_sabadello: In the did-core spec we have a note about signature of did documents...
15:44:28 <Wip> q+
15:44:49 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
15:44:49 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention non-standardized properties are ok, just not standardized
15:44:52 <ottomorac> markus_sabadello: So perhaps yes related to did-core, but still there is some relationship with did-resolution architecture...
15:45:13 <Wip> ack Wip
15:45:29 <KevinDean> q+
15:45:29 <bengo> It does seem like some value a resolver could add is, optionally, detect proofs in did doc or resolution result and be like: "some proofs were detected the resolver thinks it knows how to verify them and it tried and was not able to verify the proof"
15:45:55 <ottomorac> Wip: Yes I no there are not standardized properties, we should speak informatively to some of these properties....
15:46:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/17-did-minutes.html TallTed
15:46:31 <Wip> ack KevinDean
15:46:46 <ottomorac> Wip: We cannot be prescriptive of what did-methods should do... but we still have some informative guidance...
15:47:00 <Wip> q?
15:47:12 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/131
15:47:23 <ottomorac> Add examples to illustrate different DID Resolution Architectures #131
15:47:50 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to take that on
15:48:03 <ottomorac> Wip: Would someone be interested in taking this one on?
15:48:12 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
15:48:12 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to take that on
15:49:02 <ottomorac>  JoeAndrieu: I am happy to take this one. But would like to have some collaborators...
15:49:34 <ottomorac> Wip: Yes this could be interesting, and also have some conversations around resolvers...
15:49:40 <Wip> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/132
15:49:52 <ottomorac> Complete threat modelling analysis for different DID Resolution architectures #132
15:50:10 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:50:14 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
15:50:19 <ottomorac> Wip: Where should the threat modelling analysis live?
15:51:14 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu:  The security group is looking to get all W3C specs to have a threat model analysis.... This could still be a separate document depending on how long it is...
15:51:20 <Wip> q?
15:51:27 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/149
15:51:37 <ottomorac> Add Security Consideration about turning caching off #149
15:52:11 <Wip> q?
15:52:54 <ottomorac> Wip: Perhaps Ben you can take a shot at this?
15:53:28 <ottomorac> bengo: If it just adding a security consideration then I can take this on...
15:53:54 <ottomorac> Topic: Next week
15:53:55 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:53:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/17-did-minutes.html pchampin
15:55:57 <ottomorac> ottomorac has left #did
18:02:49 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did