15:49:33 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
15:49:38 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/01/15-did-irc
15:49:45 <ottomorac> rrsagent, make logs public
15:49:49 <ottomorac> Meeting: Decentralized Identifier Working Group
15:49:53 <ottomorac> Chair: ottomorac
15:49:57 <ottomorac> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2026Jan/0005.html
15:49:58 <agendabot> clear agenda
15:49:58 <agendabot> agenda+ Agenda Review, Introductions (5 min)
15:49:58 <agendabot> agenda+ Security Review - Initial Threat Modelling (10 min)
15:49:58 <agendabot> agenda+ DID Core PR Processing \[2\] (10 min)
15:49:58 <agendabot> agenda+ DID Resolution PR Processing \[3\] (10 min)
15:50:01 <agendabot> agenda+ DID Path Discussion \[4\] (20 min)
15:50:13 <ottomorac> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/01/08-did-minutes.html
15:50:21 <ottomorac> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/01/22-did-minutes.html
15:50:35 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #did
15:58:57 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
16:00:56 <Wip> Wip has joined #did
16:01:01 <swcurran> swcurran has joined #did
16:01:02 <Wip> present+
16:01:03 <swcurran> present+
16:02:37 <pchampin> present+
16:03:09 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #did
16:03:22 <KevinDean> present+
16:03:52 <manu> present+
16:04:11 <dmitriz> present+
16:04:25 <ottomorac> present+
16:04:45 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #did
16:05:19 <JoeAndrieu> present+
16:05:23 <JoeAndrieu> scribe+
16:05:32 <ottomorac> zakim, next item
16:05:32 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Agenda Review, Introductions (5 min) -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:05:45 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #did
16:05:48 <JennieM> present+
16:05:59 <JoeAndrieu> ottomorac: welcome. thanks for everyone's support as we drive to CR
16:06:14 <JoeAndrieu> .. Today we have the security review and threat modeling conversation.
16:06:21 <JoeAndrieu> ... We are going to go over items in DID core
16:06:27 <JoeAndrieu> ... DID Resolution
16:06:40 <JoeAndrieu> ... The core of the call with be about the DID path conversation and try to get to more alignment
16:06:50 <JoeAndrieu> ... Any additions or items for the agenda?
16:06:59 <manu> q+
16:07:05 <ottomorac> ack manu
16:07:14 <JoeAndrieu> manu: updates re going into CR
16:07:25 <ivan> present+
16:07:26 <JoeAndrieu> ottomorac: let's take that on first
16:07:26 <ottomorac> Topic: updates re going into CR
16:07:44 <JoeAndrieu> manu: we resolved to take did core into CR around november.
16:07:49 <TallTed> present+
16:07:55 <JoeAndrieu> ... and our last text was "after the horizontal reviews are complete"
16:08:03 <JoeAndrieu> ... and that is preventing us from going to CR
16:08:18 <JoeAndrieu> ... We've pinged them, but there are two outstanding: accessibility and security
16:08:32 <JoeAndrieu> ... Accessibility has been non-responsive
16:08:53 <JoeAndrieu> ... 2. Simone has pinged Tomasso about moving into CR and addressing issues then
16:09:03 <JoeAndrieu> ... We're waiting for a response
16:09:16 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #did
16:09:16 <swcurran> swcurran has joined #did
16:09:16 <Wip> Wip has joined #did
16:09:16 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
16:09:16 <rhiaro> rhiaro has joined #did
16:09:16 <JoeAndrieu> ... The hope is that we publish CR as soon as we can.
16:09:24 <ottomorac> q?
16:09:42 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #did
16:09:42 <JoeAndrieu> ottomorac: good update. Any reactions?
16:09:53 <JoeAndrieu> manu: I need guidance from the group.
16:10:06 <JoeAndrieu> ... Are we cleared to proceed as soon as Tomasso replies
16:10:06 <pchampin> q+
16:10:15 <JoeAndrieu> ottomorac: Is no response an implicit green light?
16:10:15 <ottomorac> ack pchampin
16:10:39 <JoeAndrieu> pchampin: I'll check with the team about calling a timeout with Accessibillity
16:10:43 <KevinDean> q+
16:10:46 <Wip> +1 makes sense to me
16:10:49 <JoeAndrieu> ... if we also have a green light from the security group, we're good to go
16:10:54 <ottomorac> ack KevinDean
16:11:03 <JoeAndrieu> KevinDean: is there any escalation process to get groups to respond?
16:11:04 <JoeAndrieu> q+
16:11:23 <JoeAndrieu> pchampin: nothing formally defined
16:11:41 <JoeAndrieu> ... Security is a bit more of a problem with DIDs, but they've been more responsive
16:11:51 <ottomorac> ack JoeAndrieu
16:11:58 <Wip> scribe+
16:12:29 <Wip> JoeAndrieu: Note reviews are done be volunteers generally. So sometimes hard to get a response
16:12:33 <manu> Here's the latest from security: https://github.com/w3c/security-request/issues/91#issuecomment-3735255869
16:12:33 <ottomorac> q?
16:12:38 <manu> q+
16:12:39 <Wip> KevinDean: Understood, true of many standards orgs
16:12:40 <ottomorac> ack manu
16:12:43 <Wip> scribe-
16:13:07 <JoeAndrieu> manu: Simone knows we are waiting on it. He asked Tomasso last week. If this goes beyond this weekend, I'll reach out.
16:13:26 <ottomorac> q?
16:13:31 <ottomorac> zakim, next item
16:13:31 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Security Review - Initial Threat Modelling (10 min) -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:13:33 <JoeAndrieu> ottomorac: so that gets us into our next item
16:13:38 <Wip> q+
16:13:47 <ottomorac> ack Wip
16:13:57 <Wip> https://github.com/w3c/security-request/issues/106
16:13:59 <JoeAndrieu> wip: the did resolution
16:14:07 <JoeAndrieu> ... There is a security request.
16:14:20 <JoeAndrieu> ... what Simone suggested we join the security interest group call
16:14:32 <JoeAndrieu> ... we through out some dates
16:14:48 <JoeAndrieu> ... Are people able to attend the call at 7am pacific, maybe targeting the 3rd
16:14:57 <manu> q+
16:15:05 <JoeAndrieu> I can make that
16:15:17 <ottomorac> ack manu
16:15:28 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say we should also queue up our own special topic calls
16:15:46 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to talk against using LLMs for threat modeling
16:16:18 <JoeAndrieu> manu: it has a bunch of stuff. it's not complete (local resolver stuff)
16:16:28 <JoeAndrieu> ... it has 25 threats, like private key compromise
16:16:29 <TallTed> Straw documents are good things to get from LLMs. Easier to poke holes in, and to fill in, than a blank page.
16:16:50 <JoeAndrieu> ... I did read through the vast majority of all of it, so it seems not crazy
16:17:00 <ottomorac> q?
16:17:07 <Wip> scribe+
16:17:08 <ottomorac> ack JoeAndrieu
16:17:08 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say we should also queue up our own special topic calls and to talk against using LLMs for threat modeling
16:17:15 <manu> q+
16:17:31 <Wip> JoeAndrieu: couple of things, first manu I think you conflated the DID resolution issue with the DID core spec
16:17:56 <Wip> ...  I also wanted to speak against in general using LLMs for this work. The important step is doing the thinking, not just producing a document
16:18:13 <Wip> ... I feel like this work from manu is undermining some of the work I thought I was taking on
16:18:19 <KevinDean> q+
16:18:28 <manu> q- later
16:18:30 <Wip> ... I do not think LLMs are capable of doing a first principles, security first analysis of the threats in the ecosystem
16:18:39 <Wip> scribe-
16:18:41 <ottomorac> ack manu KevinDean
16:18:45 <JoeAndrieu> KevinDean: +1 to Joe
16:18:54 <ottomorac> q?
16:19:01 <ottomorac> ack KevinDean
16:19:02 <JoeAndrieu> ... we need to remember that LLMs are conversational agents that can only create based on what's gone before
16:19:18 <JoeAndrieu> ... Our work is touch on things that LLMs just don't have in scope
16:19:35 <Wip> q+
16:19:36 <JoeAndrieu> ... We're going to get something that looks like a threat model, but it won't quite be
16:19:38 <ottomorac> ack manu
16:19:50 <JoeAndrieu> manu: did resolution v core.
16:19:56 <swcurran> q+
16:20:02 <JoeAndrieu> ... my expectation is that we'll create a threat model that is all inclusive
16:20:12 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to talk about the constellation approach to threat modeling
16:20:34 <JoeAndrieu> ... It would probably be good to do a holistic threat model
16:20:44 <JoeAndrieu> ... On the use of LLMs, Kevin, have you read the document
16:21:21 <JoeAndrieu> joe: yes
16:21:32 <JoeAndrieu> manu: I'm not saying we shouldn't have humans look at this
16:21:32 <ottomorac> q?
16:21:45 <JoeAndrieu> ... I'm saying that we should have humans produce this using the tools that are most effecient
16:22:04 <JoeAndrieu> ... When used by humans it's been shown to be useful
16:22:12 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu: not necessarily
16:22:25 <JoeAndrieu> manu: the time is not that great. so we just don't have the time to do it.
16:22:33 <JoeAndrieu> ... I don't know what others experiences are.
16:22:45 <JoeAndrieu> ... They have gotten to the point where they are doing a pretty good job.
16:22:48 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #did
16:23:04 <JoeAndrieu> ... I think it is a mistake to dismiss them
16:23:26 <KevinDean> q+
16:23:31 <ottomorac> ack Wip
16:23:32 <JoeAndrieu> ... If the people doing the work, don't want to, that's their choice
16:23:51 <ottomorac> zakim, close the queue
16:23:51 <Zakim> ok, ottomorac, the speaker queue is closed
16:23:59 <JoeAndrieu> wip: A few things here. I hear what manu is saying. We have limited time.
16:24:06 <JoeAndrieu> ... The security group is asking us to do this work.
16:24:16 <JoeAndrieu> ... I also feel the LLMs are creating leverage
16:24:26 <JoeAndrieu> ... But joe's point about having the conversation is important.
16:24:44 <ottomorac> q?
16:24:45 <JoeAndrieu> ... Maybe after we identify the threats (in our conversation), we can use LLMs to expand it
16:24:54 <JoeAndrieu> ... Do the thinking first, then use LLM
16:24:58 <manu> q+ to state that the input to the LLM was our security and privacy considerations sections :)
16:25:06 <JoeAndrieu> ... Joe, you mentioned some special topics
16:25:26 <ottomorac> ack swcurran
16:25:44 <JoeAndrieu> swcurran: I support the use of LLMs in certain circumstances
16:25:53 <JoeAndrieu> ... Manu's statement, that I haven't read the whole thing
16:26:01 <JoeAndrieu> ... that's a problem
16:26:19 <JoeAndrieu> ... LLMs aren't an eliminator, but what came across was I put this forward, I'm not going to stand behind it.
16:26:24 <JoeAndrieu> manu: I do stand behind it
16:26:33 <JoeAndrieu> swcurran: as long as you do, I'm ok with it
16:26:34 <ottomorac> ack KevinDean
16:26:51 <JoeAndrieu> KevinDean: + 1/2 to manu, +1/2 to joe
16:27:05 <JoeAndrieu> ... LLM can provide a good starting point
16:27:06 <ottomorac> ack JoeAndrieu
16:27:06 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to talk about the constellation approach to threat modeling
16:27:08 <ottomorac> scribe+
16:27:28 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: One thing more logistic, about the structure of the docs...
16:28:25 <ottomorac> ... we should echo that every spec for the web depends on many other specs. But the threat analysis is dependent and depends on a "constelation of other specs"
16:29:00 <ottomorac> ... The DID spec should clearly point of the potential issues it has in relation with those other specs...
16:29:29 <ottomorac> ... there should be a diagram that points out those potential areas of security concern
16:29:53 <ottomorac> ... acknowledge that this is tricky,  I think perhaps the group should have some special topic calls for these
16:31:14 <ottomorac> ... the diagram lays out the concern areas and helps us think through the potential issues
16:31:34 <ottomorac> ... some areas missing in the diagram are the did-architectures here
16:32:36 <manu> q+
16:33:37 <ottomorac> zakim, next item
16:33:37 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- DID Core PR Processing \[2\] (10 min) -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:33:45 <JoeAndrieu> manu: Ok. there's enough push back to withdraw the proposal
16:33:50 <Wip> zakim, open the queue
16:33:50 <Zakim> ok, Wip, the speaker queue is open
16:33:53 <JoeAndrieu> ottomorac: moving to some PRs
16:34:00 <ottomorac> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did/pull/915
16:34:10 <ottomorac> Clarify DID document term definition throughout spec #915
16:34:18 <JoeAndrieu> ottomorac: we'd appreciate reviews
16:34:37 <JoeAndrieu> wip: This has two reviews, but if you care about how we describe a DID document, please chime in
16:34:52 <JoeAndrieu> +1 on that change
16:35:09 <ottomorac> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did/pull/916
16:35:19 <manu> q+
16:35:28 <ottomorac> ack manu
16:35:30 <JoeAndrieu> ottomorac: Manu can you give us a summary
16:35:44 <JoeAndrieu> manu: This one is a request from PING to detail considerations for change notification text
16:35:54 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to ask why we have change notification
16:36:11 <ottomorac> scribe+
16:36:19 <JoeAndrieu> manu: this is about VDRs, with a DID in it, how do you let people know about that
16:36:38 <JoeAndrieu> manu: PING thinks this matters. Talk about what you need to do to harden that surface
16:36:43 <ottomorac> ack JoeAndrieu
16:36:43 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to ask why we have change notification
16:37:08 <manu> q+
16:37:08 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu:  I think we should get this section out of the spec...
16:37:38 <swcurran> +1 to Joe
16:37:39 <ottomorac> ... I think we should not be speaking to this in spec
16:37:43 <ottomorac> ack manu
16:37:58 <JoeAndrieu> manu: I'm fine with doing that as well. This text came from the early days.
16:38:11 <JoeAndrieu> ... This talked as if this is a regular thing, but it isn't really.
16:38:16 <ottomorac> q?
16:38:26 <ottomorac> q?
16:38:27 <JoeAndrieu> ... It confused the reviewers. Since we haven't done the analysis, we should probably stay quiet
16:38:38 <ottomorac> zakim, next item
16:38:38 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- DID Resolution PR Processing \[3\] (10 min) -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:38:40 <JoeAndrieu> ottomorac: moving us to another PR
16:39:03 <JoeAndrieu> manu: anyone object to removing the section on did notification
16:39:07 <JoeAndrieu> ... not seeing any objections
16:39:22 <JoeAndrieu> ottomorac: thanks
16:39:28 <ottomorac> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/271
16:39:41 <ottomorac> Rename Read to Resolve and clarify introduction #271 by WillSome feedback has been provided by Markus.
16:39:47 <JoeAndrieu> wip: this is an issue 230.
16:39:49 <Wip> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/230
16:39:58 <JoeAndrieu> ... I took a stab at fixing that.
16:40:22 <TallTed> s/is an issue/is on issue/
16:40:24 <JoeAndrieu> ... basically now I've renamed "read" to "resolve" throughout.
16:40:46 <JoeAndrieu> ... And i added a section that clarifies the Resolution spec is defining an API on top of the resolution methods defined by the methods themselves
16:40:51 <JoeAndrieu> ... Those two things.
16:41:17 <ottomorac> q?
16:41:18 <JoeAndrieu> ... I was initially more in Marcus's camp: distinguishing between the call to the resolver and the process the method defines
16:41:29 <JoeAndrieu> ... but now I think it's find to use the same term
16:41:35 <swcurran> +1 to the PR
16:41:41 <JoeAndrieu> +1 to me reviewing it
16:41:45 <manu> q+
16:41:49 <ottomorac> ack manu
16:41:56 <JoeAndrieu> (it's probably good, but hard to scan while scribing)
16:42:17 <JoeAndrieu> manu: No objections to using resolution instead of read
16:42:27 <Wip> https://w3c.github.io/did/#method-operations
16:42:30 <JoeAndrieu> ... are there any changes to DID core we need?
16:42:52 <JoeAndrieu> wip: we don't really define the names of the operations, so the text is probably fine. because we don't talk about "read" at all
16:43:03 <JoeAndrieu> manu: so DID core is good
16:43:08 <ottomorac> q?
16:43:10 <JoeAndrieu> ... Maybe our registration process should change
16:43:17 <JoeAndrieu> wip: agreed. that says "read"
16:43:39 <JoeAndrieu> ... I'm hearing no objections. If you can take a pass and review, that'd be appreciated.
16:43:46 <ottomorac> zakim, next item
16:43:49 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- DID Path Discussion \[4\] (20 min) -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:43:50 <ottomorac> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/260
16:43:53 <JoeAndrieu> ottomorac: thanks. 260 is next
16:44:13 <ottomorac> scribe-
16:44:20 <JoeAndrieu> swcurran: based on the conversation that's going on, I've applied the changes discussed last week
16:44:25 <JoeAndrieu> ... and that markus revised
16:44:54 <JoeAndrieu> ... instead of introducing a new parameter, use relativeRef as is, for any query components to be appended to the service endpoint path handler
16:45:13 <JoeAndrieu> ... and to remove the reference about returning the resource
16:45:29 <swcurran> Update comment : https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/260#issuecomment-3752168527
16:45:50 <JoeAndrieu> ... The relative reference, from RFC3986, it looks like path component MUST be required.
16:46:02 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to mention 3986 allows PathEmpty
16:46:12 <ottomorac> scribe+
16:46:25 <JoeAndrieu> swcurran: something about path
16:46:44 <JoeAndrieu> ... if the service endpoint defines itself as a query parameter, we can't simply append, as that creates a non-standard URL
16:47:02 <JoeAndrieu> ... The result is just a URL, that's what the resolver returns.
16:47:13 <JoeAndrieu> ... That's another thing that's returned from resolution
16:47:21 <JoeAndrieu> ... lists a bunch of things that can be returned
16:47:50 <JoeAndrieu> ... we need clear boundaries on what the resolver returns and what the client is expected to do
16:48:08 <JoeAndrieu> ... Please take a look at the commit
16:48:21 <JoeAndrieu> ... I did revise the definition of relative ref
16:48:25 <Wip> q+
16:48:26 <ottomorac> scribe+
16:48:37 <ottomorac> ack JoeAndrieu
16:48:37 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention 3986 allows PathEmpty
16:48:54 <swcurran> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986#section-4.2
16:49:05 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu:  on 3986,  the path can be a path empty...
16:49:27 <ottomorac> swcurran:  Ah ok, yes it was kind of confusing
16:50:08 <manu> q+
16:50:15 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu:  Another question, the VCWG has moved to the WHATWG definition of URL for good reasons
16:50:28 <ottomorac> ack manu
16:50:48 <JoeAndrieu> manu: Agree with what Joe and Markus have said. PathEmpty is allowed.
16:51:04 <JoeAndrieu> ... the confusing thing in the ABNF is that slashes mean "or"
16:51:04 <swcurran> wow!
16:51:25 <JoeAndrieu> ... WhatWG? Yes, I suggested that. I hate that spec, but everyone has moved over
16:51:37 <JoeAndrieu> ... It is what browsers implement
16:51:52 <JoeAndrieu> ... it closes out some corner cases and holes that 3986 has
16:52:14 <JoeAndrieu> ... problem is it doesn't define ABNF, so we'd have to figure out how to update
16:52:20 <swcurran> I can add an issue on that and try a PR to fix -- separate PR.
16:52:25 <JoeAndrieu> ... but all the specs are moving, we should consider it
16:52:27 <ottomorac> ack Wip
16:52:40 <swcurran> Joe -- can you provide the reference to the new spec?
16:52:53 <JoeAndrieu> wip: For a DID URL dereferencing, currently the spec returns a content stream
16:53:10 <JoeAndrieu> q+
16:53:47 <JoeAndrieu> swcurran: I though Markus said the only thing the resolver should return is the resulting URL and the client can do what they want
16:54:04 <JoeAndrieu> ... I tend to agree, because that makes the resolver too complex.
16:54:15 <JoeAndrieu> ... The client can figure out the next thing
16:54:26 <JoeAndrieu> ... That gets into exactly the question of what exactly a DID resolver returns
16:54:38 <ottomorac> q?
16:54:43 <ottomorac> scribe+
16:54:49 <ottomorac> ack JoeAndrieu
16:55:20 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu:  one the challenges is conflating De-referencing with Resolving
16:55:32 <swcurran> q+
16:55:58 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu:  I am a bit frustrated that we are returning things different from just did-resolution data
16:56:09 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: I am concerned that might make it complex
16:56:28 <ottomorac> ack swcurran
16:56:46 <JoeAndrieu> swcurran: I'm concerned as well. This almost artificial difference between dereferencing and resolution.
16:57:04 <JoeAndrieu> ... Resolving a DID as its defined is just the degenerate case of dereferencing a DID URL
16:57:14 <ottomorac> q?
16:57:22 <JoeAndrieu> ... that said, there is value in having a consistent way to interpret paths
16:57:34 <JoeAndrieu> ... so defining what happens with paths should be in the spec
16:57:49 <JoeAndrieu> ... but if we're returning anything other than DID document, that complicates thing
16:58:04 <ottomorac> q?
16:58:06 <JoeAndrieu> ... For example, we return an "altered" did doc and an array of endpoints
16:58:17 <JoeAndrieu> ... let's lock that down
16:58:22 <manu> q+
16:58:25 <ottomorac> ack manu
16:58:37 <JoeAndrieu> manu: Stephen, do you have enough to raise a PR
16:58:51 <JoeAndrieu> swcurran: I've raised a PR, but not enough feedback yet
16:59:06 <JoeAndrieu> ... so what am I returning? Just a string that is more than a URL?
16:59:11 <JoeAndrieu> manu: yes, let's do that
16:59:27 <JoeAndrieu> swcurran: ok. that's what I have today. But what form? A JSON string?
16:59:38 <JoeAndrieu> manu: JSON, since there might be metadata to return
16:59:47 <JoeAndrieu> ottomorac: To be continued
16:59:59 <JoeAndrieu> swcurran: I'll update the PR after I check with a few folks
17:00:09 <JoeAndrieu> ottomorac: Ok. I'll ping you about time on the call next week.
17:02:38 <ottomorac> zakim, end the meeting
17:02:40 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Wip, swcurran, pchampin, KevinDean, manu, dmitriz, ottomorac, JoeAndrieu, JennieM, ivan, TallTed
17:02:40 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:02:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/15-did-minutes.html Zakim
17:02:50 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ottomorac; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:02:50 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did
17:09:09 <ottomorac> rrsagent, make minutes
17:09:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/15-did-minutes.html ottomorac
17:09:48 <ottomorac> m2gbot, link issues with transcript
17:09:50 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did/pull/915#issuecomment-3755965567
17:09:51 <m2gbot> comment already there: https://github.com/w3c/did/pull/915#issuecomment-3755965567
17:09:52 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did/pull/916#issuecomment-3755965685
17:09:54 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/271#issuecomment-3755965763
17:09:54 <m2gbot> comment already there: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/271#issuecomment-3755965763
17:09:55 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/260#issuecomment-3755965837
17:11:13 <ottomorac> RRSAgent, please excuse us
17:11:13 <RRSAgent> I see no action items