15:58:11 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
15:58:15 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/01/29-did-irc
15:58:15 <Wip> rrsagent, make logs public
15:58:23 <Wip> Meeting: Decentralized Identifier Working Group
15:58:23 <Wip> Chair: Wip
15:58:29 <Wip> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2026Jan/0008.html
15:58:30 <agendabot> clear agenda
15:58:30 <agendabot> agenda+ Agenda Review, Introductions (5 min)
15:58:30 <agendabot> agenda+ DID Issues \[1\] (10 min)
15:58:30 <agendabot> agenda+ DID Resolution Issues \[2\] (15 min)
15:58:30 <agendabot> agenda+ Avoid Duplicate Terms \[3\] (5 min)
15:58:33 <agendabot> agenda+ DID Path PR \[4\] (15 min)
15:58:35 <agendabot> agenda+ Next time (5 min)
15:58:36 <Wip> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/01/22-did-minutes.html
15:58:44 <Wip> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/02/05-did-minutes.html
16:00:28 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #did
16:00:33 <Wip> present+
16:00:35 <ottomorac> ottomorac has joined #did
16:01:57 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
16:03:18 <ottomorac> scribe+
16:04:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/29-did-minutes.html TallTed
16:05:22 <Wip> zakim, next agendum
16:05:22 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Agenda Review, Introductions (5 min) -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:06:20 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #did
16:06:25 <JennieM> present+
16:06:27 <ottomorac> Today we are going to review a few issues...
16:06:42 <ottomorac> then review PRs but we want to focus on DID path discussion...
16:06:48 <Wip> q?
16:06:49 <ottomorac> Also Manu will be out today...
16:07:05 <Wip> zakim, next agendum
16:07:05 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- DID Issues \[1\] (10 min) -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:07:06 <Wip> zakim, next agendum
16:07:06 <Zakim> agendum 2 was just opened, Wip
16:07:09 <Wip> zakim, next agendum
16:07:09 <Zakim> agendum 2 was just opened, Wip
16:07:14 <Wip> zakim, close agendum
16:07:14 <Zakim> I don't understand 'close agendum', Wip
16:07:38 <Wip> zakim, close item
16:07:38 <Zakim> I don't understand 'close item', Wip
16:07:41 <Wip> close item
16:07:46 <ottomorac> zakim, next item
16:07:46 <Zakim> agendum 2 was just opened, ottomorac
16:07:47 <Wip> Topic: DID Resolution Issues
16:08:00 <swcurran> swcurran has joined #did
16:08:00 <Wip> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3Adiscuss
16:08:08 <swcurran> present+
16:08:09 <TallTed> Zakim, close item 2
16:08:09 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #did
16:08:09 <Zakim> agendum 2, DID Issues \[1\] (10 min), closed
16:08:10 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:08:10 <Zakim> 3. DID Resolution Issues \[2\] (15 min) [from agendabot]
16:08:26 <ottomorac> Wip: would like to discuss these issues... but first would like to highlight that I have reviewed the TAG isssues...
16:08:33 <TallTed> Zakim, next item
16:08:33 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- DID Resolution Issues \[2\] (15 min) -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:08:44 <ottomorac> Wip: I noticed a few points that were missed and that needed to be handled via issues...
16:08:48 <TallTed> s/Topic: DID Resolution Issues//
16:08:50 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/226
16:08:53 <bigbluehat> present+
16:08:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/29-did-minutes.html TallTed
16:09:14 <ottomorac> Wip: This is another one from Jeffrey regarding incosistent resolution...
16:09:16 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #did
16:09:18 <dmitriz> present+
16:09:23 <bigbluehat> present+
16:09:44 <ottomorac> Wip: I think we have talked about this before but it seems the confusion is around version id and version time....
16:10:13 <swcurran> Amen
16:10:26 <ottomorac> Wip: There are some DID parameters like version ID and version time that are part of the resolution process...
16:10:39 <smccown> smccown has joined #did
16:10:40 <ottomorac> Wip: Please see the comment I added there about this
16:10:44 <smccown> present+
16:11:00 <ottomorac> Wip: I think we also discussed this at TPAC right Joe?
16:11:20 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu:  Yes, I think this more of a communication problem I think...
16:11:53 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu:  I think I need some time to analyze this
16:12:25 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: The issue is that some parameters are resolution specific and some are did method specific...
16:12:25 <swcurran> 100% Joe
16:12:51 <ottomorac> Wip: ok thanks
16:13:52 <ottomorac> Wip:  I guess the piece that is confusing, having a DID URL dereferencer (there is currently a term in the spec for this) but we don't use it consistently... sometimes we instead to a DID resolver as doing de-referencing
16:13:59 <swcurran> q+
16:14:05 <JoeAndrieu> q+
16:14:08 <Wip> ack swcurran
16:14:13 <dmitriz> +1 agree, re getting rid of 'dereferencer' term
16:14:28 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #did
16:14:33 <ottomorac> Swcurran:  I 100% agree, but talking to Markus he doesn't think that should be the path....
16:15:25 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
16:15:28 <ottomorac> Swcurran:  I was confused by this, in my change I refer mainly to DID URL de-referencing...
16:15:33 <Wip> q+
16:15:44 <swcurran> q+
16:15:49 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: I think we should not get rid of the URL de-referencing terminology....
16:16:23 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu:  Maybe we should clarify how this works, there is consensus here that the DID Resolver does not do de-referencing itself....
16:16:47 <Wip> ack Wip
16:17:25 <ottomorac> Wip: Yes I don't think we should get rid of DID URL de-referencing generally, but just the specific term of "DID URL de-referencer"
16:17:37 <dmitriz> (agreed, dereferencing is fine, it's the -er part that we should drop)
16:17:48 <JoeAndrieu> q
16:17:50 <Wip> ack swcurran
16:17:50 <JoeAndrieu> q+
16:18:46 <ottomorac> Swcurran:  Yes I think that the purpose of the spec is that what is returned could be did doc or a modified did doc, or a list of URLs, or even an error....
16:19:06 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
16:19:07 <ottomorac> Swcurran:  but we need to clarify the ways in which this is returned....
16:19:19 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: Yes it is kind of fuzzy...
16:19:26 <TallTed> q+
16:19:35 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu:  I think the cannon is that URLs should always return a resource...
16:20:15 <Wip> ack TallTed
16:20:30 <ottomorac> TallTed: I think that having an analogous process might help....
16:21:03 <ottomorac> Tallted: When you are programming there is a memory location, you resolving the reference to the location, and then you get the resource in memory....
16:21:17 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/274
16:21:48 <ottomorac> Wip: Jeffrey is saying there is a statement in the spec that mentions proofs but is not clear....
16:22:05 <JoeAndrieu> q+
16:22:15 <ottomorac> Wip:  I wonder if they best way to handle this is just to remove this statement from the spec in section 7
16:22:16 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
16:22:30 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: Yes I think this statement is incorrect...
16:22:52 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: We don't have a standard way to put a proof in DID doc... so yes remove it...
16:23:19 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: the security model you have is to trust the resolver...
16:23:44 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: some of this will come out in the Threat Modelling section...
16:24:11 <ottomorac> Wip: Yes I think the best way is to just remove this statement....
16:24:13 <Wip> q?
16:24:17 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/277
16:24:41 <ottomorac> Wip: Raised by Joe about removing proxy resolvers, seems like we have some discussion on it...
16:25:05 <ottomorac> ... maybe you can tell us your perspective on it?
16:25:35 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu:  I think this mostly downstream of the Threat Modelling, when you have a proxy you then have these threats.....
16:26:19 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: I think the challenge is getting discussion framework so that speak on the same terms... the threat model should help us on that
16:26:22 <Wip> q?
16:26:48 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/283
16:27:40 <ottomorac> Wip: this is another one from Jeffrey, he is asking if the did documents extension should use W3C or IANA registry mechanism?
16:27:48 <JoeAndrieu> q+
16:27:52 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
16:28:30 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: Unfortunately we did just pass a resolution that we need a formal registry, but we havent addressed this work yet... we should have started on this some time ago
16:29:17 <ottomorac> Wip: I think we can communicate that back to Jeffrey, that we do intend to address it but we just haven't able to get to it...
16:29:33 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/284
16:30:08 <ottomorac> Wip: this is related to the language of DID parameters.... Jeffrey points to a few changes we should do....
16:30:58 <ottomorac> Wip: Also there is a sentence that I find confusing that I pointed out there in the issue...
16:31:30 <ottomorac> Wip: Do people agree we should do these changes?
16:31:36 <Wip> q?
16:31:57 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: I think there is a strange conflation here...
16:32:22 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: related to the oppacity of URLs, it changes if you know how to construct a URL
16:32:40 <TallTed> q+
16:33:21 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: we dont have a good way to manage this complexity
16:33:25 <Wip> ack TallTed
16:33:40 <ottomorac> TallTed: Yes I think you are going in the right direction...
16:33:52 <ottomorac> TallTed: When you are server-side you know what all parameters mean...
16:34:12 <ottomorac> TallTed: however when you provide this to someone outside the organization they may not know the meaning of these params...
16:34:33 <ottomorac> TallTed: versionID and versionTime may not mean the same....
16:34:49 <ottomorac> TallTed: This is why they should be treated as oppaque
16:35:40 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say this is the same Q as resolution/dereferencing
16:36:26 <Wip> act JoeAndrieu
16:36:27 <ottomorac> TallTed: The entity that is serving the DID and DID doc they can do whatever they like, but the person that is resolving and de-referencing....
16:36:35 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
16:36:35 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say this is the same Q as resolution/dereferencing
16:36:41 <ottomorac> ... that is just the nature of the problem
16:37:19 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: I think there are parts that cannot be resolved, but we can still have better language
16:37:36 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: please assign this issue to me
16:37:40 <Wip> zakim, next agendum
16:37:40 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Avoid Duplicate Terms \[3\] (5 min) -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:37:51 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/285
16:38:06 <ottomorac> Wip: this is about avoiding duplicate terms...
16:38:14 <Wip> scribe+
16:38:48 <Wip> ottomorac: This addresses issue #232. Some changes were first required in DID core.
16:38:56 <Wip> ... This PR removes all duplicate terms from DID resolution
16:39:06 <Wip> ... The only terms I have not removed are resource and representation
16:39:12 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #did
16:39:28 <Wip> ... I saw two comments, one from Will related to DID service endpoints
16:39:47 <Wip> ... Another suggestion from Ted, which I adopted to use captials for DID
16:39:59 <Wip> scribe-
16:41:06 <ottomorac> Wip: I think its fine, it would be better to perhaps have a more generic way of referencing to just "service endpoint", instead "DID Service Endpoint"
16:41:11 <Wip> q?
16:41:30 <Wip> zakim, next agendum
16:41:30 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- DID Path PR \[4\] (15 min) -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:41:38 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/260
16:41:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/29-did-minutes.html TallTed
16:42:05 <ottomorac> Swcurran: I summarized it on my comment there...
16:42:41 <ottomorac> Swcurran: now after some conversations I have decided to move it merge it with the previous section #8
16:43:24 <ottomorac> Swcurran: Now this hopefully matches the way the algorithm says
16:43:57 <ottomorac> Swcurran: I think this should be in good shape, just wondering what happens to the JSON LD context with the introduction of "base path"?
16:44:20 <ottomorac> Swcurran: Would appreciate if folks can read through the change
16:45:30 <ottomorac> Swcurran: I need some help to clarify that part about JSON LD, I am not very familiar with that
16:46:12 <ottomorac> Wip: yeah perhaps we need to check with Manu or Ivan on this...
16:46:32 <ottomorac> Wip: Yeah would appreciate reviews, also did you check with Markus?
16:47:05 <ottomorac> Swcurran: Yes I did talk to him, he doesn't like that some of this can be done with serviceType and relativeRef already
16:47:18 <ottomorac> Swcurran: He doesn't like that we have 2 ways of doing that
16:47:36 <dmitriz> +1 stephen
16:47:43 <ottomorac> Swcurran: I think however this might be a better way
16:48:10 <Wip> q?
16:48:17 <ottomorac> Swcurran: I think most implementers will choose this DID path way of doing it...
16:48:21 <Wip> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/150
16:49:13 <ottomorac> Wip: This issue raised by Joe, I wonder what is your perspective about this in relation to the DID Path changes from Stephen?
16:49:30 <Wip> q?
16:49:57 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: I think some of the changes from Stephen are addressing this...
16:50:18 <Wip> q+
16:50:20 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: we are moving towards a canonical way of solving it....
16:50:33 <Wip> ack Wip
16:50:47 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: did-core and did-resolution would offer this canonical way now....
16:51:10 <swcurran> q+
16:51:11 <ottomorac> Wip: yes agree since the specs would mandate this...
16:51:14 <Wip> ack swcurran
16:51:37 <ottomorac> Swcurran: I think did methods don't have to change, but did resolvers should probably change....
16:51:56 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to clarify that pretty much all DID methods have implemented some form of resolution
16:52:04 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
16:52:04 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to clarify that pretty much all DID methods have implemented some form of resolution
16:52:41 <swcurran> +1 to Joe
16:52:42 <Wip> q+
16:52:42 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: Every did method that is implemented in software, then they have implemented resolution....
16:52:50 <Wip> ack Wip
16:53:23 <ottomorac> Wip: I think 90% of did methods out there will need to update their resolve interface...
16:53:31 <dmitriz> I mean, if nobody else implements resolution, it's the _spec_ that's gonna need to change :)
16:53:43 <Wip> q?
16:53:54 <Wip> zakim, next agendum
16:53:54 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- Next time (5 min) -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:54:29 <ottomorac> Wip: Yes please note that next tuesday that we will be in the security interest group, talking to Simone about did resolution...
16:54:47 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to mention diagram and initial threats
16:54:51 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
16:54:51 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention diagram and initial threats
16:55:06 <ottomorac> Wip: we want Simone to be familiar so that they can do an initial analysis without having a full threat model done...
16:55:15 <Wip> This is the meeting calendar item - https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/6bd81029-7023-4e06-9a9f-86172ef351cb/20260203T160000/
16:55:26 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: I hope to be there
16:55:53 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: I will try to show some ideas around a diagram for this....
16:56:13 <ottomorac> JoeAndrieu: but we would also like to start the threat model discussion
16:56:46 <ottomorac> Wip: it would be great if we can also discuss this in the call next Thursday hopefully
16:57:23 <ottomorac> Wip: please if you are available join that meeting
16:57:38 <ottomorac> Wip: thanks all!
16:57:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/29-did-minutes.html TallTed
16:58:28 <Wip> m2gbot, link issues with transcript
16:58:53 <Wip> rrsagent, make minutes
16:58:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/29-did-minutes.html Wip
18:28:35 <ottomorac> ottomorac has joined #did
18:29:24 <ottomorac> ottomorac has left #did
20:59:46 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #did