14:55:29 RRSAgent has joined #did 14:55:34 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/04/02-did-irc 14:55:42 rrsagent, make logs public 14:55:46 Meeting: Decentralized Identifier Working Group 14:55:50 Chair: ottomorac 14:55:57 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2026Mar/0037.html 14:55:57 clear agenda 14:55:57 agenda+ Agenda Review, Introductions (5 min) 14:55:57 agenda+ Reminder of Special Topic call for 8th Apr \[1\] (5 min) 14:55:57 agenda+ DID Path PR \[2\] (15 min) 14:55:57 agenda+ DID URL Dereferencing PR \[3\] (20 min) 14:56:00 agenda+ DID Resolution Threat Modelling Update \[4\] (10 min) 14:56:10 previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/03/26-did-minutes.html 14:56:14 next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/04/09-did-minutes.html 14:59:05 TallTed has joined #did 15:00:58 JoeAndrieu has joined #did 15:01:26 swcurran has joined #did 15:01:30 present+ 15:02:15 present+ 15:02:15 Wip has joined #did 15:02:21 present+ 15:02:34 present+ 15:03:31 present+ 15:03:37 present+ 15:03:37 present+ Grace Rachmany 15:03:37 present+ Joe Andrieu 15:03:37 present+ Manu Sporny 15:04:42 zakim, next item 15:04:42 agendum 1 -- Agenda Review, Introductions (5 min) -- taken up [from agendabot] 15:04:51 transcriber-bot, resume 15:04:51 scribe+ 15:04:54 Otto Mora: I assume... 15:05:09 ... Okay, so today, uh, we have just a possibility we're discussing a special topic called on the 8th. That we are, um 15:05:18 ... planning for, based on that discussion that we have today. Then we have a conversation around the deep path PR 15:05:24 ... Which, uh, it has had a few updates, and I believe I saw a new PR from, uh, Steven 15:05:32 s/deep path/DID path/ 15:05:33 ... Uh, and then we have an updated PR on the dereferencing changes suggested by Joe that we can talk about 15:05:36 q+ 15:05:39 ... And then we can just have a little brief update on the status of the threat modeling 15:05:46 ack Wip 15:05:47 ... But, uh, beyond that, does anybody else have any points that they want to mention before… oh, yeah, we'll 15:05:54 Will Abramson: Yeah, I just wanted to mention about the special topic call. Like, I think we will be having a special topic call, right? We're not sure about the... 15:05:57 q+ 15:06:03 ... topic of the special topic call, I think we will decide that based on how the conversation today goes. But we definitely need more time, it feels like, so 15:06:06 ack Manu 15:06:09 Otto Mora: Yes. Uh, okay, and I see Manu?... 15:06:18 Manu Sporny: Yeah, a plus one to that, and I think we may want even more calls. I mean, we're in the final stretch, like, you know, a couple of weeks left, so, um... 15:06:30 ... this is usually death march territory, right? Put everyone on a death march until the spec is done. Um, so… I would not be opposed to 15:06:33 +1 15:06:43 Otto Mora: Mhm... 15:06:43 ack swcurran 15:06:43 ... And, uh, Steven 15:06:51 Stephen Curran: I just did a plus one, I just agreed. That's all... 15:07:10 Otto Mora: Oh, sorry, okay, I thought it was… never mind, I thought it was a Q+. Okay, I also want to welcome today, uh, I see you there, Grace, uh, Grace Rakmani, Executive Director of the Decentralized Identity Foundation. Welcome to the meeting, thank you for… For joining, uh, good to have you here... 15:07:15 Grace Rachmany: Yeah, thanks. I didn't have enough working group meetings on my calendar, so I thought I would just, uh, sit in... 15:07:22 Otto Mora: Yes, I sometimes think the same... 15:07:30 ... worry about how many identity-related meetings versus actual work meetings I have myself. Uh, okay 15:07:33 zakim, next item 15:07:33 agendum 2 -- Reminder of Special Topic call for 8th Apr \[1\] (5 min) -- taken up [from agendabot] 15:07:41 ... So, welcome. Um, yeah. So, on this, uh, next, uh, topic, I think we just said, right, we will have a special topic on the 8th, uh 15:07:46 JennieM has joined #did 15:07:48 ... It will be at the usual time, uh, same time as this meeting, and 15:07:52 present+ 15:07:56 ... And, uh, the topics to be determined based on the conversation here. The only, uh, caveat, I guess I would say is that those special topicals use the Google Meet 15:08:03 ... Uh, so just a heads up on that, but anything else to add there, Will, regarding that special topic that we have on the calendar? 15:08:11 Will Abramson: Uh, I guess just to say, you know, I think I'm… I'm up for more calls, too. I guess we'll… like, people should just expect... 15:08:20 ... We will be using this special topic called time to have calls throughout this month, right, from the 8th onwards, until we don't. Need them anymore. Um 15:08:21 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm... 15:08:23 Will Abramson: So, yeah. And that's great... 15:08:24 q+ 15:08:29 ack manu 15:08:32 Otto Mora: Okay. Correct. Uh, yes, madam... 15:08:39 Manu Sporny: And apologies if I'm stomping on the agenda, but I'm wondering if we can get into a mode where we basically say... 15:08:45 ... We are going to publish the spec that we have right now. That is just going to be our default plan 15:08:57 ... Uh, and what we're really hoping to do is merge all these other PRs in, but if we don't, we would much rather, you know, have a spec out there in CR than… Not. Um 15:09:03 ... And then I'm sure we'll, you know, work through the PRs as, as we, as we can 15:09:10 ... And we can always, in the spec note, hey, there are PRs in flight, there are issues in flight, implementers must pay attention to those 15:09:20 ... take those into consideration, um, you know, as you're implementing 4CR, and that allows us to just warn the implementation community that we may have some 15:09:25 ... adjustments to implementations, um, while, you know, entering CR 15:09:28 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm... 15:09:30 q? 15:09:32 ... Thank you 15:09:36 q+ 15:09:38 ... Ah… So 15:09:40 ack Wip 15:09:43 ... Uh, yes, Will 15:09:52 Will Abramson: Yeah, I guess, I mean, I think that's not a bad suggestion. I don't know what would be needed for it, like, is there anyone opposed to going down that route? Like... 15:09:56 ... I know there's some… still some contention on the URL dereferencing section 15:10:02 Not a fan of that idea. 15:10:05 ... Um, like, what are we expecting, Manu, to be the outcome of that? Like, do you want us to pass a proposal? Like, are we just sort of sensing from the group that 15:10:07 q+ 15:10:08 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:10:10 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/04/02-did-minutes.html pchampin 15:10:17 ... that we're okay with this package. That's even 15:10:17 ack manu 15:10:17 Otto Mora: Yes, madam?... 15:10:24 Manu Sporny: Um, the… the outcome would be us preparing a first public working dra… or sorry, not first… a candidate recommendation static snapshot... 15:10:29 ... And then… saying that is going to be the thing that we… we, uh, publish 15:10:35 ... Um, unless we merge some of these other PRs and get it in there. Um 15:10:45 ... I… I understand… I'm not… I'm not a fan of this approach either, uh, just to be clear, um, but I think our back's against the wall at this point, and we need to publish something 15:10:50 ... Um, uh, I don't, you know, and if we don't have agreement 15:10:56 ... on these PRs, by the time we go into CR, then that's just where we are, right? 15:11:03 ... Um, versus not having anything in candidate rec. You know, again, that would be a very bad look on the 15:11:09 q+ 15:11:10 ... Um, on the, uh, on the working group, uh, when we ask for, uh, you know, a charter extension 15:11:15 ack JoeAndrieu 15:11:19 Otto Mora: Uh, yes, I see Joe has his hand up, Joe... 15:11:26 Joe Andrieu: Yeah, I just… I just want to ask Amanda, what was the timing that you were proposing to this, in terms of when you want to see a... 15:11:26 Otto Mora: Like, the cutoff... 15:11:29 Joe Andrieu: Uh… lockdown for CR?... 15:11:42 Manu Sporny: Uh, the, and a, I mean, within, within the week, um, not a lockdown for CR, just a, we have something ready to go versus we have something ready to go... 15:11:49 ... And as we merge PRs, we will update that something, but we have something ready to go. Right? Um 15:11:54 ... If that makes sense. Like, we cut a static snapshot of the candidate rec 15:12:04 ... and we've got it ready to go, so that we can give a heads up to, like, W3C management, like, hey, we're getting ready to, you know, publish a CR, you know, get ready 15:12:10 q+ to say we should decide about my PR before that, one way or another. It isn't amenable to an "at risk" tag 15:12:11 ... Um, and then we work as hard as we can over the next couple of weeks to get these PRs into that static snapshot 15:12:23 ack JoeAndrieu 15:12:23 JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say we should decide about my PR before that, one way or another. It isn't amenable to an "at risk" tag 15:12:24 ... Um, but if we don't, then we don't, right? But we'll still have a warning in that static snapshot that, like, hey, there's still PRs in flight, there's still issues that we are going to address and see our implementers, you know. Uh, beware 15:12:29 Otto Mora: Uh, Joe?... 15:12:36 Joe Andrieu: Yeah, if that's the case, then I think we should resolve one way or the other about whether or not we're gonna go with the PR that I've presented... 15:12:41 KevinDean has joined #did 15:12:43 ... Uh, because I think that is too much of an edit to be an at-risk marker. Um, I don't think that would work 15:12:44 present+ 15:12:46 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm... 15:12:51 ... I think both changes are pretty substantial, just to say myself 15:12:59 ... let's try to just work through this meeting and get that done, I would agree with that. And then we can 15:13:09 ... Yeah, maybe the rest of the changes aren't as substantial, right, Will? I think it… Just the size of the… Of the change 15:13:16 ... Okay, well, uh, let's just move on. I think we hear Humano and 15:13:16 zakim, next item 15:13:16 agendum 3 -- DID Path PR \[2\] (15 min) -- taken up [from agendabot] 15:13:34 https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/316 15:13:20 ... Yes, let's do our best to just get this done. Um 15:13:28 ... Okay, so on this Did PathPR, I wanted to give the floor to Steven 15:13:33 ... Um, I will note that there is a new PR, which is, uh 15:13:36 ... Not 260, it's 316 now, right? 15:13:39 Stephen Curran: Yeah, it's 316 now... 15:13:39 ... Um 15:13:42 Otto Mora: Okay... 15:13:48 Stephen Curran: The attempt at resolving the conflict was a disaster... 15:13:54 ... Um, so I just had nothing that I could go forward with with that. So, um 15:14:02 ... took the content, um, missed one little piece that Will pointed at this morning that I corrected this morning 15:14:04 ... So, it's there. Um 15:14:10 ... There are only 4… blocks of changes 15:14:15 ... Um… and those are listed in the comments. Um 15:14:26 ... It looks like, from Will's comment, I also missed… in… recall, in the previous iteration that I worked on. I opened 15:14:36 ... Try to make a wider tint of the object types, so not limited to service types, is, um… Joe, uh, had objected to 15:14:43 ... Um, the idea that only service types could reference other resources, um, and so expanded 15:14:49 ... that looks like I missed one spot. I think that's what Will's saying in his last comment 15:14:56 ... Um, but other than that, the sequence… the algorithm sequence is the same as before 15:15:01 ... And, um, includes, you know, the handling of when you have 15:15:07 ... Service, and or service type, and or relative rep, and or a patent 15:15:12 ... And just walks through the steps you take to 15:15:16 ... Process, and come up with a result 15:15:24 ... Um, so, as I say, I think everything's there, um, and it's… Pretty much what was, um 15:15:42 ... What was, uh, there before, uh, just with 15:15:42 ... Uh, the cleanup done. So that's that. Questions? 15:15:42 Otto Mora: Does it need one... 15:15:42 ... Final adjustment based on Will's comment, or it's now 15:15:50 Stephen Curran: Um, I think, Will, you just said it looks like there's a place where I say a list of service objects one more time, or is it more… more than that?... 15:15:53 Will Abramson: Uh… yeah, well, definitely that needs to be fixed. That's a mistake just in the current approach... 15:15:56 Stephen Curran: Yeah... 15:15:59 Will Abramson: Yeah, I guess... 15:16:07 ... I… I mean, I… my concern is that this PR and Joe's PR are just in huge conflict 15:16:08 Stephen Curran: Oh, absolutely. I... 15:16:10 Will Abramson: Um… uh... 15:16:17 q+ 15:16:19 ... I don't know what the… how we resolve that conflict, but… I mean, I've read both of them, right, and I've tried to understand 15:16:27 ... What is being proposed in terms of, like, how you… how you… each of you are proposing handling paths. And there are just some things in there that are just complete 15:16:36 ... completely different approaches. So, I would like to see us discuss those… I mean, I've highlighted 3 differences 15:16:45 ... like, maybe we can discuss them individually, and as a group, like, what do people think is the best approach, right? My concern is if we merge this 15:16:46 q+ 15:16:48 q+ 15:16:54 q- later 15:16:59 ... Fine, but what happens then, like, with 311, 316, or whatever one it is. Um… I don't know, um… Open to what people think, really 15:17:02 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm... 15:17:03 ack swcurran 15:17:10 ... Okay, so yeah, I see we got a few people, um… Steven? 15:17:20 Stephen Curran: So, in, in looking at the 2, I think, um, Jose, while, while the repositioning. of Joe's, um... 15:17:27 ... in Joe's PR is… is… is interesting and helpful, I think 15:17:35 ... The changing of the algorithm is inappropriate. I think the… there's a pretty radical change 15:17:40 ... I think it's flat out in places wrong. Um 15:17:50 ... Um, because of the, uh, sequential… if you see this, then this is what it is, and skip all the rest and go to the end, like, that just doesn't work 15:17:56 ... So, even if it's, um… you know, it has to be reworked 15:18:00 ... Um, I think it loses the existing even before my 15:18:10 ... It doesn't align with what was there before, let alone what… how I've extended it. So, I think that. I don't think it's 15:18:18 q+ 15:18:22 ... the comparison is necessary, because I think, um, that one needs to be reworked, even if, you know, even if we keep this reframing. of, um 15:18:26 ... The… the resolution and dereferencing. I call 15:18:29 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm... 15:18:33 ... Okay, and I see 15:18:39 ... Yeah, one thing, it's like, um… I feel, Joe 15:18:45 ... That it might also be worth socializing, like, uh, for everybody else that hasn't on the call 15:18:51 ... Or, like, your new PR has… it's more readable route, right? So it might be 15:18:58 ... Worth also spending some time on the call right now to highlight your changes, so that folks, maybe even screen sharing 15:19:00 ack JoeAndrieu 15:19:07 ... I don't know. So folks are aware, like, oh, this and this and this are the key changes there. Just my own personal… Yes, Shepard. Go ahead 15:19:13 Joe Andrieu: Okay, so I believe that's our next, uh, agenda item. It may have been easier if we had done that agenda item first, but... 15:19:23 ... Um, we're… we're here talking about this did path algorithm. Um, I… I agree with Steven that this… this really is incompatible with my PR 15:19:35 q+ 15:19:36 ... Um, and the, you know, the concern that it does not align with what was there before is because I disagree with what was there before. I do not believe we had an actual consensus around the notion of creating a separate standalone dereferencer 15:19:47 ... Precisely because that's not how dereferencing works. And so this PR includes some language explaining what dereferencing means, including the sort of normal computer science meaning 15:19:59 ... As well as what it means for a URL. Um, looking at this, so I have not, um, been able to process this deeply, because I've been paying attention to that and the threat model 15:20:08 ... Um, uh, but looking at some of the issues that Will has brought up, I do not believe that it is possible 15:20:12 ... For a did… for any URL to refer to multiple resources 15:20:19 ... Like, by definition, a URL points to a resource. That resource may be a compound resource 15:20:26 q? 15:20:28 ... But leaving the ambiguity up to the caller to say, where does this URL go? I think that's a non-starter. I think that's a huge mistake 15:20:39 ... Um, my… another concern I have is precedence, which I need to read through here and understand it. I do appreciate that Steven's trying… been trying to find a way that allows extensibility within the algorithm 15:20:44 ... Um, but I think there's a big change here from where it was before, which it looks like it's the did method 15:20:45 q- later 15:20:51 ... Uh, reads first, and I think the… if there is a service or service type parameter, that should read first 15:20:56 ... So there may be more nuance there for me to understand, but that's… that's my first blush on that 15:21:06 ... Um, and I also think we need to come up with a way, so even if, you know, to the extent we pursue this flexible path handling option, which I think we should figure out how to do 15:21:12 ... I just… I'm not sure that this is the right way to do it, given that I think we need to explain the rest of the algorithm differently 15:21:15 ... Um, I think we should introduce a path handling type 15:21:18 ... Because, um, unless 15:21:25 ... Um, uh, service endpoints specifically say, hey, I handle the path 15:21:34 ... Then, um, endpoints that handle the path that were not known at the time that the software was written will not be included in the algorithm 15:21:44 ... And so, we have this wonderful type feature in JSONLD, and we can specify a type, and it can be, you know, maybe path service is that type, but then we need an adjustment for that 15:21:49 ... So, you know, it could be path handlers of type, that's another way to deal with that. Um 15:21:54 ... Uh, and then the final thing is, I think these should not be service endpoints, because that 15:21:57 ... It prevents the use case where 15:22:02 ... Um, the URL is, in fact from, uh… uh 15:22:08 ... uh, like, an on-chain resource, and it's not reducible to, um, a URL 15:22:12 ... Um, so that's… that's my comments here 15:22:17 Otto Mora: Okay, so let me just try to suggest something, okay?... 15:22:22 ... Right now, let's just focus on the effects of the changes 15:22:27 ... So we'll… we're right now reviewing Steven's updated PR 15:22:36 ... We'll then change over and discuss Joe's PR in the next topic. And the discussion on what gets merged first 15:22:52 ... Like, let's push that to the end of the call. Just because I feel like we all need to be on the same page about the level of change and what each of them is attempting to do before we try to make that decision, and it might be a more informed decision. If we make that at the end of the call, as opposed to 15:22:56 q? 15:22:56 q+ to say that a URL refers *semantically* to a single resource. Something like "today's complaints" may redirect to `.../2026/03/15.foo` and `.../2026/04/15.foo` in March and April 15:22:59 ack manu 15:23:03 ... right now, like, just, you know, kind of based on what knowledge we have. Um, so, just my own suggestion here, um… And I see Manuel is next 15:23:12 Manu Sporny: Um, right, so, uh… High-level comment first. Um... 15:23:16 ... I think we have been through 15:23:26 ... uh, the PAT service PR multiple times now, and have whittled it down and down and down to… Um, to 15:23:33 ... Uh, be a better version of what the spec says, uh, today 15:23:50 ... Uh, I don't… I am not… so, Joe, I heard you say a bunch of things. I was trying to… some of what you said, I don't think is actually reflective of what the text actually says right now, so some of the things where you're like, it doesn't do this, or it doesn't do that. I don't, like 15:23:53 q+ to say the amount of time we've spent arguing a PR is not an argument for accepting it 15:24:00 ... I'm concerned that you're working with an old version of what the algorithm does. Um, I went through this 15:24:09 ... You know, with fine-tooth comb with Steven to see if that we're addressing, you know, everyone's concerns, including yours 15:24:17 ... I believe that we are, so I… at this point, I think the working group needs to hear the concrete 15:24:33 ... technical thing that, uh, this PR, uh, does not allow. Because the things I heard you say, the PR allows you to do those things, so I don't… I think there's a gap in understanding here 15:24:40 q- 15:24:49 ... Okay, so… so I want us to focus for the PAT service PR on, um, uh, does it actually, you know, prevent the things that, uh, I think, Joe, you're concerned that it prevents? I don't think it does anymore. I think we've addressed, you know, all of your concerns 15:24:58 ... Um, let's try to focus on that, rather than high-level philosophy about how the… how the spec should be structured. Okay, so that's high-level comment one 15:25:10 ... High-level comment, too, is I did read through Joe's PR. Um, I think philosophically there's good stuff there. I think we should do, kind of, the reframing 15:25:27 ... that Joe has done in his PR. I don't think that they are… work against each other. I think it's true in some kind of, you know, corner case, the things that I'm gonna call corner cases, they might work against each other, but I see them as largely compatible 15:25:32 ... Where we would get Steven's technically correct PR in 15:25:35 s/PAT service/path service 15:25:36 s/PAT service/path service 15:25:41 ... and then break it apart and rework it, um, in the way that, uh, high-level philosophically Joe has reworked 15:25:55 ... it, making sure that we don't break the algorithm, which I think, you know, I don't have an opinion on whether or not, Joe, your algorithm, you know, breaks things or not, but there are a number of things that I disagree with in that PR 15:26:06 ... Right? Um, uh, mostly around ordering and I think it's vague in some places, overly vague in some places in the same way that Stephen mentioned 15:26:11 ... Um, okay, so I… I want to understand what 15:26:16 q? 15:26:17 ... concretely, uh, this Steven's Path Service PR is going to… going to 15:26:23 ack Wip 15:26:29 Otto Mora: Okay, uh, let… we'll jump in here... 15:26:39 ... Well, you're on mute 15:26:47 Will Abramson: Yeah, sorry. Yeah, I wanted to speak to one thing that I maybe disagree with in Stephen's PR specifically... 15:26:50 s/… going to/ break 15:26:54 ... Which is around how it currently handles this service and service type processing 15:27:05 q+ 15:27:05 ... like, it feels like if I have a did URL, and in that did URL, there is explicitly a query parameter that says service equals X, or service type 15:27:10 ... equals Y, then we should be dereferencing that URL 15:27:18 ... As defined by the service type identified. And not including. Any other 15:27:24 ... Path handling objects that might be defined, but 15:27:31 ... it just feels weird to me, like, why would you construct a DID URL that explicitly targets a service type, and then also 15:27:35 ... include all these other approaches, so that's all I wanted to say 15:27:38 ack TallTed 15:27:38 TallTed, you wanted to say that a URL refers *semantically* to a single resource. Something like "today's complaints" may redirect to `.../2026/03/15.foo` and `.../2026/04/15.foo` 15:27:41 ... in March and April 15:27:43 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm. Okay, uh… Good... 15:27:46 TallTed // Ted (he/him) Thibodeau Jr (OpenLinkSw.com): Uh, this will be fairly quick, um... 15:27:52 ... Joe, I don't know if this is something that you said in the speed of addressing it now 15:27:56 ... Or if it's something that really you mean. Um 15:28:04 ... A URL may lead you to two different physical resources 15:28:09 ... when you dereference it. If it is written, for instance 15:28:13 ... to incorporate a date along the string. If the 15:28:22 ... date is today, which changes, it can lead to a different document tomorrow than it did today 15:28:27 ... Semantically, it's the same thing, because it's the stuff that's related to today, but 15:28:36 ... Literally, it refers to the first or the second's worth of information. That's all 15:28:39 q? 15:28:39 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm... 15:28:43 ... Um 15:28:46 ack JoeAndrieu 15:28:46 JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say the amount of time we've spent arguing a PR is not an argument for accepting it 15:28:48 ... Uh, yes, so, uh, we have Joe. Joe, go ahead 15:28:56 Joe Andrieu: Um, yeah, I agree with what you just said, Ted. Um, I didn't mean to say that the... 15:29:02 +1 to what Ted is saying -- you can have one URL that leads to multiple options. 15:29:04 no, that's wrong 15:29:06 q+ 15:29:07 ... resource returned is the same every time you evaluate and dereference a URL, but rather that one resource is returned. For any given dereferencing. Um 15:29:10 https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Reference/Status/300 15:29:19 ... I think that's just how it works. Uh, to Manu's comment, I'm actually… I don't… I'm really confused, because I did, in fact, outline very specific technical things that I don't believe this does 15:29:27 a resource is not returned; a representation of a state of the resource is returned 15:29:36 ... Um, and you just said you don't think I understand the spec, but, um, I think it should be service-as-service type first. I think there are precedence issues. Um, I don't think we should be returning multiple resources, and I think we should have some sort of path handling type that any path handling 15:29:39 s/of a state/of the state 15:29:42 q? 15:29:44 ... service endpoint can register, or any kind of endpoint. And finally, I think it needs to be able to handle something that's not a service 15:29:50 ... That may be in there, that part I'm not sure about, but the other things still seem to survive this conversation, so I'm… I'm 15:29:57 ... Confused about that. I also take issue with the idea that because a PR has been argued over for a long time 15:30:03 No one is saying that, Joe 15:30:06 ... that we should accelerate the adoption of that PR. The argument itself over this that has taken a long time should be an indicator that we're not there yet 15:30:14 ... And, secondly, this PR is brand new. It has not… this PR, with these changes, with these algorithms, with these nuances 15:30:19 ... is… is brand new, and I have not had the time to review it. And so 15:30:30 ... We need to take the time to understand this algorithm so we can tease out if I'm right or Manu's right about these concerns I have about does it support multiple resources, which I think is bad, does it have a bad precedent? 15:30:36 ... Um, does it miss these other opportunities, such as service endpoint… or non-service endpoint-based mechanisms? 15:30:52 ... Um, and then finally, Manu, if you have issues with my PR, please make comments on it. That's why we put it out there. I did attempt to respond to everyone's comment who commented on the first round of that. I welcome comments, I'm trying to incorporate those as quickly as possible 15:30:57 ... Which is why I have not been able to do a deep dive on what Stephen did this last week. That's my comments 15:31:02 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And just one more thing, so the concern around the link resources, that's... 15:31:05 ... Or do you still have that concern, Joe, or is that 15:31:13 ... Okay 15:31:16 Joe Andrieu: Um, I do still have that concern. I haven't read this, and I know that Steven was trying to find a way to make it extensible, and so I don't know if he has managed to cross that gap or not... 15:31:21 Otto Mora: Okay, so just one thing on that, it might be useful, like, um... 15:31:24 https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/260#issuecomment-4142187328 15:31:28 ... Alex from, uh, Checked did… I just put it in the Zoom, but I also put it here in the IRC 15:31:32 ... he did give us a feedback, and I think he was saying that, uh 15:31:36 ... The layering is sound because, um 15:31:39 "Reading the updated §6.4.1 algorithm, Step 8.1: "If the DID Method specifies its own path handling algorithm, use that algorithm, skipping the rest of these steps", is exactly the right design for DLR-implementing DID methods. They define their own path handling and bypass PathService entirely. This confirms the layering is sound." 15:31:40 ... Yeah, he posted this bit here, I'll just paste it 15:31:46 ... Um, yeah, you can see it there, right? 15:31:54 q? 15:32:00 ... it's kind of a layering thing that he said it was fine, so… just for that… for that particular… I mean, I don't know about the rest of your concerns, but just for that one particular part, I think he was fine 15:32:04 Joe Andrieu: Right, so we should clarify, did linked resources is not linked resources... 15:32:17 ... And linked resources doesn't use a service property, um, and it is able to deliver a resource that doesn't have an endpoint, doesn't have a URL that you return, which is required 15:32:20 ... Uh, property and services. So, I don't 15:32:28 ... It's great that Alex likes this, that helps. That was one of the three approaches to path handling that the community has been dealing with 15:32:33 ... Um, but I've been mostly speaking to defend the Sean Conway's work at IXO 15:32:35 ... Um, because I'm more familiar with it. I understand why they did what they did 15:32:36 q? 15:32:40 ack swcurran 15:32:43 Otto Mora: Okay. Perfect. Uh, Steven... 15:32:51 Stephen Curran: So much to respond to. Uh, Will, on your point on the service types and service, if you specify those in a URL, I'm happy to do that... 15:33:03 ... Um, I'm… I'm on the fence on that one, so I think that just we make a decision on eliminating everything except the specified service type 15:33:07 ... The multiple resource I originally had up until the last revision 15:33:22 ... had, um, did it be an error if multiple resources resulted? Um, Manu convinced me that it should be allowed so that you could store a resume on multiple places, and you could get it from multiple places, so that's a 15:33:28 ... an issue. Um, Joe, service type and service are the first thing processed 15:33:43 ... The only thing in front of it is a did method specific allowing for on-chain resources to be resolved, so both of those things that you. Mentioned there are taken into account. Um 15:33:51 ... There are other services included, or other objects included, it's not just services. Um 15:34:05 ... and the required property on a service being a URL, it could be a did URL, and that is… is a reasonable endpoint. which is… and exactly what I've used 15:34:10 ... Um, or… or consider to be used, so that when you then 15:34:16 ... resolve it, it is the first thing you hit, which is, is if the did method 15:34:21 ... Has a path handling algorithm, because that's the only place to get it 15:34:27 q? 15:34:32 ack manu 15:34:33 ... it would retrieve it off the ledger in that case. So, I think all of those things you mentioned are handled. So, I look forward to you taking a look at the latest, and. That's… yeah, anyway 15:34:34 ... That's it 15:34:37 Otto Mora: Okay. Uh, Manu?... 15:34:40 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7231#section-6.4.1 15:34:49 q+ to point out that dismissing my concerns because Manu disagrees doesn't address my concern. 15:34:50 Manu Sporny: Uh, on the multiple choices thing, what Steven said, I'll also point out that RFC 7231 allows there to be a response for… that there are multiple choices for a given URL... 15:34:57 ... Um, that can vary in representation, but it doesn't have to. So, I… minus 1 to 15:35:07 ... uh, you know, they're not being a precedent where a URL can point to multiple other URLs, it's in the… in the core HTTP spec 15:35:17 ... Um… I think, uh, Steven has responded to… well, one, I'm having a very hard time tracking what the concrete concerns are 15:35:26 ... I would like a 1, 2, 3, 4, these are Joe's concerns, so that we can address them one by one. Otherwise, this is going to be a random walk through 15:35:32 ... a set of shifting concerns. Um… I… I believe I heard Steven respond to 15:35:39 ... hopefully all of your concerns, or at least a subset, Joe, so I would like to understand at this point 15:35:43 ... which one of those are left? What of the concerns are left? 15:35:47 Otto Mora: Okay, and then... 15:35:55 ... Yeah, I just want to, like, cap it at 5 more minutes, and then we should switch to those PR, because I also want to make sure that the group 15:35:57 ack JoeAndrieu 15:35:57 JoeAndrieu, you wanted to point out that dismissing my concerns because Manu disagrees doesn't address my concern. 15:35:59 ... gets to see the changes proposed by Joe. So, Joe, like, uh, yeah, go ahead 15:36:11 Joe Andrieu: Um, yeah, Manu, I think we've just done that twice now, so I'm getting extremely frustrated with what feels like abuse of process to keep demanding that I say something that I've already said... 15:36:25 ... It's extremely frustrating. I have enumerated this list. The fact that Steven has dismissed one of my concerns, because you agree with him on it, does not address my concern 15:36:29 ... And so, my concerns have not been addressed many times throughout this process, and that is a dialogue about how we move forward 15:36:38 ... And I have been putting issues on the repo, I have stated here, a list here, and for some reason, that doesn't meet your standard, because I don't know why 15:36:43 q+ 15:36:43 q? 15:36:43 q+ 15:36:45 ... But I don't think it's a fair engagement the way that you are treating my concerns about this PR 15:36:50 ack swcurran 15:36:54 Otto Mora: Uh, Steven, uh, Manu, and then I think let's just close off. Conversation... 15:36:57 Stephen Curran: I'd like to move on, I think, um... 15:37:06 ... Joe, you raised a bunch of concerns. I think all of them are addressed, so hopefully we can just move on from now and see what happens 15:37:10 ack manu 15:37:14 I will list my concerns in the PR when I can get to that 15:37:16 Otto Mora: And yeah, I think maybe then this also be a topic of… a special topic called the… Uh, yes, madam... 15:37:22 Manu Sporny: Yeah, just to try and clarify, Joe, I am not dismissing your concerns... 15:37:36 ... Uh, I have… I have tried to listen, I have read, I tried to read absolutely everything that you've written, I have tried to convey it to Steven so that he, you know, adjusts the text 15:37:50 ... Steven has been receptive to that, and has modified text over and over again, based on me going, I think this is what Joe wants. I think… and I think he has a point. I think we need to change it in this way. That has been going on for weeks 15:37:50 q? 15:37:56 ... So… we are listening to you, Joe, we are making modifications 15:38:09 ... It is still really hard to track what you are disagreeing with. You said there was something that he is dismissing, but you didn't say what that was, and so I'm trying to understand. We are really trying… We… please? 15:38:12 Joe Andrieu: Manuel, I have to interrupt, I've said it now twice, you just didn't like what I said... 15:38:16 Manu Sporny: What? No, I don't know what you said, Joe. I literally… I don't… in my... 15:38:22 ... That's not what I'm saying 15:38:22 Joe Andrieu: Look at the transcript, Manu, I iterated 3 things that I felt I was concerned about, and you're saying I'm not saying anything. You are misrepresenting what… how I am contributing... 15:38:25 Stephen Curran: What... 15:38:29 Otto Mora: Okay, okay, so, so, folks, we're really not gonna get... 15:38:36 ... this discussion sorted out. Uh, let's… let's, uh, just move on. There will be time 15:38:44 zakim, next item 15:38:44 agendum 4 -- DID URL Dereferencing PR \[3\] (20 min) -- taken up [from agendabot] 15:39:08 https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/315 15:38:44 ... this week to review this PR, and we will arrive at a special topic call with hopefully more concrete 15:38:49 ... Concerns about what the changes required are, okay? And then we'll just move on 15:38:53