15:53:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
15:53:27 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/02/19-did-irc
15:53:29 <ottomorac> rrsagent, make logs public
15:53:43 <ottomorac> Meeting: Decentralized Identifier Working Group
15:53:43 <ottomorac> Chair: ottomorac
15:53:44 <ottomorac> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2026Feb/0009.html
15:53:44 <agendabot> clear agenda
15:53:44 <agendabot> agenda+ Agenda Review, Introductions (5 min)
15:53:44 <agendabot> agenda+ Inconsistent use of resolution \[1\] (10 min)
15:53:44 <agendabot> agenda+ Should the spec address the non-handling of DID URL query parameters? \[2\] (10 min)
15:53:45 <agendabot> agenda+ DID Resolution Ready for PR - Updates on assigned issues \[3\] (15 min)
15:53:47 <agendabot> agenda+ DID Resolution Threat Modelling Update \[4\] (5 min)
15:53:50 <agendabot> agenda+ DID Path PR - Final Call \[5\] (5 min)
15:53:56 <ottomorac> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/02/12-did-minutes.html
15:54:00 <ottomorac> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-did-minutes.html
15:57:23 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #did
16:00:35 <TallTed> present+
16:00:39 <ottomorac> present+
16:01:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/19-did-minutes.html TallTed
16:01:45 <pchampin> present+
16:01:54 <Wip> Wip has joined #did
16:01:58 <Wip> present+
16:02:56 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
16:03:56 <ottomorac> https://github.com/ottomorac/w3c-live-archiver
16:05:10 <Wip> scribe+
16:05:28 <ottomorac> zakim, next item
16:05:28 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Agenda Review, Introductions (5 min) -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:06:07 <pchampin> q+
16:06:16 <Wip> ottomorac: reviews agenda for today
16:06:35 <ottomorac> ack pchampin
16:06:45 <Wip> pchampin: Would like to talk about CR snapshot for DID 1.1
16:06:58 <ottomorac> Topic: CR snapshot for DID 1.1
16:07:01 <Wip> ... plan was to publish today, but this is not going to happen. There is a small blocker
16:07:10 <Wip> ottomorac: Okay lets start with that
16:07:36 <Wip> pchampin: something is missing from the CR snapshot. We are expected to describe in the CR document what the exit criteria are
16:07:50 <pchampin> https://www.w3.org/TR/2021/CR-did-core-20210615/#sotd
16:07:54 <Wip> ... Here is an example, for how DID 1.0 did this
16:08:10 <dmitriz> present+
16:08:18 <Wip> ... We need something similar in the CR snapshot. In the State of the document
16:08:30 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #did
16:09:11 <Wip> ... We should be careful about how we define/measure interop here across implementations
16:09:26 <Wip> ... We may also refer to DID resolution here
16:09:32 <ottomorac> q?
16:09:36 <manu> q+
16:09:40 <ottomorac> ack manu
16:09:52 <Wip> manu: Sure, we can add the text
16:10:01 <Wip> ... I thought we didnt have to becasue the new charter specifies this
16:10:13 <Wip> ... The language around what interop is, is tricky
16:10:20 <ivan> present+
16:10:26 <Wip> ... It is legit to presume folks will be picky
16:10:27 <JennieM> present+
16:10:37 <Wip> ... Not sre what language we can add to explain what we mean about interop
16:11:06 <Wip> ... In the formal objection round 1.0, was that what we meant by interop is that the feature expressed by a DID document is interperatable the same way no matter what DID method you use
16:11:21 <Wip> ... id always means id, verificationMethod always means verificationMethod
16:11:37 <Wip> ... To test this, feels difficult
16:12:09 <Wip> ... Happy to take a shot at what this text looks like, understanding that whatever we put in will be open for people to pick holes in
16:12:27 <ivan> q+
16:12:27 <Wip> ... Our test suite takes input documents for 1.0, updating them to 1.1 and demonstrating that nothing breaks
16:12:36 <Wip> ... Showing that we didnt make breaking changes
16:12:39 <ottomorac> q?
16:12:47 <Wip> ... Not sure if this will be okay for people who want to make FO
16:13:18 <pchampin> q+
16:13:36 <Wip> ... Not saying the concerns raised are not legitimate. We can write some texts, it may take weeks which will push back CR
16:13:55 <Wip> ottomorac: When you stay status of the document text, why would this take weeks?
16:14:02 <ottomorac> ack ivan
16:14:03 <Wip> manu: Challenge is defining what interop means
16:14:18 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say the charter defines exit criteria. we should look at that.
16:14:57 <Wip> ivan: wondering if it is possible to build up specific scenarios that has to go through seveal methods with similar results as a proof of interoperability
16:15:00 <manu> q+
16:15:11 <Wip> ... A way to check validity of DIDs across different methods
16:15:17 <ottomorac> ack pchampin
16:15:57 <Wip> pchampin: I believe what has changed, is now we have something to show for the objections that were recieved
16:16:05 <Wip> ... DID Resolution is on standards track
16:16:29 <Wip> ... I would say refering to DID Resolution is a good approach here.
16:16:37 <Wip> ... Probably want to avoid precise definition of interop
16:16:52 <Wip> ... Explain more explicitl that this spec is not covering everything, so niether is the test suite
16:16:55 <ottomorac> ack JoeAndrieu
16:16:55 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say the charter defines exit criteria. we should look at that.
16:16:56 <JoeAndrieu> from the charter: where interoperability can be verified by passing open test suites, and two or more implementations interoperating with each other. In order to advance to Proposed Recommendation, each normative specification must have an open test suite of every feature defined in the specification.
16:16:56 <JoeAndrieu> In order for DID Resolution to advance to Proposed Recommendation, it is expected that each of the independent implementations mentioned above support at least two DID methods which 1) have an open specifications (freely available specification, freely implementable), and 2) are implemented interoperably by more than one of the independent
16:16:56 <JoeAndrieu> implementations mentioned above. This means that there will exist at least two openly-specified DID methods that are each implemented by at least two independent implementations.
16:17:09 <Wip> JoeAndrieu: The charter does define a form of interop
16:17:22 <Wip> ... This was crafted in response to addressing the FO from a different era
16:17:42 <Wip> ... We should not spend to much time speculating about who might object
16:17:50 <Wip> ... It is a distraction
16:17:52 <ottomorac> q?
16:18:03 <Wip> ... +1 to point to DID Resolution
16:18:05 <ottomorac> ack manu
16:18:16 <Wip> manu: I can try to raise a PR that we can look at
16:18:21 <Wip> ... Will try to do that toda
16:18:31 <ottomorac> q?
16:18:32 <Wip> s/toda/today/
16:18:37 <pchampin> and I will be more reactive than last week, promise :)
16:18:47 <ottomorac> zakim, next item
16:18:47 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Inconsistent use of resolution \[1\] (10 min) -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:18:59 <Wip> manu: What is the new target publication date
16:19:04 <Wip> ... I need to redo the CR publication
16:19:16 <Wip> pchampin: I can regenerate the snapshot. That is also possible
16:19:23 <Wip> ...  Lets say two weeks
16:19:43 <ottomorac> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/226
16:19:48 <ottomorac> Inconsistent use of resolution:
16:19:54 <ottomorac> This is one of the last couple of TAG issues that needs a PR raised against it, which is critical so that we can get to CR.Joe have you had a chance to review or is there any way we can help?
16:20:05 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to mention this will follow getting the narrative for the threat model
16:20:27 <Wip> ottomorac: wondering what we can do to prioritize this issue prior to threat model
16:20:30 <ottomorac> ack JoeAndrieu
16:20:30 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention this will follow getting the narrative for the threat model
16:20:48 <Wip> JoeAndrieu: Apologies that it is bottlenecked behind the threat model stuff
16:21:05 <Wip> ... I am learning based on the diagrams, we dont have a coherent way to talk about all the diagrams
16:21:25 <Wip> ... Creating diagrams for different architectures, e.g. did:key, did:btcr2
16:21:42 <Wip> ... Making sure we have consistent language across the different architectures
16:21:53 <Wip> ... This will teach me the right way to talk about it
16:22:25 <Wip> ... I dont need to get all the way to finished for the diagram, I just need a first draft
16:22:34 <ottomorac> q?
16:22:43 <Wip> ... Aiming for 2-4 weeks before we have spec text that we can share with TAG to see if it addresses their concerns
16:22:50 <ottomorac> zakim, next item
16:22:50 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Should the spec address the non-handling of DID URL query parameters? \[2\] (10 min) -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:23:04 <ottomorac> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/279
16:23:16 <ottomorac> Should the spec address the non-handling of DID URL query parameters?
16:23:16 <ottomorac> Issue raised by Stephen, related to the following: If during DID URL Dereferencing some parameters are not processed, should the caller be notified and if so, how?Markus had indicated that perhaps an error code could be returned, and then some additional discussion took place.
16:23:55 <Wip> q+
16:23:59 <ottomorac> ack Wip
16:24:11 <ottomorac> scribe+
16:24:53 <ottomorac> Wip: We are currently returning an error in the spec, based on my understanding we don't want to error if the DID resolver does not understand some parameters, but we might want to generate a warning
16:24:55 <manu> q+
16:25:00 <JoeAndrieu> q?
16:25:05 <ottomorac> but warnings are not implemented
16:25:10 <ottomorac> q?
16:25:50 <ottomorac> q?
16:25:59 <dmitriz> q+
16:26:06 <ottomorac> ack manu
16:26:12 <manu> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vcalm/
16:26:25 <Wip> manu: In VCALM spec, there is a verification errors and warnings section
16:26:49 <Wip> ... This allows it to return an object, and errors and warnings as two separate arrays
16:27:04 <Wip> ... I think we should follow the approach in the VCALM spec if we are wanting to add warnings
16:27:06 <JoeAndrieu> q+ for warnings over errors
16:27:09 <ottomorac> q?
16:27:37 <Wip> ... Lets make a decision and move forwards. Can always address it in a future version
16:27:42 <Wip> ... We are in a time crunch here
16:27:48 <ottomorac> ack dmitriz
16:27:50 <Wip> ... One option is not to mention it in this version
16:28:00 <Wip> dmitriz: I do think a warning capability is very important
16:28:18 <Wip> ... The version parameter is a really good example
16:28:42 <Wip> ... I would advocate that reserved parameters, such as versionTime, we should specifically highlight when they should return an error
16:28:51 <ottomorac> q?
16:28:53 <Wip> q+
16:28:57 <ottomorac> ack JoeAndrieu
16:28:57 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to discuss warnings over errors
16:29:39 <ottomorac> scribe+
16:29:39 <Wip> JoeAndrieu: I think versionId is different. E.g. if versionId is on a did:key URL, the client should still get a did document
16:29:43 <ottomorac> ack Wip
16:29:45 <Wip> ... +1 for warnings
16:30:20 <ottomorac> Wip: I think this reminds me that this may not be as relevant, because DID methods can be more strict, for example did:webvh has a strict mode....
16:30:36 <ottomorac> Wip: This would restrict resolvers and could also use the versionID for that
16:30:48 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to put the burden on the DID method explicitly
16:31:00 <ottomorac> Maybe a warning will solve this too
16:31:05 <ottomorac> ack JoeAndrieu
16:31:05 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to put the burden on the DID method explicitly
16:31:37 <Wip> JoeAndrieu: I agree, lets put the burden on the DID methods. We should make it clear to people that DID methods may add additional constraints
16:31:45 <ottomorac> q?
16:31:48 <Wip> q+
16:31:55 <ottomorac> ack Wip
16:32:19 <ottomorac> Wip:  What should we do then?  Sounds like we do want warnings, but do we have time to get it in for this version of the spec?
16:32:24 <dmitriz> I think warnings for next version would be good.
16:32:44 <ottomorac> Wip: at least this text from Joe that some did methods may be more restrictive makes sense
16:32:51 <ottomorac> q?
16:33:00 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #did
16:33:00 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
16:33:00 <Wip> Wip has joined #did
16:33:00 <rhiaro> rhiaro has joined #did
16:33:43 <ottomorac> q?
16:34:26 <ottomorac> q?
16:34:39 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #did
16:34:39 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did
16:34:39 <Wip> Wip has joined #did
16:34:39 <rhiaro> rhiaro has joined #did
16:34:53 <ottomorac> q?
16:35:10 <manu> q+
16:35:15 <ottomorac> ack manu
16:35:27 <Wip> dmitriz: The key question is this version or next
16:35:53 <Wip> manu: Lets say its next version. We do intend to add warnings, it may having in CR phase. We can add a feature warning to the spec
16:36:08 <Wip> ... If we dont make it we can leave a note that we intend to add warnings in the future
16:36:30 <Wip> ... We would have to state it before CR, that we intend to add a feature during CR
16:36:34 <ottomorac> q?
16:36:45 <ottomorac> zakim, next item
16:36:45 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- DID Resolution Ready for PR - Updates on assigned issues \[3\] (15 min) -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:36:50 <ottomorac> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3A%22ready%20for%20pr%22
16:37:07 <ottomorac> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/275
16:37:08 <Wip> ottomorac: A few issues I want to subtopic
16:37:34 <ottomorac> 275:  - Per my note on Issue 275 https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/275#issuecomment-3923329690 I think we should just close the issue as a "won't do", or if we do want to do it, I need to be unassigned as I lack the expertise to do it.  I don't see how to easily map what we are doing with RFC 3986 to WhatWG URL.
16:37:38 <Wip> ottomorac: Stephen shared the above note with me
16:37:58 <Wip> ... He thinks we should close this issue as a wont do. Or if we do want to do it, he should be unassigned
16:38:03 <Wip> ... Thoughts?
16:38:19 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to mention VCDM synchrony
16:38:28 <ottomorac> ack JoeAndrieu
16:38:28 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention VCDM synchrony
16:38:28 <Wip> ... markus also raised a similar comment on the confusion with the WhatWG URL spec
16:38:57 <manu> q+
16:38:57 <Wip> JoeAndrieu: My biggest challenge is not 3986 vs WhatWG. Rather it is alignment with the Controlled IDentifier spec and the VCDM
16:39:13 <Wip> ... We have this alignment issue. Recognising the confusion of WhatWG
16:39:19 <Wip> ... It is hard to find the syntax
16:39:37 <ottomorac> q?
16:39:37 <Wip> ... Curious if people where on the call when the VCDM chose to use WHatWG
16:39:40 <pchampin> q+
16:39:41 <ottomorac> ack manu
16:39:46 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #did
16:39:59 <Wip> manu: I was involved in VCDM. This is not impossible. It just takes a lot of work
16:40:05 <ivan> q+
16:40:06 <bigbluehat> present+
16:40:15 <Wip> ... 3986 is not how a vast portion of web servers resolve URLs. It is outdated
16:40:32 <Wip> ... WhatWG spec properly defines URL processing
16:40:43 <Wip> ... Would expect people in the TAG to raise objections
16:40:58 <ottomorac> q?
16:41:02 <Wip> ... People are going to use libraries to handle this. Libraries are going to implement WhatWG
16:41:05 <ottomorac> ack pchampin
16:41:08 <Wip> ... I would volunteer but dont have the cycles
16:41:48 <Wip> pchampin: Just wanted to comment on JoeAndrieu. Not everyone is migrating. RDF and Sparkle group are sticking to 3986, but this group is less concerned with resolving and dereferencing
16:42:12 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to mention CID is WHATWG
16:42:26 <ottomorac> ack ivan
16:42:28 <Wip> ... To manu's point we are in the process of horizontal review for sparkle rdf work. The TAG did not comment on the use of 3986
16:42:44 <Wip> ivan: Want to remphasise something manu said
16:43:03 <Wip> ... It is not only the browsers, but all off the shelf libraries to do URL and URL parsing are using WhatWG
16:43:36 <ottomorac> q?
16:43:39 <Wip> ... If we are very strict on implementers, they would have to reimplement a URL library to follow 3986. This is crazy. WhatWG is the reality
16:43:46 <ottomorac> ack JoeAndrieu
16:43:46 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention CID is WHATWG
16:43:58 <Wip> JoeAndrieu: Pulled up the CID spec, which uses WHATWG definition
16:44:27 <Wip> ... DIDs depend on CIDs. CIDs use WhatWG. So we need to figure out nhow to be consistent
16:44:35 <Wip> ... We can state it as an issue and hope someone gets to it
16:44:46 <Wip> ... This is work we should do, we want to do it, just need to find someone to do it if we ca
16:45:18 <Wip> ottomorac: I see 10 occurances of 3986 in the spec. We just need to find equivalent in WhatWG. Tempted to take this
16:45:25 <Wip> ... Doesn't seem horrible
16:45:40 <Wip> JoeAndrieu: Challenge is mapping the language between the specs
16:45:55 <Wip> ottomorac: Okay I will take it
16:46:25 <Wip> JoeAndrieu: I think we should have a resolution for this switch
16:47:13 <ottomorac> PROPOSAL: Update to the WHATWG URL specification from RFC3986 in the DID Resolution specification.
16:47:19 <manu> +1
16:47:22 <JoeAndrieu> +1
16:47:25 <Wip> +1
16:47:27 <JennieM> +1
16:47:32 <ivan> +1
16:47:34 <pchampin> +1
16:47:34 <dmitriz> +1
16:47:45 <TallTed> +1
16:47:51 <ottomorac> RESOLVED: Update to the WHATWG URL specification from RFC3986 in the DID Resolution specification
16:48:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/19-did-minutes.html TallTed
16:48:19 <Wip> JoeAndrieu: This will come back around to the DID work later
16:48:47 <Wip> manu: I think the DID spec already uses WHATWG
16:49:00 <Wip> ... Actually no, nevermind
16:49:34 <Wip> TallTed: Can we push on the WhatWG to do an ABNF
16:49:40 <Wip> manu: Not going to happen, we have tried
16:50:08 <ottomorac> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/173
16:50:24 <ottomorac> need some language about implementing https within private IP range #173
16:50:51 <Wip> q+
16:51:02 <ottomorac> ack Wip
16:51:02 <Wip> TallTed: Not made progress yet
16:51:37 <JoeAndrieu> +1 to labelling as editorial
16:51:47 <pchampin> from what I see, DID 1.1 is referencing WHATWG URLs for service ids and endpoints; the rest is RFC3986 🤔
16:52:30 <ottomorac> zakim, next item
16:52:30 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- DID Resolution Threat Modelling Update \[4\] (5 min) -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:52:35 <ottomorac> zakim, next item
16:52:35 <Zakim> agendum 5 was just opened, ottomorac
16:52:49 <ottomorac> Topic: DID Path PR - Final Call
16:52:52 <ottomorac> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/260
16:52:54 <Wip> ottomorac: Okay lets move to DID Path PR
16:53:08 <JoeAndrieu> q+
16:53:15 <Wip> dmitriz: Want to get a sense of what Joes objections are
16:53:16 <ottomorac> ack JoeAndrieu
16:53:38 <Wip> JoeAndrieu: So one thing, Stephen and I are going to get on a phone and walk through our differences
16:53:51 <Wip> ... I was confused by a redefinition of relativeRef
16:54:23 <Wip> dmitriz: I think Stephens comments where that we are using relativeRef as it is defined
16:54:33 <Wip> ... No change has been made or redefined
16:54:50 <Wip> ... The change is to point out how it interacts with the PathService mechanism
16:55:09 <Wip> ... This is also what we need WHATWG because it allows you to do combination
16:55:19 <Wip> q+
16:55:28 <Wip> dmitriz: good that you two are going to chat
16:55:41 <Wip> JoeAndrieu: Agreed, we can work through our issues
16:55:45 <ottomorac> ack Wip
16:55:57 <Wip> ... hoping this is just miscommunication
16:56:52 <manu> q+
16:56:56 <ottomorac> q?
16:57:26 <ottomorac> ack manu
16:57:46 <Wip> manu: concerned there is a point where Stephen passes on this
16:58:00 <Wip> ... Want an agreement on new language here, or to put an issue marker
16:58:06 <Wip> ... This has been outstanding for a very long time
16:58:25 <Wip> ... JoeAndrieu can we say if there is not a resolution on these things, we will convert them to issues and merge them
16:59:03 <Wip> JoeAndrieu: I am opposed to merging this PR. Stephen and I have honest confusion to clear up
16:59:08 <Wip> ... Hoping we can work through it
16:59:14 <Wip> ottomorac: Thanks all
17:03:04 <ottomorac> rrsagent, make minutes
17:03:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/19-did-minutes.html ottomorac
17:04:11 <ottomorac> m2gbot, link issues with transcript
17:04:12 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/279#issuecomment-3928566958
17:04:13 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/275#issuecomment-3928567061
17:04:14 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/173#issuecomment-3928567130
17:04:14 <m2gbot> comment already there: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/173#issuecomment-3928567130
17:04:16 <m2gbot> comment created: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/260#issuecomment-3928567348
17:04:38 <ottomorac> zakim, end the meeting
17:04:38 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been TallTed, ottomorac, pchampin, Wip, dmitriz, ivan, JennieM, bigbluehat
17:04:40 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:04:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/19-did-minutes.html Zakim
17:04:48 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ottomorac; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:04:48 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did
17:04:57 <ottomorac> RRSAgent, please excuse us
17:04:57 <RRSAgent> I see no action items