15:55:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
15:55:42 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/12/18-did-irc
15:55:43 <Wip> rrsagent, make logs public
15:55:48 <Wip> Meeting: Decentralized Identifier Working Group
15:55:56 <Wip> Chair: Wip
15:56:02 <Wip> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2025Dec/0003.html
15:56:02 <agendabot> clear agenda
15:56:02 <agendabot> agenda+ Agenda Review, Introductions (5 min)
15:56:02 <agendabot> agenda+ Holiday Schedule (5 min)
15:56:02 <agendabot> agenda+ Discussion around Issue Assignment (5 min)
15:56:02 <agendabot> agenda+ DID Core PR Export Terms \[1\] (5 min)
15:56:05 <agendabot> agenda+ DID Resolution ""Read"" operation \[2\] (5 min)
15:56:07 <agendabot> agenda+ DID Path URL Discussion \[3\] (30 min)
15:56:58 <Wip> Wip has changed the topic to: DID WG Agenda 2025-12-18 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2025Dec/0009.html
15:57:03 <Wip> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2025Dec/0009.html
15:57:03 <agendabot> clear agenda
15:57:03 <agendabot> agenda+ Agenda Review, Introductions (5 min)
15:57:03 <agendabot> agenda+ Issue assigment - any questions (10 min)
15:57:03 <agendabot> agenda+ DID Resolution Issues \[1\] (15 min)
15:57:03 <agendabot> agenda+ DID Resolution PR Processing \[2\] (20 min)
15:57:41 <Wip> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/12/11-did-minutes.html
16:00:20 <swcurran> swcurran has joined #did
16:00:32 <swcurran> present+
16:02:58 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #did
16:03:42 <swcurran> scribe+
16:03:48 <Wip> present+
16:04:34 <Wip> Topic: Agenda Review, Introductions
16:04:54 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #did
16:05:04 <JennieM> present+
16:05:18 <pchampin> present+
16:05:32 <swcurran> Chair:Wip
16:06:00 <swcurran> Wip: Invite Grace and Phil to introduce themselves and they did.
16:06:48 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #did
16:06:48 <KevinDean> present+
16:07:32 <swcurran> Wip: Issues in DID Resolution need to acted upon.  Wip assigned a issues to individuals in the group and requested the issues be addressed ASAP. We need someone to raise PRs and bring them back to the Working Group.
16:07:37 <PDL-ASU> PDL-ASU has joined #did
16:07:43 <PDL-ASU> present+
16:08:00 <swcurran> ...Some issues have been labellled "discuss" and we'll go through them.
16:08:17 <Wip> q?
16:08:20 <manu> q+
16:08:25 <swcurran> s/lll/ll/
16:08:27 <Wip> ack manu
16:08:50 <swcurran> manu: Status of looking for a new chair?  Response was no takers so far.
16:09:02 <manu> q+
16:09:06 <Wip> ack manu
16:09:12 <swcurran> Wip: Challenging period for the work.
16:10:33 <swcurran> manu: While Grace is here -- the DID Method Standardization group was a DIF/W3C collaboration and one of the lead chairs had to step down and so we need a replacement. It would be good to take that issue to DIF and see if we can find a chair.
16:11:40 <swcurran> grace: Most of DIFs chairs are on the TSC and DIF also needs more input. Planning to go to Asia to work on getting people there involved and hopefully that will add new candidates.
16:12:10 <swcurran> ...Identity is a hot topic and I'm hopefully of bringing in new leads.
16:12:11 <Wip> Topic: Issue assigment - any questions
16:12:52 <swcurran> Wip: Everyone on the call should be assigned an issue.  3 or unassigned.  Any questions or concerns?
16:13:05 <manu> q+
16:13:09 <Wip> ack manu
16:13:11 <swcurran> ...if you don't have an issue, please let me know.
16:13:21 <Wip> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3A%22ready%20for%20pr%22%20no%3Aassignee
16:13:25 <swcurran> manu: Out of issues (!!!!)
16:13:55 <dmitriz> present+
16:13:55 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #did
16:14:02 <dmitriz> present+
16:14:02 <dmitriz> q+
16:14:09 <Wip> ack dmitriz
16:14:28 <swcurran> Wip: Please spend the time needed over the holidays to address your issue.  We need to get these done.
16:14:43 <swcurran> dmitriz: Please assign me one.
16:14:52 <Wip> q?
16:15:33 <Wip> Topic: DID Resolution Issues
16:15:42 <Wip> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3Adiscuss
16:15:56 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/224
16:16:24 <manu> q+
16:17:00 <Wip> ack manu
16:17:15 <swcurran> Wip: Fix where we reference 1.1 to be the same format as all the references, then on update all the references will be auto-updated.
16:17:43 <swcurran> manu: That should work, but would like to publish before RC -- when we go to Recommendation, all should reference 1.1
16:17:46 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/225
16:17:53 <swcurran> Wip: I'll submit a PR for 224
16:18:48 <swcurran> Wip: Assigned to JennieM and addressed as a comment to get feedback. Issue is to provide a more technically grounded abstract.
16:19:01 <manu> q+
16:19:02 <JennieM> q+
16:19:06 <manu> q- later
16:19:15 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
16:19:20 <Wip> ack manu
16:19:35 <swcurran> JennieM: Looking for feedback on proposal.
16:20:24 <JennieM> q+
16:20:41 <swcurran> manu: Perhaps shorten to a single paragraph for the abstract, perhaps eliminate the 3rd paragraph.  2nd paragraph is controversial but accurate, so...
16:20:41 <Wip> ack JennieM
16:21:07 <swcurran> JennieM: Good feedback.  If 3rd goes, then removing the 2nd also makes sense.
16:21:14 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/230
16:22:23 <swcurran> Wip: Unclear about the "read" operation.  Quite a discussion.  On review -- its pretty ingrained and though we could change, but its in a lot of DID Method specs.
16:22:28 <manu> q+
16:22:46 <TallTed> present+
16:23:22 <swcurran> ...Joe is against read and should use resolve.  Markus suggests there is a difference and should be retained - resolve at the high level, read at the DID method level.
16:23:28 <Wip> ack manu
16:23:35 <swcurran> ...we need prioritization. Do we do this?
16:24:43 <swcurran> manu: Agrees with Markus, but sees what Joe is saying.  Tried to make a database operation, so the "Read" is the operation in that analogy.
16:25:44 <swcurran> ...If we had the time and energy we would do what Joe is saying, that the fundamental interface is "resolve". The DID Methods have a "read" but it really is a resolve. Not an easy decision.
16:25:58 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to celebrate distinction, but I don't think there's much to change
16:26:23 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
16:26:23 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to celebrate distinction, but I don't think there's much to change
16:26:24 <swcurran> ...If it were easy to do that, OK, but if big breaking changes, not worth it.
16:27:03 <manu> q+
16:27:27 <swcurran> JoeAndrieu: There is an important distinction and we should clarify. I think it is easy, or and not a lot of changes, just need to outline it.
16:27:30 <Wip> ack manu
16:27:43 <smccown> smccown has joined #did
16:28:29 <swcurran> manu: Sounds good.  Maybe I misunderstood -- I thought you were saying banish "read" across all DID methods, etc.  Registration process may also need to change. +1 if small change.
16:29:12 <JoeAndrieu> +1 to changing read to resolve
16:29:17 <manu> q+
16:29:18 <swcurran> Wip: Resolve call and resolve operation. Is that the change?  But that would leave the "Read" the 12 times in the DID Core spec.
16:29:19 <Wip> ack manu
16:29:34 <swcurran> manu: I think that would be OK, but Markus is concerned about that.
16:30:38 <swcurran> ...Could go more abstract and DID methods define how resolution is performed.  There is a distinction and some DID methods have database-like operations that are "read"s.
16:31:09 <swcurran> ...talk about it as an abstract operation at the DID Core, and at the DID Resolution level say resolution might be a read.
16:31:30 <swcurran> Wip: Maybe leave read in some places such as the architecture.
16:31:38 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/247
16:32:56 <swcurran> Wip: About errors, but not actually used.  Review them, find ones not thrown and either remove or add where they belong. Many can be removed, but there are some that might be worth adding.
16:33:08 <Wip> q?
16:33:10 <JoeAndrieu> q+
16:33:10 <manu> q+
16:33:12 <swcurran> ...Do you agree the public key ones should be deleted?
16:33:18 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
16:34:08 <Wip> ack manu
16:34:28 <swcurran> JoeAndrieu: Yes -- delete those ones as they are at a different level. Other internal ones such as options and may be raised, but at the implementation level, not in the spec algorithms.
16:35:31 <swcurran> manu: These errors came up largely through testing such as in verifiable credential testing. Errors would occur, and no error was raised -- hence these were found.
16:36:15 <swcurran> ...We thought it would be good to have an inventory of likely errors, even if they weren't called out in the spec algorithms -- analogy HTTP errors.
16:36:59 <swcurran> ...Feature not supported, invalid options are useful.  But where we can add them to the algorithm for given errors we should add them.
16:37:01 <Wip> q+
16:37:04 <Wip> ack Wip
16:38:00 <swcurran> Wip: Sounds good.  Try to find where they fit in the algorithms, if not, try to add a generic section about other errors.  Remove public key ones.
16:38:06 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/259
16:38:27 <manu> scribe+
16:38:56 <manu> swcurran: The example implies that when a fragment is used, the DID Resolver returns the fragment of the DID Document. My understanding of a fragment is document is returned and the client then does something w/ the fragment.
16:38:58 <manu> q+
16:39:06 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to mention this is dereferencing
16:39:17 <manu> swcurran: In other words, bring out the node of the document that's referenced.
16:39:18 <Wip> ack manu
16:39:35 <manu> swcurran: Returning the node itself seems wrong to me.
16:40:49 <swcurran> manu: Agree with Stephen, but...  This part of the spec concerns me. Should a DID resolver be required to provide this?  Universal resolver is server side and does server side option.
16:42:07 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
16:42:07 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention this is dereferencing
16:42:12 <swcurran> ...general concern about where dereferencing ends.  In general, we shouldn't be doing stuff with fragments.
16:42:38 <manu> q+ to say "a client might... and if so, it MUST"
16:42:55 <swcurran> JoeAndrieu: General agreement.  Challenge is how we talk about it. The way 3986 talks about it, the process to get to the fragment and the client has a role in it.
16:43:46 <swcurran> ...defining the end point of dereferencing sounds like a piece of work that we don't want to do.  Client should do the work beyond the DID resolution.
16:44:20 <manu> swcurran: You're saying that we should put an end to where DID Resolution ends, but also talk about dereferencing that a client could do.
16:44:30 <Wip> ack manu
16:44:30 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to say "a client might... and if so, it MUST"
16:44:32 <manu> JoeAndrieu: Yes, I think we have too much in the spec wrt. dereferencing right now.
16:44:39 <swcurran> ...Put a limit on what the DID Resolver does, but add what a client would do in dereferencing.
16:44:41 <swcurran> q+
16:45:46 <JoeAndrieu> +1 agreed. this also addresses the query properties that feed into resolution options
16:45:58 <swcurran> manu: +1.  Is there any easy path to split out the dereferencing to what the client is to do.  Its a layering concern.  We shoved derefencing into the resolver and we should do to a point and the client should do other.
16:46:03 <Wip> ack swcurran
16:46:51 <manu> swcurran: +1 to what Manu said, the same thing I've been working on Path URL thing is the same thing. I had thought that DID Resolver would return resource pointed to -- it shouldn't, it should be left to another layer. This change is worthy, it's been the source of the need for special topic calls, etc.
16:48:01 <manu> swcurran: I am deep into DIDs, and I was confused by this features. All mentions of fragments should be: You get back a resource and you deal w/ a fragment. This is a layering thing -- you should get the DID Document back, URL back, but dereferencing is up to client. We should say: Here's what DID Resolver returns, and here's what a client can do once it gets that result. I'd be happy if we never did dereferencing and left that to the client.
16:48:02 <JoeAndrieu> q+
16:48:23 <manu> q+ to get buy-in from Markus.
16:48:28 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
16:48:37 <swcurran> Wip: Anyone want to take it?
16:49:14 <Wip> ack manu
16:49:14 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to get buy-in from Markus.
16:49:21 <swcurran> JoeAndrieu: What's the complication about Markus to get buy in.  Where do we hit the substantive contribution challenge?
16:49:59 <pchampin> q+
16:50:00 <swcurran> manu: I think we should collaborate as a community and get Markus's input since he is deeply knowledgeable.
16:50:17 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to IP considerations are the only Markus thing we might worry about
16:51:00 <swcurran> ...we need to get the concept aligned with Markus, and then get a PR.  Maybe this is just a layer nuance that splits derefencing between resolver and client.
16:51:09 <Wip> ack pchampin
16:51:12 <swcurran> ...Markus should be added as an invited effort.
16:51:58 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
16:51:58 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to IP considerations are the only Markus thing we might worry about
16:52:00 <swcurran> pchampin: +1 about needing consensus across the community, looking to resolve the issues wrt Markus and working to resolve it.
16:52:45 <swcurran> JoeAndrieu: +1 to get him back and an exception as needed.  The IP issues are already covered and would only come into play if there is new IP added.
16:52:52 <manu> q+
16:53:01 <Wip> ack manu
16:53:09 <swcurran> Wip: Try in the new year to get Markus onboard.
16:53:25 <swcurran> manu: I'll take it on if I can get Markus onboard.
16:53:40 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/243
16:54:22 <JoeAndrieu> q+
16:54:25 <swcurran> Wip: Has been open a long time.  Please take a look at this.  Would like to get merged, and it is blocking a bunch of there PRs, so please take a look ASAP.  Today.  Now.
16:54:27 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
16:54:53 <manu> q+
16:55:04 <Wip> ack manu
16:55:08 <swcurran> JoeAndrieu: Looking at it this, it is hitting the same discussion as above.
16:55:54 <swcurran> manu: Two ways -- go with what we currently have, and we know it will change when we get to the dereferencing with layering.  Maybe we can make it a light touch.
16:56:15 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to get rid of conforming language for dereferencing
16:57:00 <swcurran> ...Right now its mixed in, but lets make the separation explicit and certain things are typically done client side. I don't know a lot needs to be done as we have to say what the client needs to do.
16:57:23 <JennieM3> JennieM3 has joined #did
16:58:07 <swcurran> ...Could just delete all the dereferencing but unlikely.  Do want to talk about what you do with fragments after resolution.  Need to get into that.  How does this impact this PR?
16:58:25 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
16:58:25 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to get rid of conforming language for dereferencing
16:58:26 <swcurran> Wip: Not helpful to my question, but...
16:59:28 <swcurran> JoeAndrieu: +1 for NOT removing dereferencing.  Move this PR forward, but recognize it will be changed in future PR.  Need a conformant test suite about did resolution vs. derefencing
16:59:36 <manu> yes, agree with JoeAndrieu
16:59:50 <swcurran> ...Not about a conformant dereferencer.
16:59:52 <JoeAndrieu> +1 to  Happy Holidays, Everyone!
17:00:22 <Wip> rrsagent, make minutes
17:00:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/12/18-did-minutes.html Wip
17:00:30 <Wip> m2gbot, link issues with transcript
17:00:30 <m2gbot> Something wrong happened: Error loading minutes
17:00:48 <Wip> rrsagent, make logs public
17:00:53 <Wip> m2gbot, link issues with transcript
17:00:54 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/224#issuecomment-3671235847
17:00:55 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/225#issuecomment-3671235913
17:00:56 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/230#issuecomment-3671235974
17:00:57 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/247#issuecomment-3671236023
17:00:58 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/259#issuecomment-3671236092
17:00:59 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/243#issuecomment-3671236177
17:01:07 <Wip> zakim, end the meeting
17:01:07 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been swcurran, Wip, JennieM, pchampin, KevinDean, PDL-ASU, dmitriz, TallTed
17:01:09 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:01:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/12/18-did-minutes.html Zakim
17:01:16 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, Wip; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:01:16 <Wip> RRSAgent, please excuse us
17:01:16 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
17:01:16 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did