14:52:25 RRSAgent has joined #did 14:52:29 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/04/09-did-irc 14:52:30 rrsagent, make logs public 14:52:37 Meeting: Decentralized Identifier Working Group 14:52:47 Chair: ottomorac 14:52:58 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2026Apr/0005.html 14:52:58 clear agenda 14:52:58 agenda+ Agenda Review, Introductions (5 min) 14:52:58 agenda+ Debrief from the Special Topic call for 8th Apr \[1\] (15 min) 14:52:58 agenda+ DID URL Dereferencing PR \[2\] (15 min) 14:52:58 agenda+ DID Path PR \[3\] (15 min) 14:53:01 agenda+ Next Steps: How do we get to CR (5 min) 14:53:11 previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/04/02-did-minutes.html 14:53:16 next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/04/16-did-minutes.html 14:53:56 denkeni has joined #did 14:56:36 please use correct zoom link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/5637387869?pwd=R2lzUXpLUC91VitFajRKRVlpTlphUT09 15:00:51 Otto Mora: Hello! How are you, sir?... 15:00:54 Ivan Herman: Hello... 15:00:57 Otto Mora: Hey there... 15:01:00 Kevin Dean: Hello... 15:01:03 Otto Mora: Oh, let me… let me pause the transcriber before... 15:01:04 transcriber-bot, pause 15:01:04 scribe- 15:01:33 JoeAndrieu9 has joined #did 15:01:50 Wip has joined #did 15:02:03 please use correct zoom link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/5637387869?pwd=R2lzUXpLUC91VitFajRKRVlpTlphUT09 15:02:36 present+ 15:02:47 manu has joined #did 15:04:10 zakim, next item 15:04:10 agendum 1 -- Agenda Review, Introductions (5 min) -- taken up [from agendabot] 15:04:21 transcriber-bot, resume 15:04:21 scribe+ 15:04:24 Otto Mora: Resume... 15:04:35 ... Okay, so for the agenda review, today we're just doing a quick debrief. From the 15:04:44 https://www.w3.org/2026/04/08-did-minutes.html 15:04:44 ... a special topic called yesterday, which I sent an email to the group just a few minutes before, but I'll still mention the summary of it 15:04:48 ... Um, the link to the minutes is here as well 15:04:57 ... And, uh, then we'll, again, talk about the URL… Uh, do referencing VR 15:05:02 ... Then we'll talk about the DID path PR as well 15:05:06 ... And, um… yeah, I guess so, we'll start… we'll start with the 15:05:12 ... With the debrief, but any… any other point before we start with the debrief? 15:05:21 ... Not seeing any notes raised 15:05:25 ... Okay. So, let me, again, thank you 15:05:27 zakim, next item 15:05:27 agendum 2 -- Debrief from the Special Topic call for 8th Apr \[1\] (15 min) -- taken up [from agendabot] 15:05:28 swcurran has joined #did 15:05:34 present+ 15:05:40 ... Yes, so for the debrief, um, from the call yesterday. And in general, um 15:05:48 ... We talked about the two approaches, um, to the DRLD referencing 15:05:54 ... And then trying to find a consensus for a sort of a generic path handling algorithm 15:05:59 ... Uh, that also balances the need for DAD method-specific logic 15:06:08 ... Right? Um, some portion of the call, we talked about, uh, this idea of the precedence of the TID method 15:06:15 ... uh, specific handling, like the VAD method can have a specific handling algorithm, versus just having a generic one 15:06:19 ... I think Joe raised some concerns that perhaps prioritizing 15:06:26 ... Method-specific logic, uh, could create problems. For interoperability 15:06:36 ... Um, then we also had a discussion around whether the dereferenced URL should return an actual resource 15:06:40 ... Or just merely a URL that points to the resource 15:06:43 ... I think Steven then suggested that we 15:06:50 ... move the method-specific handling logic further down the priority list. I believe that was going to be the change 15:06:51 q+ 15:06:55 ... Um, that we sort of, uh, agreed there. Um 15:07:01 ... And then we, uh, talked about some of the terminology, I think that's also, uh 15:07:05 ... Beneficial, uh, because there were some 15:07:12 ... I guess differences of opinion on what a client, a resolver, and a dereferencer meant 15:07:18 ... And, uh, then I think also Joe correctly pointed out another problem with RFC 3986 15:07:32 ... Uh, the reference resolution algorithm, because there's also some… some issues there that… I believe he pointed out that also in WhatWG, those issues persist. So that we also have to think about that 15:07:32 JennieM has joined #did 15:07:37 ... But we didn't exactly, like, reach an agreement on all of the 15:07:39 TallTed has joined #did 15:07:44 present+ 15:07:46 ... let's say how to move forward, but I think at least we are more in tune with what 15:07:50 ... Each of the changes entail, and 15:07:55 ... Also, clarity on the… some of the concepts, I believe 15:07:58 q? 15:07:59 ... So, that's my summary of it 15:08:00 ack Wip 15:08:03 ... But, uh… let me see, I see Will there, maybe Will? 15:08:13 Will Abramson: Sure, yeah, I guess I wanted to highlight two things. Like, I think towards the end of the call, we were discussing, like, relative ref... 15:08:20 ... and essentially removing relative ref. And at least on that call, there seemed to be, you know, like 15:08:25 ... moving towards consensus. And I think I suggested, well, we should raise issues 15:08:28 markus_sabadello has joined #did 15:08:33 ... Like, really what I would like to see from today is if there are points of consensus that we can come to, then I would like them to be addressed as individual 15:08:34 smccown has joined #did 15:08:37 q+ 15:08:41 ... features, ideally, wherever that is possible. Like, for example, this relative ref change. If the group feels that that is what we want to do 15:08:41 q- 15:08:48 ... like, I think it would be good to try and extract them out of these large PRs and do them as small changes that are easier to review 15:08:50 q+ to suggest realities and ways forward. 15:08:56 ... And is it… and then through that process, we will be able to identify the actual points of disagreement that this group has 15:09:01 ... And then we can have real, like, debates to try and move towards consensus around that 15:09:07 ... Um, because, like you said, Otto, we talked for an hour yesterday, but I don't think we made 15:09:15 ... any, like, concrete progress towards accepting either of the PRs. That was my interpretation, anyway. Maybe it is wrong, but 15:09:20 ... Just some thoughts, like, we need to try and make progress. That's one suggestion 15:09:21 q? 15:09:24 ack manu 15:09:24 manu, you wanted to suggest realities and ways forward. 15:09:26 Otto Mora: Uh, mano?... 15:09:28 Manu Sporny: Can we turn scribing off for a second?... 15:09:31 Otto Mora: One second... 15:09:32 transcriber-bot, pause 15:09:32 scribe- 15:09:43 present+ 15:10:10 present+ 15:10:49 present+ 15:14:39 present+ 15:14:43 q+ 15:14:47 q+ 15:15:06 transcriber-bot, resume 15:15:06 scribe+ 15:15:11 Otto Mora: Transcriber thought… Uh... 15:15:11 Stephen Curran: Uh, can you leave it off for just one second?... 15:15:14 Otto Mora: Oh, yeah... 15:15:18 transcriber-bot, pause 15:15:18 scribe- 15:15:24 ack swcurran 15:16:26 transcriber-bot, resume 15:16:39 transcriber-bot, resume 15:16:39 scribe+ 15:16:48 q? 15:16:48 manu: I think we should break these issues into manageable chunks and work through the end of the charter (with the presumption that we'll be given a charter extension to do the right thing) 15:16:49 Otto Mora: Great, okay, yeah. Um, I also saw some proposals for Marcus, uh, I think... 15:16:57 ... Maybe, Marcus, you want to chunk the changes? Um… And 15:17:00 ack markus_sabadello 15:17:00 ... So, I'll let you, uh, go ahead, Marcus 15:17:15 Markus Sabadello: Well, just to say that I fully agree with Manu that it would be easier to have smaller PRs that are easier to review, because myself also... 15:17:20 ... I really read through Steven's PRs and Joe's PRs, and uh 15:17:30 ... when I look at those, I see maybe 2 or 3 things I like, and then I see 2 or 3 things that I really don't like, right? And then it becomes 15:17:35 ... Really hard to to have conversations and to get to some 15:17:42 ... PR that everybody accepts. Um, I created a few PRs 15:17:46 q+ dmitriz 15:17:52 ... today, and in the last few days, I think I have 5 open PRs right now, and they are all really small, right? So I'm… I'm hoping that, um 15:17:59 ... Even if they don't address all the open concerns and the confusions and the discussions 15:18:04 ... Maybe some of them can be steps in the right direction 15:18:07 ... And, uh, that's it 15:18:14 Otto Mora: And just to understand, you cherry-picked also some changes from Joe's… As well, right?... 15:18:14 Markus Sabadello: I… I didn't... 15:18:17 Otto Mora: some sections... 15:18:28 Markus Sabadello: I didn't pick any content or commit from anyone else, but I think some of my PRs. Um... 15:18:30 ... include some of the ideas from other PRs 15:18:31 q? 15:18:33 Otto Mora: Okay... 15:18:36 ack dimitriz 15:18:37 ... Uh, Dimitri 15:18:43 Dmitri Zagidulin: So I think we have… I think everybody agrees that... 15:18:47 ack dmitriz 15:18:50 ... we need small PRs, uh, on individual issues. My main question is 15:18:55 ... are the two big arts. Are the smaller bits separable? 15:19:04 q+ to say PRs are always separable. 15:19:06 ... Or do they necessarily have to be done as a… Uh, as a group in big chunks 15:19:12 ack manu 15:19:12 manu, you wanted to say PRs are always separable. 15:19:13 Otto Mora: Uh, manual... 15:19:26 Manu Sporny: PRs are always separable. So, you know, you can always… you can… you can do a bunch of small PRs to get to a destination, or you can do one giant PR to try to get to that destination in one go... 15:19:33 ... I think we've tried one giant PR to get to the destination in one go, and it has not been going well. Um, uh 15:19:41 ... So, I think that's kind of… we've got to accept that we've got to 15:19:49 ... Go… go towards the goal that I think many of us have consensus on, you know, in smaller 15:19:54 q+ 15:19:54 ... Smaller steps 15:19:56 ... Um 15:19:59 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm. A little more bite-sized, right?... 15:19:59 ack manu 15:20:14 Manu Sporny: Yeah, the other thing I kind of want to mention is I don't think we're meeting often enough to work through these issues. I know, like, you know, we don't want to necessarily hear that, but I think a lot of the miscommunication that's happening... 15:20:27 ... in the PRs is because we are not… the people that are disagreeing are not on the same call working through those things in a very concentrated, focused way. Um, I… I 15:20:31 ... I would like us to start meeting daily 15:20:36 ... To move through these things, I know that is a lot to ask, especially for people that are not 15:20:41 ... Um… you know, funded to do this work. Uh 15:20:58 ... that's just a request, uh, because I don't think that the cadence that we're working through these things is… we need a higher bandwidth way to work through these things, and I think we need to be more focused and structured on the. on the… the issues that people have. Um 15:21:08 ... And that doesn't mean open 20 issues and use the issue tracker to process through all those issues. I'm thinking of something more like 15:21:14 ... copy and paste Joe's, these are the things I changed, you know, into a document 15:21:22 ... Um, do the same for Steven's PR, and then potentially add Marcus's things, see if they map 15:21:30 ... Um, and… and go at it that way, so it's… so we're not, you know, weeks long processing this stuff, so that we're 15:21:34 ... Able to kind of focus on things that, um 15:21:39 ... Are the easy changes to make to the spec, uh, versus the… the really 15:21:46 present+ 15:21:54 ... um… contentious ones, right? And ideally, we focus on the things that are, like, these are normative changes that we feel absolutely need to be made to the spec before we go into CR, because they do change things fairly 15:21:57 ... you know, significantly. Um, so we need help from 15:22:11 ... the folks raising the issues and wanting the changes to identify what those things are. Um, and in many cases, it is the thing that is going to lead to a formal objection. That is the thing that we need to. you know, potentially 15:22:17 ... Come to consensus on, on do we think we're going to be able to address this or not? Um 15:22:26 ... Anyway, so all that to say, like, I don't really know where anybody else is, um, um, on a number of issues 15:22:37 ... it would help to have, for example, a Google Doc that has… these are all of the changes that, you know, all of the people that are potentially disagreeing want to see made 15:22:41 ... And then we, you know, in real time, on a call 15:22:50 +1 frequency increase to higher bandwidth than text-on-screen. Daily may be too much. 3x/week may be enough? or maybe MT+TF (off W&SS)? 15:22:52 q+ to clarify if there is consensus is to break up the two big PRs 15:22:57 ... with those parties on the call go through and see, is this editorial or is it normative? Does this need to be made, you know, before we go into CR? Will this lead to a formal objection? And just process the issues like that 15:22:59 ... That's it 15:23:02 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm... 15:23:08 ... I don't know all the logistics, but I will plus one that, uh 15:23:15 ... talking, like, when I… like, virtually, like, this face-to-face, it is a better medium than the 15:23:23 ... uh, people responding to each other's, uh, threads on GitHub, and… Some of the 15:23:30 ack JoeAndrieu 15:23:30 JoeAndrieu, you wanted to clarify if there is consensus is to break up the two big PRs 15:23:31 ... The tone being misinterpreted, which, you know, I think can easily happen over text. Um, so 15:23:34 Joe Andrieu: Yeah, two things, um... 15:23:41 ... Uh… the first one, Manu, I'm not sure how the most recent part of your proposal 15:23:47 ... Um, isn't what we already have, in the sense that if we… if we create 15:23:52 q+ 15:24:00 ... a big list of all the things that are different. That's the diff file, and if we have one meeting to argue about that, I feel like those are the meetings we've been having. So, I think we could maybe reinvent that a little better 15:24:07 ... The other one is maybe the other way to reinvent it, which is what I thought I was picking up some consensus tours from the leadership here 15:24:13 ... Um, and I support it, I guess, which would be to take the two big PRs and break them up into smaller PRs 15:24:19 ... I'm not exactly sure how to do that, but, you know, I could try. I mean, I think there are some conceptual things, like 15:24:29 ... you know, the algorithm versus the particulars of the dereferencer. Um, so there are ways that it could be broken up. I agree with Manu's assertion that you can always break it up 15:24:32 q+ 15:24:32 ... Um, but those feel like two different ways to tackle it 15:24:41 ... That was all 15:24:43 ack manu 15:24:43 q+ dmitriz 15:24:46 q- later 15:24:49 Otto Mora: Okay, so… Manu, were you there already before? Or… Go ahead. Go ahead... 15:24:56 Manu Sporny: Yeah, yeah, I put myself back to kind of respond to Joe. Yeah, um, I'm not suggesting… yeah, I can see how it can… it sounded like two different ways. Um... 15:25:07 ... I'm suggesting we break up the PRs, right? Um, uh, but the… so, you know, plus one, let's break up the PRs 15:25:19 Joe Andrieu: Yep, agreed... 15:25:26 Manu Sporny: Uh, I'm thinking things like, uh, you know, Joe, in your PR, there is a part where you modify the abstract of the document. That could be a PR on its own, right? Because it's, uh, it's editorial, it, you know, but it does introduce, you know, a different way of thinking about the thing. So, so that is one PR... 15:25:39 ... Uh, and uh… and the group can, you know, evaluate that on its own, and, you know, it either goes in or gets modified and goes in, or doesn't, right? And that's separable from, like, a change to the algorithm, or a change to what the 15:25:43 ... Inputs to the resolution algorithm is, and so on and so forth 15:25:49 ... Um, so let's do that. Uh, what I was trying to suggest is, like, how do we 15:26:03 ... Figure out which PR is separable from another one and at least in your PR, Joe, in the, when you opened it, you said 15:26:18 ... these are the things that I changed, right? And I thought those were really good, succinct statements, because I think most of those could be a PR on their own. I realize that some of them touch different parts of the document, but conceptually, they were 15:26:27 ... Uh, they were focused. And conceptually, we could have a discussion around that sentence you wrote. This is what I changed, you know, for these reasons 15:26:33 q- wip 15:26:45 ... we could ask the question of everyone, does everyone agree that this is a change that we need to make in the specification? Does everyone agree that this is editorial or normative? If we don't do this, is it going to lead to a formal objection? 15:26:52 ... Um, those… and it's just a temperature check, right? It's not a, we need to get in a big giant debate over it, it's just a first-level pass on, like 15:26:58 ... Do we think we have consensus on this particular concept, uh, or not? 15:27:03 ... Um, so, so the first thing I mentioned was a way to get to 15:27:11 q? 15:27:12 ... a bunch of concentrated PRs, or focused PRs, and work through it in a systematic fashion. Um, that's it 15:27:15 ack dmitriz 15:27:17 Otto Mora: Okay, Dimitri... 15:27:25 Dmitri Zagidulin: Uh, no, just pass on to what, uh, Mona said... 15:27:26 q? 15:27:29 Otto Mora: Okay... 15:27:35 ... So, uh, on this one, I think so, at least, yeah, let's, let's, let's, uh 15:27:43 ... divvy them up as, you know, slice them up into smaller chunks. Let me at least propose that we try to do the 15:27:45 q+ 15:27:51 q? 15:27:53 ack manu 15:27:53 ... the weekly special topic calls, right, Will? I think that could be helpful to have these more intense work sessions. Um 15:27:58 ... Uh, yeah, I see Manu on the queue. Go ahead 15:28:08 Manu Sporny: Yeah, plus one, I wasn't suggesting that we cancel those, I'm just saying, like, we need a higher bandwidth place for Joe, Steven, myself... 15:28:12 s/divvy/divide/ 15:28:16 ... Marcus, uh, Dimitri, anyone else that is going to have a strong opinion on this stuff, to just 15:28:27 ... talk things through, but on… just very focused, like, the… the, uh… and I… and I agree, Joe, like, I think some variation of that has been happening, based on, like 15:28:39 ... certain comments raised in the PR, um, uh, but in some cases, you know, I think, you know, people are… and I have heard this across the board 15:28:48 ... That, you know, people don't feel that they're being heard, um, and we need to make sure people feel that they're being heard on their concerns 15:28:58 ... Um, and uh, and in order to do that, I think we really do need to focus down on one thing, because people jump from one thing to the other based on, like, what they really 15:29:05 ... you know, the concern that they have, and sometimes these things are intermixed, and it's just led to a point where I think we're 15:29:13 ... You know, miscommunicating on the issue tracker, unfortunately, and we just need a higher bandwidth way to 15:29:18 ... Talk with each other, make sure everyone's, you know, feeling heard, keep it focused on 15:29:27 ... You know, these… these, you know, specific changes that we want to make on the specification. Um, and then 15:29:32 ... And then just, you know, get a pulse of, like, where we are, like, you know 15:29:37 ... what is the full list of changes we want to make to the specification? I don't… I don't know if we have that 15:29:48 ... Right, I know there, it's, it's in there, it's, it's in the 180 comments that have been submitted to the issue tracker, but like, I, in my head, I'm like, I have no idea 15:30:02 ... Right? Um, I don't know the things that are on, you know, the top 3 things that, you know, Joe's most concerned about, or Steven's most concerned about, or Marcus is most concerned about. Um, and I think we need to know those 15:30:08 ... So that we can identify them, and we can have a focused conversation on each one of those 15:30:11 Otto Mora: Mhm... 15:30:15 Manu Sporny: And then close it out, right? I mean, at some point, we have to say, okay, yes, we have consensus on this, like... 15:30:25 ... we're done, we've made this decision, now it's just a PR to, you know, move that one forward. We're on to the next one 15:30:29 Otto Mora: Right. And… And just to understand, so I think... 15:30:38 ... the… like, Joe's PR is the one that we can break into smaller chunks, right? Like, I see, kind of, Steven's PR as more 15:30:47 ... specific to the… to the path, uh, aspects, right? So we… we can't break that one up, but maybe we can have a discussion next year 15:30:48 q+ 15:30:52 ack manu 15:30:55 ... about which elements of Joe's PR we can break into smaller chunks, if that… Everybody agrees with that. Uh, yes, my name 15:30:57 q+ 15:31:02 s/next year/next week/ 15:31:02 +1 15:31:07 Manu Sporny: Yeah, plus one to that, um, and I definitely want to hear from other people. I'm a bit concerned about the silence. I don't know if that's agreement, or if, you know, we have disagreement. Um... 15:31:15 ... Uh, I think, Joe, your… this is not going to be a perfect… so I think, well, what could be done 15:31:21 q+ 15:31:25 ... Uh, is if people, um… well, sorry. I think Steven's PR can layer on top of Joe's. There's some variation of it where that's true 15:31:38 q? 15:31:46 ... Whether or not people agree that we do all of those changes or not is still up for debate, but I think we can layer things, you know, Steven's PR could layer on top of just about any one of these things. It's just… it's supposed to be just about the path 15:31:49 ... you know, feature, whereas Joe's is more about, like, you know, resolution and dereferencing and clarifying, um, you know, that sort of stuff 15:32:04 ... Um, Joe, in his, uh, PR, has a set of, like, I don't know what they're… 12, 13 things, where he was like, this is a… this is… I made these changes, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 15:32:08 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:32:09 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/04/09-did-minutes.html ivan 15:32:16 ... Um, I think we can break many of those into individual PRs. I don't know, Joe, if you agree with that or not, but there's some subset that we can 15:32:17 ... break into individual PRs, and I think we should do that, right? Um 15:32:25 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm... 15:32:28 Manu Sporny: That's how I suggest we make some progress here is, is we take Joe's PR, or sorry, we take, we take Joe's, like, these are the, you know, 12 things that I changed... 15:32:33 ... We see which one of those we rapidly have agreement on 15:32:40 ... Or not. Um, and we start raising PRs for the things that we have agreement on, and start, you know, merging those down. Um 15:32:43 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm... 15:32:49 Manu Sporny: The challenge is going to be, if there is some huge disagreement, you know, some really huge base-level disagreement... 15:32:54 ... Um… you know, we may not want to 15:33:08 ... we may want to kind of, you know, push that to the end, or we may want to front-load it and say, well, this is really critical to, you know, all the other PRs that we'd raise. Like, if we… we don't need to raise the other 5 PRs if it's dependent on this one thing that we just don't feel like we're going to be able to get the consensus on 15:33:10 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm... 15:33:12 Manu Sporny: That's it... 15:33:13 q? 15:33:27 Otto Mora: Okay, and then one more thing. I think it would be useful if, uh, we do this in a way where somebody's screen sharing. I would screen share, but last time I screen shared, that crashed the transcriber on my computer. So, I don't know, Will or someone else, if you're... 15:33:30 Will Abramson: Yeah, I can screen share, that would be fine... 15:33:31 ack Wip 15:33:36 Otto Mora: That would be best, yeah. But… so before we go into that, I see Will and Joe on the… Uh, queue, so go ahead, Bill... 15:33:44 Will Abramson: Yeah, I really wanted to agree with Manu about, like, the way that we handle these. It feels... 15:33:51 ... most sensible to handle Joe's changes, try and work through those first, and then layer on top Steven 15:34:03 ... just because at the moment, it feels like we're duplicating a lot of effort arguing about some of the same things, right? Joe's arguing about the things he's arguing for on Stephen's PR, and then Stephen's also arguing 15:34:08 ... about Joe's PR, like, it feels like there are some fundamental things in Joe's PR that we need to decide on 15:34:15 ... And then, however those land, we can then decide on how we integrate past services. It feels like 15:34:20 ... We do have consensus that PathService is a feature that we want to get in there 15:34:26 ... Uh, but it… it makes sense to me to maybe, like, pause that feature until we've 15:34:29 ... Figured out, like, the foundations of that feature's gonna sit on 15:34:36 ... Uh, yeah, and I'm happy to share when we're ready to do that. I think that makes good sense 15:34:41 ack JoeAndrieu 15:34:43 Otto Mora: Perfect, yeah. Yeah, because that way, exactly, we can start noting down the sections. More visually. Uh, Joe... 15:34:49 Joe Andrieu: Um, yeah, plus Wanda, I think we can layer, I think... 15:34:54 ... Um, the… my PR was, in fact, a response to my inability to 15:35:12 ... sort of address my concerns within Stevens. So part of it was designed to break out the algorithm so it would be easier to clarify where my concerns are. Um, so I do think we can pull it in, and I want to, like, I want to have this sort of file service capability. Um, we just need to figure out a way to do it. Um 15:35:17 ... I think I had misunderstood what Matthew's proposal, if we're gonna go right in now to the conversation 15:35:29 ... Um, I was hearing, like, we can break up this PR. I think I can take a stab at that this weekend, you know, but if we're gonna talk about it right now, that would be awesome. I'd love to go through those statements 15:35:33 q+ to say yes, let's go through those statements. 15:35:33 ... you know, I think there are 14 of them, and get some sense of the group, that would help me break it up. Um 15:35:44 ... In terms of, you know, if half of them seem to be well supported, then I can put those in one PR, and if there are… so… If we can have that conversation, that would be great 15:35:45 +1 lets do that 15:35:48 ack manu 15:35:48 manu, you wanted to say yes, let's go through those statements. 15:35:51 Otto Mora: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Uh, yep, and Manu?... 15:36:04 Manu Sporny: Even if they're… even if they're 14 that we agree on, or 7 that we agree on, please put them in separate PRs. I'm concerned about big PRs. Um, but of course, like... 15:36:08 Joe Andrieu: Well, I don't think 14 PRs is going to be a good idea, but breaking it up, I think, will be a good idea... 15:36:17 Manu Sporny: Sure, okay, we… okay, um, uh, but yes, let's, let's, uh, going back to the previous thing, yes, I, I, what I'm suggesting is... 15:36:22 ... Uh, Will, if you could put up a Google Doc that's worldwideable 15:36:25 ... Copy and paste. Joe's 14 15:36:28 Will Abramson: Yeah... 15:36:34 Manu Sporny: Things into that, give us access so that we can start in parallel providing. like... 15:36:49 ... You know, input, I'm not saying I have any other plan beyond that, but just getting them on the screen and getting people the ability to, in parallel, provide input instead of queuing and going through each one and listening to everybody speak, I think might speed things up 15:36:53 Here is the doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xcoslzqA6Wr_CHhvvhZ4wKupEE32HZ69hp2AE1rJMjs/edit?usp=sharing 15:36:53 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm... 15:36:58 ... Okay, so rather than spending time on the call breaking that up right now, we can 15:36:59 ... Oh, let's do it, okay 15:37:02 Will Abramson: No, let's do it. I mean, I can share my screen too, I think it makes sense... 15:37:07 To the degree that the 14 theses are atomically breakable, I would prefer one PR per atom. If there are 2 or 3 that cannot be split from each other, that combo may be worth keeping together 15:37:07 Manu Sporny: No, I'm saying do it, it's just everyone in parallel, plus one, minus one, and really what we're looking for are, like, minus ones to Joe's... 15:37:08 Otto Mora: Okay... 15:37:13 Manu Sporny: suggested changes. And it... 15:37:20 Otto Mora: So I guess, as we're screen sharing, people can just plus one and minus one on the… On the chat. You guys want... 15:37:22 Will Abramson: Yeah... 15:37:22 Manu Sporny: Well, in the document, like, let's, let's get it, you know, in the document... 15:37:25 Otto Mora: Oh, okay, okay, okay... 15:37:35 q+ 15:37:37 link again: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xcoslzqA6Wr_CHhvvhZ4wKupEE32HZ69hp2AE1rJMjs/edit?tab=t.0 15:37:40 Will Abramson: So, this is the document, and I think, Toby, the goal is to both identify places where we are in agreement, because they're easy PRs to just get in and tick them off, right? And then also identify places where we have. Strong disagreement, so we can discuss... 15:37:41 q? 15:37:44 ... Um 15:37:47 ack TallTed 15:37:50 Otto Mora: I see Ted already... 15:37:54 TallTed // Ted (he/him) Thibodeau Jr (OpenLinkSw.com): Just briefly, to the degree that these 14 theses... 15:38:02 ... to kind of phrase, uh, are atomically breakable, it would be better to break them up into one PR each 15:38:08 ... If there are, like, 2 or 3 that cannot be separated from each other, then keeping those together probably does make sense 15:38:13 q+ 15:38:15 ... But… I'm hopeful that most of them are atomic. That's it 15:38:20 Will Abramson: Yeah, actually, looking at what you… yeah, thanks, sorry. Oh, mine isn't queue... 15:38:28 ... Sorry, man, can I just jump? I just wanted to see, looking at what you are doing here, like, maybe it would be better for us to run. Like, a poll in the 15:38:33 ... in the IRC that people can post on my 15:38:35 ... Anyway, whatever 15:38:43 ... Thank you 15:38:46 s/kind of phrase/coin a phrase/ 15:38:46 Manu Sporny: What I'm suggesting is Joe explains each one of these in a very high level and then we provide input here. I want to make it dynamic because people might change their mind as we talk... 15:38:50 ... Um, running polls takes a bit of time, and 15:38:50 Will Abramson: Mm-hmm... 15:38:53 Manu Sporny: Do you see what I'm saying? Um... 15:39:03 ... Let's keep it loose for now, uh, is my suggestion, see how it goes, and then we can do more formal resolutions if we want to later, but 15:39:06 ... At this point, there's a lot to go through, so let's try and parallelize the work as much as possible 15:39:07 Joe Andrieu: Yeah, I want... 15:39:10 Manu Sporny: And again, just suggestions, I'm not, you know... 15:39:13 Will Abramson: No, no, that's fine... 15:39:19 Joe Andrieu: I just want to endorse the parallelization, like, if we can… we should put some bullet points, but… After all of these, and... 15:39:23 ... So, you don't have to wait to put your comment in while other people are debating other stuff. I think that will speed things up a bit 15:39:24 Otto Mora: Yep... 15:39:27 Joe Andrieu: Oh... 15:39:30 Will Abramson: Okay, do… yeah, you go for it, Joe, I think, if you want to start with one... 15:39:36 Joe Andrieu: Okay. So, um, the first one, actually, I reverted out, but it is still, um, potentially valuable. Um... 15:39:41 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/04/09-did-minutes.html TallTed 15:39:47 ... which was to define dereferencing first, because that's what you do with the did URL, and which resolution is a part of that, so 15:39:49 ... That was about aligning the order of the end-to-end 15:39:56 ... Um, transaction, with the order of how we talk about those parts, uh, in the… In the document 15:40:05 ... But that was a big change, so it looked like I edited everything in every section. So that's why the second PR doesn't have that. Um… so 15:40:13 ... I actually think we should… in terms of breaking things up, this would be, like, the last thing we would want to do. Um 15:40:16 ... So that we can evaluate the other things on a smaller basis 15:40:17 q+ 15:40:25 Otto Mora: What do partial minus 0.03.5?... 15:40:33 ... Okay. Okay 15:40:38 ack manu 15:40:38 Manu Sporny: It means I don't know. I'm kind of like, eh, you could do… I could go either way, but I'm definitely not gonna, like, you know… like, a minus one is like, I'm gonna formally object, or I cannot live with this... 15:40:41 Otto Mora: Okay... 15:40:49 Manu Sporny: You know, versus what we're seeing there, which is like, eh, I'm kind of unsure, I want to see where things go. Marcus is like, eh, I'm pretty, you know, unsure of this... 15:40:57 ... But I'm guessing, Mark, it's like, if we did this restructuring, you wouldn't formally object over it. Is that a proper interpretation? 15:41:06 Markus Sabadello: Yes, it depends on how it's done in a concrete PR... 15:41:10 ... But I don't think I would object 15:41:10 ack Wip 15:41:13 Otto Mora: Okay... 15:41:21 Will Abramson: So I just wanted to suggest, uh, after that. Joe, I think you should just talk to each of these, like, maybe pause briefly after them, but, like, I think let's not discuss any of them... 15:41:24 ... in the chat, right, until we've tried to get through all of them. We might be able to get through all of them 15:41:27 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm... 15:41:30 Will Abramson: By time, and then we'll have a good sense of which topics need time on a future call... 15:41:33 Otto Mora: Agree. Let's… go ahead, Joe... 15:41:36 Joe Andrieu: Yeah, agreed. Like, if I keep to one minute each, we might get through them... 15:41:39 Will Abramson: Okay... 15:41:44 Joe Andrieu: Uh, the second one, hopefully, uh, is not too big of a deal. It's just past a folded URL instead of stripping it out... 15:41:48 ... Um, since there may be parameters in it that the resolver needs anyway, um 15:42:00 ... Uh, number 3 was, uh, there was just a sentence about, uh, when you would use parameters and when you wouldn't, um, and it wasn't consistent with how I understood it 15:42:05 ... Um, in particular, I would not advise that to my clients, so it felt like unnecessary advice 15:42:08 dmitriz has joined #did 15:42:14