14:52:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
14:52:59 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/10/30-did-irc
14:53:00 <ottomorac> rrsagent, make logs public
14:53:07 <ottomorac> Meeting: Decentralized Identifier Working Group
14:53:14 <ottomorac> Chair: ottomorac
14:53:41 <ottomorac> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2025Oct/0013.html
14:59:27 <Wip> Wip has joined #did
14:59:33 <Wip> present+
15:01:23 <TallTed> present+
15:01:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/30-did-minutes.html TallTed
15:01:31 <ottomorac> present+
15:01:46 <swcurran> swcurran has joined #did
15:02:11 <pchampin> present+
15:02:18 <swcurran> present+
15:02:23 <swcurran> scribe+
15:02:48 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/10/23-did-minutes.html
15:02:48 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/11/06-did-minutes.html
15:03:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/30-did-minutes.html TallTed
15:03:58 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #did
15:04:02 <KevinDean> present+
15:04:36 <manu> q+ to agenda+ maybe?
15:04:54 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #did
15:05:03 <ottomorac> Topic: Agenda Review
15:05:27 <bigbluehat> present+
15:05:55 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:05:55 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to agenda+ maybe?
15:06:31 <swcurran> manu: What is happening with the DID Working Group at TPAC - are the meeting or not?
15:06:36 <ivan> present+
15:06:40 <ottomorac> Topic: TPAC Logistics
15:06:56 <swcurran> ... perhaps cover the DID URL Dereferencing PR a little
15:07:04 <pchampin> q+
15:07:22 <swcurran> s/DID Working Group/DID Methods Working Group/
15:08:01 <swcurran> wip: After TPAC - are we taking a week off or holding it?
15:08:05 <manu> q+ to take two weeks off?
15:08:14 <ottomorac> q?
15:08:18 <ottomorac> ack pchampin
15:09:03 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #did
15:09:03 <swcurran> pchampin: About DID Method Working Group -- plan the meeting in case there is a meeting, but the Charter has been stalled, so not sure if the slot can be used or not.
15:09:06 <JennieM> present+
15:09:07 <ottomorac> q?
15:09:10 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:09:10 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to take two weeks off?
15:09:53 <swcurran> manu: Manu will not be around in November and so good with the two week break, plus US Thanksgiving, so perhaps three weeks off.
15:10:49 <swcurran> ... On the Charter issue -- when is it getting unstuck?  Thought it was going to move a month ago. Even then, have the meeting at TPAC to try to make some progress.
15:11:41 <swcurran> ... There are a number of people in the APAC region interested in DIDs. No binding decisions obviously, but having a discussion would be good. No chairs there, so might fall to Manu.
15:12:09 <swcurran> ottomorac: Agreement on two weeks off.
15:12:55 <Wip> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GZqNyInIAdDcaHemrHxiV5kd8S2ByfGXEEL0jRzQL9o/edit?gid=0#gid=0
15:13:10 <swcurran> ... On TPAC, agree we should have some meeting there, and keep pushing it forward.
15:13:24 <ottomorac> q?
15:13:43 <swcurran> Wip: Please sign up if you are going, dinner to be planned, agenda is on the spreadsheet -- add more if you want to.
15:13:49 <ottomorac> Topic: Announcement: DID Path special topic call (5-Nov)
15:13:50 <ivan> q+
15:13:56 <ottomorac> ack ivan
15:15:01 <manu> q+ to ask about DID Methods charter to AC?
15:15:21 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:15:21 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about DID Methods charter to AC?
15:15:25 <swcurran> ivan: For the JSON-LD Working Group -- new charter going to the AC. Goes to the Comms team tomorrow, AC on Monday. Voting period proposed to Dec. 17 -- longer. Member companies should vote and comment if needed.  Security items in the Charter that are relevant to this group.
15:15:38 <swcurran> manu: DID Methods Charter -- when to AC?
15:16:31 <ottomorac> https://github.com/w3c/did-methods-wg-charter/issues
15:16:35 <swcurran> pchampin: All issues are closed. Could go, but some issues were create to reflect remarks of some groups and they are still open.  TAC has reviewed, but are expecting actions.
15:17:04 <manu> q+ invite all open issue commenters to W3C TPAC Monday morning session -- can we put AC vote out before TPAC?
15:17:07 <swcurran> ... could add a comment to the issues to see if they can move forward. Content has been proposed in comments but not PRs.
15:17:08 <manu> q+ to invite all open issue commenters to W3C TPAC Monday morning session -- can we put AC vote out before TPAC?
15:17:10 <ottomorac> q?
15:17:13 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:17:13 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to invite all open issue commenters to W3C TPAC Monday morning session -- can we put AC vote out before TPAC?
15:17:52 <ivan> q+
15:17:59 <swcurran> manu: That we send out to AC right now -- those issues can be discussed at TPAC and to get the changes into the Charter.  Would be nice to get feedback before TPAC.
15:18:20 <swcurran> ... Could in parallel invite people with comments to the Monday meeting and we can process them there.
15:18:33 <ottomorac> ack ivan
15:18:41 <swcurran> ... Really need to move forward. It's been a year and not likely to change.
15:19:01 <manu> q+ to say mid nextweek would be fine.
15:19:07 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:19:07 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to say mid nextweek would be fine.
15:19:28 <swcurran> ivan: Really tough to get it out before TPAC. Maybe mid-next week.
15:19:50 <swcurran> manu: mid-next week would be fine. We would get the expected objection.
15:20:10 <swcurran> pchampin: Off to Japan tomorrow -- tough to fit in, but will try.
15:20:40 <ottomorac> Topic: Announcement: DID Path special topic call (5-Nov)
15:20:53 <ottomorac> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/221
15:21:13 <manu> q+
15:21:13 <swcurran> q+
15:21:37 <swcurran> Wip: Don't discuss on the call today -- hence special call.
15:21:56 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:22:58 <smccown> smccown has joined #did
15:23:10 <swcurran> manu: Won't make the special call -- has lots of opinions. Surprised by the response. Not sure if opposed philosophically or is it the PR content.
15:23:24 <ottomorac> ack swcurran
15:23:26 <manu> scribe+
15:23:55 <manu> swcurran: +1 to what Manu said. The philosophical is "do we want to define what path handling should be as a part of DID spec, or do we defer it to DID Methods only?".
15:24:03 <swcurran> scribe+
15:24:40 <ottomorac> q>
15:24:42 <ottomorac> q?
15:24:50 <ottomorac> Topic: Make conformance statements concretely testable #213
15:24:54 <ottomorac> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/213
15:24:55 <swcurran> Wip: Have to make sure that all the needed parties can be at the special call.
15:25:01 <ottomorac> Issue deals with defining conformance classes for DID Resolution, which is required for resolving other issues. Conformance classes should be defined in terms of inputs and outputs, Manu has proposed some wording.
15:25:25 <manu> q+
15:25:31 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:27:09 <Wip> q+
15:27:23 <swcurran> manu: Reference to section 4 -- have to return something in one conformance format.  So must be JSON.  For DID resolution, it is concretely testable, right?  Could make it so input parameters must be capable of being serializable to JSON.
15:27:42 <ottomorac> ack Wip
15:27:54 <swcurran> ... Single sentence in both cases...should be easy...
15:28:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/30-did-minutes.html TallTed
15:28:45 <swcurran> Wip: Yes, but should be added, so needs to be clarified.  Other part is adding in the conformance class. Are we aligned on that class name?  We need to conformance classes.
15:28:46 <swcurran> s/to/two/
15:28:49 <manu> q+
15:28:54 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:30:24 <swcurran> manu: We can name them anything -- doesn't really matter.  Would be nice to resolve. "Software Library Resolver" and "Network-based Resolver".  Software library deals with internal data structs which is OK if serializable. For the Network -- should be clear, use HTTP binding.
15:30:26 <Wip> q+
15:30:35 <ottomorac> ack Wip
15:31:02 <swcurran> Wip: That sounds great. No one is assigned.  I'll do it or ottomorac. Sound fine -- let's get something in.
15:31:16 <swcurran> ottomorac: You can have it Wip.
15:31:16 <ottomorac> q?
15:31:29 <ottomorac> Topic: Review Issue Flags throughout DID Resolution document
15:31:34 <Wip> q+
15:31:34 <ottomorac> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/220
15:31:45 <ottomorac> Issue raised by Will, there are several red ISSUE notes throughout the DID Resolution specification.
15:32:46 <manu> q+
15:32:52 <swcurran> Wip: Would appreciate people read over it -- found the "Issues" in the spec, categorized them as no longer relevant, some as needed.
15:32:52 <ottomorac> ack Wip
15:32:56 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:33:09 <ivan> +1 to manu
15:33:39 <swcurran> manu: Issue flag needs an issue in the tracker if still relevant. Wip, do you want to go over them today?
15:33:49 <Wip> https://www.w3.org/TR/did-resolution/#caching
15:34:06 <manu> q+
15:34:11 <ottomorac> q?
15:34:20 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:34:21 <swcurran> Wip -- remove -- the ones in the Caching section.  Has an open issue -- moved to DID Core.
15:34:39 <swcurran> manu: Remove both -- agree.
15:34:55 <Wip> https://www.w3.org/TR/did-resolution/#non-did-identifiers
15:35:18 <manu> q+
15:35:21 <swcurran> Wip: Security section -- move to an extension and not handling in DID Resolution. Just remove it.
15:35:24 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:35:28 <Wip> https://www.w3.org/TR/did-resolution/#resolving-algorithm
15:35:28 <swcurran> manu: +1 to remove.
15:36:07 <swcurran> Wip: Another moved to an extension about discovery methods for a resolver. It's an extension...we've said.
15:36:36 <manu> q+
15:36:42 <swcurran> Wip: There is an issue tracking this and it says in the DID Extensions.
15:36:52 <swcurran> manu: +1 to remove it.
15:37:19 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
15:37:25 <manu> q+
15:37:33 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:37:44 <swcurran> Wip: DID Resolution Architectures.  This is elsewhere partially, but should we leave it in?
15:37:56 <ottomorac> q?
15:38:06 <Wip> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/131
15:38:14 <swcurran> manu: Perhaps an issue for Joe to ask about if this is part of other architectures.  If so, then that might remove the section.
15:38:29 <swcurran> Wip: Issue 131 seems to track to that.
15:38:45 <swcurran> manu: Propose deleting the section and Issue from the spec per that issue.
15:38:53 <manu> q+
15:39:00 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:39:03 <swcurran> Wip: Privacy Consideration.  Perhaps create as an issue to create more.
15:39:31 <manu> https://w3c.github.io/vc-bitstring-status-list/#privacy-considerations
15:40:15 <swcurran> manu: Too generic.  Remove the issue because we have a section.  In other specs, there is language to use --- "you should also read the DID Core spec and then this section".
15:40:54 <swcurran> ... Threat modelling has some stuff.  Could use LLM to generate some ideas of what to build based on the specs and then curate the output.
15:41:25 <swcurran> Wip: For now remove it, add an issue to put in the language.  There is an issue on Threat Modelling.
15:41:57 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:42:08 <swcurran> Wip: DID Resolution result section. Two -- remove them?
15:42:10 <ottomorac> ack markus_sabadello
15:42:50 <swcurran> markus_sabadello: First can be removed based on DID URL Dereferencing inclusion.
15:43:22 <swcurran> ... Second could be a general comment somewhere. We explain in Metadata section already, so probably not necessary anymore.
15:43:30 <ottomorac> q?
15:43:39 <swcurran> Wip: Will remove it in a PR and someone can object and add an issue.
15:44:20 <swcurran> Wip: Perhaps Markus can take a look at the last comment in the Issue 220.
15:44:32 <swcurran> ... others we can raise issues to track and then remove.
15:44:45 <ottomorac> Topic: TAG initial review
15:44:50 <ottomorac> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1157
15:44:55 <ottomorac> As an outcome of the initial horizontal review by TAG, Will has separated the feedback into several issues which we should discuss one by one.
15:45:13 <Wip> q+
15:45:14 <ottomorac> ack Wip
15:45:40 <swcurran> Wip: Encourage everyone to read the comment by Jeffrey Askin -- big favour to get in before TPAC.
15:46:10 <swcurran> Wip: Could discuss one by one.  Note this is Askin's review, not the TAG review.
15:46:19 <manu> q+
15:46:29 <swcurran> ... Does not include the DID URL Dereferencing...he didn't review that.
15:46:46 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:46:49 <swcurran> Wip: issues added, could label them as TAG.
15:47:05 <swcurran> manu: Very helpful, thanks will. Please tag them as TAG.
15:47:15 <swcurran> s/will/Will/
15:48:28 <swcurran> ... When sections change, we give them a heads up on what has changed to focus his/their effort on certain parts.  Probably best he waits to Dec. for the path handling part.
15:48:37 <ottomorac> Subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/224
15:48:58 <Wip> q+
15:49:03 <ottomorac> ack Wip
15:49:11 <manu> q+
15:49:38 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:49:43 <swcurran> Wip: Should be referencing the correct DID Core version -- 1.0 or 1.1? Do a pass to get right across the spec.  Should be 1.1 Wip thinks.
15:49:47 <swcurran> manu: +1
15:50:16 <swcurran> ... Should still be able to resolve 1.0 documents, but in general everywhere else 1.1.
15:50:26 <ottomorac> q?
15:50:35 <ottomorac> Subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/225
15:51:06 <manu> q+
15:51:09 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:52:11 <ivan> q+
15:52:15 <swcurran> manu: Well...kind of agree / disagree.  Standard URIs were centralizing, whereas the explicit purpose is to make DIDs decentralized.  Could make it more grounded, but editorial. Can't object, but we could try.
15:52:19 <ottomorac> ack ivan
15:52:46 <JennieM7> JennieM7 has joined #did
15:53:01 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #did
15:53:02 <swcurran> ivan: Point is that a DID is, and why it was created is part of DID Core, not in the DID Resolution spec.
15:53:16 <ottomorac> q?
15:53:20 <swcurran> s/that a/that what a/
15:53:50 <manu> I'm fine w/ Ivan's interpretation as well -- we could make it more about DID Resolution.
15:53:51 <ottomorac> Subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/226
15:54:44 <Wip> q+
15:54:45 <markus_sabadello> q+
15:54:48 <ottomorac> ack WIp
15:55:13 <ottomorac> ack markus_sabadello
15:55:23 <swcurran> Wip: Should we be using resolution at all?  That's what he is questioning.
15:55:26 <manu> q+ to note it's the first thing, isn't it?
15:56:28 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:56:28 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note it's the first thing, isn't it?
15:56:30 <swcurran> markus_sabadello: We've always been using resolution. The DID can also be dereferenced. Consistent with RFC3986 in my mind.  This does fit with how we are using it. I wouldn't change anything.
15:56:52 <manu> URI "resolution" is the process of determining an access mechanism and the appropriate parameters  necessary to dereference a URI; this resolution may require several
15:56:52 <manu>    iterations.  To use that access mechanism to perform an action on the
15:56:52 <manu>    URI's resource is to "dereference" the URI.
15:56:54 <swcurran> manu: Agree with Markus.  Looking at RFC3986 -- pasting...
15:58:19 <swcurran> ... what we are doing is textbook definition. Perhaps he is worried about a sentence and how we are using it.  Perhaps he is saying it's "dereferencing" vs. "resolution".
15:58:43 <manu> q+ to note we need to do a complete review
15:58:48 <ottomorac> ack manu
15:58:48 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note we need to do a complete review
15:58:51 <swcurran> ottomorac: Perhaps we need to ask more about what he is asking -- perhaps Manu or Markus put in a comment and tag Jeffrey.
15:58:56 <Wip> https://www.w3.org/TR/did-resolution/#introduction
15:59:23 <swcurran> Wip: The core question is are we dereferencing a DID?
15:59:51 <swcurran> manu: We should do a review of the spec to make sure we are consistent.  I can't do that, too much on plate.
16:00:09 <swcurran> ottomorac: We're at time. To be continued.
16:01:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/30-did-minutes.html TallTed
16:03:51 <ottomorac> zakim, end the meeting
16:03:51 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Wip, TallTed, ottomorac, pchampin, swcurran, KevinDean, bigbluehat, ivan, JennieM
16:03:53 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:03:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/30-did-minutes.html Zakim
16:04:00 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ottomorac; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:04:01 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did
16:04:13 <ottomorac> rrsagent, make minutes
16:04:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/30-did-minutes.html ottomorac
16:05:26 <ottomorac> m2gbot, link issues with transcript
16:05:27 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/221#issuecomment-3468779621
16:05:28 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/213#issuecomment-3468779673
16:05:29 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/220#issuecomment-3468779739
16:05:30 <m2gbot> issue https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1157 not owned by current group(s)
16:05:31 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/224#issuecomment-3468779860
16:05:32 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/225#issuecomment-3468779927
16:05:33 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/226#issuecomment-3468779980
16:07:06 <ottomorac> RRSAgent, please excuse us
16:07:06 <RRSAgent> I see no action items