14:54:02 RRSAgent has joined #did 14:54:07 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/04/30-did-irc 14:54:10 rrsagent, make logs public 14:54:28 Meeting: Decentralized Identifier Working Group 14:54:31 Chair: ottomorac 14:54:38 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2026Apr/0028.html 14:54:39 clear agenda 14:54:39 agenda+ Will Abramson 14:54:39 agenda+ Pierre-Antoine Champin 14:54:39 agenda+ Otto Mora 14:54:39 agenda+ [Decentralized Identifier Working Group](https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/did/) ([View Calendar](https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/did/calendar/)) 14:54:45 previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/04/23-did-minutes.html 14:54:48 next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/05/07-did-minutes.html 15:01:34 Wip has joined #did 15:02:39 present+ 15:02:46 present+ 15:03:50 present+ 15:06:18 swcurran has joined #did 15:06:37 present+ 15:06:39 transcriber-bot, resume 15:06:40 scribe+ 15:06:43 Manu Sporny: He'd be open to that... 15:06:53 Otto Mora: Yeah, let me… Let me do... 15:06:56 Topic: Agenda Review, Introductions 15:07:02 Wilmer Daza: Sorry, guys, I'm in the car, so… yeah, my name is Wilmer, and I'm you in the group, and yeah, I'm the co-founder of My OnePlace, which is a company that is trying to create a... 15:07:06 ... Universal layer, identity layer, and compliance layer for tokenized assets 15:07:11 ... So, of course, very interested in anything which is identity for 15:07:17 ... For on-chain, that was… Foundation 15:07:18 ... I joined recently 15:07:19 Will Abramson: Great, welcome... 15:07:22 Stephen Curran: Welcome... 15:07:25 Wilmer Daza: Thank you. Yeah, you have any questions on... 15:07:37 Otto Mora: Okay, excellent. Yeah, welcome to the group, excited to have you on. Excellent. Uh... 15:07:47 Will Abramson: Yeah, I think I would just add, I mean, maybe I should, but, you know, if you have any questions for us, Wilma, like, you know, feel free to reach out to me or Otto. We would love to have someone who is... 15:07:52 ... You know, another active participant, and if we can do anything to help you become more active and contributing 15:07:58 ... Great 15:08:02 Wilmer Daza: Yeah, sure. I won't hesitate. I have a couple of questions already, so in the couple of weeks or days coming, I will be, like, really active. I've been seeing some... 15:08:09 ... Because that I'm really, really interested in, and what are a great way, which is contributing to standard price, so that's better 15:08:10 Will Abramson: Fantastic... 15:08:13 Otto Mora: Fantastic... 15:08:24 ... Oh, yeah, so, exactly, just the four topics, I guess, that we had there, but uh 15:08:27 q+ 15:08:29 ack Wip 15:08:32 ... Um… yeah, do we wanna… Just go over those, I guess, Will, or… Yeah, go ahead 15:08:38 Will Abramson: Uh, do you have a side topic with maybe just, like, as a good intro thing, or, you know, some... 15:08:43 ... we can just spend a minute or two on it. I… I wonder if people 15:08:48 ... Have been using the minutes, and what they think of them 15:08:53 q+ 15:08:53 ... I just say this because just before this call, I tried to read last call's minutes 15:09:04 ... and I really didn't find them very useful. I mean, the problem is, they're very verbose, there's a lot there, and 15:09:10 ... You know, we miss that human touch of, like, synthesizing the important bit, um 15:09:15 ... so I don't know if there's a way that we can improve them, or… my sense was just 15:09:24 ack manu 15:09:25 ... Jesus, this is hard, this is hard to wade through, and there's some mistakes in there that, you know, like, names are wrong and stuff. So, I just wondered what people think 15:09:28 Otto Mora: I'll let my own, and then skip it after that, but... 15:09:31 Stephen Curran: All right... 15:09:36 q+ 15:09:42 Manu Sporny: Yeah, I mean, plus one to that. The way that we address that with the Google Meet infrastructure is, uh, I gave it very specific instructions to summarize... 15:09:55 q+ 15:09:57 ... So, summarize all the topics that were discussed, provide a single sentence description of it, and then summarize the actions that were taken during the call, and make sure that you do it in, you know, a half a page 15:10:01 Will Abramson: Um... 15:10:04 Manu Sporny: Uh, that is the most… typically, that's what I've been using with those other… other things. I think that'll close the gap... 15:10:08 JennieM has joined #did 15:10:11 Will Abramson: Mm-hmm... 15:10:15 Manu Sporny: Um, it's very… I think it's… it is very important that we have the… the full transcription. I mean, yes, it would be much better if a human was doing it, and… and I did, um... 15:10:19 ... uh, experiment with telling the LLM to, like 15:10:22 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm... 15:10:29 Will Abramson: Yeah... 15:10:32 Manu Sporny: Summarize, and sometimes it was amazing, and sometimes it was like, wow, that is definitely not what that person said, and that, you know, would get the person in trouble if... 15:10:37 Will Abramson: Mm-hmm... 15:10:39 ... Hmm 15:10:42 Manu Sporny: you know, that was scribes. So, I think just keep it a transcription, uh, you know, level for now, um, and then do an auto summary at the top, and I think we're… we'd be good... 15:10:45 ack swcurran 15:10:48 Otto Mora: Uh, Steven... 15:10:54 Stephen Curran: Um, I did a… a pass-it-through where I said, um... 15:11:05 ... stick all of the statements from a single person in a… in sequence together, so removing all the ums and the ahs and things like that, it did a very good job 15:11:12 ... Um, of doing that. So no summarizing, but simply removing the hesitations and things and combining 15:11:21 +1 adding auto-summaries will help. also cleaning out the "filler" non-words. 15:11:21 ... each entry into a single entry for a single person until it switches over to somebody else, and I found it did a really good job. I agree, a summary 15:11:34 ... top and bottom, but I wouldn't have it in line summarize what anyone said 15:11:34 q? 15:11:34 Otto Mora: Yeah... 15:11:34 ack ottomorac 15:11:38 https://github.com/ottomorac/w3c-live-archiver/issues 15:11:39 ... Let me see if anybody else wanted to… yeah, okay, so I'll acknowledge myself here 15:11:46 ... Yes, um, we do have a list of open issues for the live archiver. One of the 15:11:50 ... ones that I think, uh, right out of the gate, um 15:11:52 https://github.com/ottomorac/w3c-live-archiver/issues/2 15:11:56 ... Ted had pointed out, and I think a few others here as well, is this one around 15:12:03 ... The hesitations and the ums and all, okay, and you know, and all these, like, I guess 15:12:10 ... yeah, filler words, um, where… at least some post-processing. I've discussed this with, um 15:12:18 ... Here, that does make sense to do at least just some basic cleanup for that, that would be good. And 15:12:21 ... And then, yes, like, that 15:12:32 ... That could be a good way to at least start some of that cleanup. Uh, yes, welcome to maintenance, Grant. You make yourself useful now, yeah. Absolutely, yes 15:12:38 ... Uh, so I, yeah, I think both of those things would be good, uh, and then, yes, maybe 15:12:45 ... keeping the verbatim, like, like you were saying, you folks were saying, I think makes sense as well 15:12:52 ... But yeah, maybe then it's just a kind of exec summary type thing at the top that would make this more readable 15:12:59 ... You know, with the potential for some… Minor, you know, like, uh 15:13:02 q+ 15:13:06 ... What do you call it, uh, hallucination summary risk, but uh… that's just… yeah 15:13:07 ack Wip 15:13:09 ... Uh, yes, Will 15:13:17 if the minutes go into git or similar management, instead of just keeping the "finished product", that will also be helpful -- for the inevitable accidental or malicious change history 15:13:19 Will Abramson: Yeah, I think that all sounds good. I think there's definitely ways to improve it. I mean, one of the things I'm wondering about is maybe there's, like, a post-post-post... 15:13:26 ... processing script, you know, can be run is more deterministic than getting the AI to, kind of 15:13:32 q+ 15:13:32 ... Edit out, but, like, there could be a script that removes the ums, for example, that is very 15:13:37 ... You know, concrete, and obviously maybe we save the archive or whatever, but we don't render that for people to view 15:13:40 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm... 15:13:44 Will Abramson: Uh, and I do think it seems like the W3C is very interested in this tool, and hopefully they'll... 15:13:51 ... you know, help… help you, Otto, or, like, help figure out an evolution of this tool that's better. And then also, maybe there's some way 15:13:57 ... to, like, pass in, you know, like, we… the W3C has a lot of terminology, right? Like, um 15:14:02 ... that is already defined in some way. There must be a way to feed that into the AI so that it 15:14:09 ... Can, you know, draw on those terms, or, like, fit to those terms when it doesn't know, instead of, um… Just making stuff up 15:14:17 Otto Mora: wanted to jump in here to say that's what exactly I think would be the ideal summarization bot, if I may... 15:14:22 ... Is a bot that's trained on the terminology and the context 15:14:28 ... I don't know if it's just using the resolution spec and the DID spec as, like, the 15:14:34 ack TallTed 15:14:36 ... Be base vocabulary or something like that, but yeah, like, some, like, constrained bot that has a specific, uh, context 15:14:39 ... Um, would be really good, yeah 15:14:44 TallTed // Ted (he/him) Thibodeau Jr (OpenLinkSw.com): Yeah, as I just threw into the chat, um... 15:14:53 ... getting this into Git or similar management will also be a useful thing. Right now, we've got the IRC log 15:14:59 bigbluehat has joined #did 15:15:04 ... Which is considered the rawest documentation. And then we have the parsed and pretty minutes doc that gets produced by 15:15:08 ... The old bots, um 15:15:15 ... And now there's somewhere in between those things what the… the transcription bot is doing 15:15:25 ... Um, and what it's producing now as the rawest IRC log is not necessarily the rawest. content that it could be. Um 15:15:36 ... As you were just talking about the, um… the W3, uh, language of its own, the cant of W3C, um 15:15:44 ... The bots don't know that yet, but the humans participating in the meeting and taking minutes usually do 15:15:50 Otto Mora: Yes. Yeah... 15:15:58 TallTed // Ted (he/him) Thibodeau Jr (OpenLinkSw.com): And that's going to produce different output, right? So, there's sort of a middle ground that I think we're going to need to reach, where... 15:16:09 ... The rawest possible output goes in as the base document, and then changes to it, whether they're made by bots or humans, go in as PRs that 15:16:13 ... humans review and say, yes, that's a good change, no, that's crazy, what are you thinking? 15:16:26 ... And that will lead us to a better place. I don't think removing humans from the loop completely is possible, and I don't think it's desirable. Uh, it's… it's the biggest 15:16:30 ... Headache to remove is the actual 15:16:37 ... taking notes during the meeting and turning that into its transcription bot is probably the biggest help we can do 15:16:41 ... And then going from there to human reviews and human edits 15:16:53 ... will get us to the next best output for the people, like, who can't meet the meeting, and those people read the minutes and get something out of it, while the people who are in the meeting 15:17:05 ... Don't necessarily want to get out of it the same information, but they are in the best position to correct hallucinations or other issues based on the botch output. That's it 15:17:17 Otto Mora: 100%. One of my favorite bands, a British band called Public Service Broadcasting, so it quotes this old, like, BBC thing from, like, the 50s or 40s that said... 15:17:26 ... machines will do the heavy work, and men will supervise the machines. And I feel like we're at that moment, like, the grunt work is being done by the AI 15:17:36 ... Uh, for transcription, and now we need to do the supervision and cleaning up. So, yeah. Alright 15:17:38 q+ 15:17:39 ... Yeah, I feel like that topic 15:17:49 ack Wip 15:17:54 ... Yeah, let me just get with Pierre and see where we can do, at least for the cleanup of the homes and stuff like that. And then, yes, we do need to start to eventually train in AI that 15:17:59 Will Abramson: Yeah, I think we can move on now. I wanted to talk about the... 15:18:01 Topic: Agenda 15:18:07 ... agenda a little bit, right? Otto, so we have… me and Otto put on the agenda 4 items 15:18:16 ... But really, let's take a few moments now to talk about inner group, like, if there are things that you specifically want to talk about or dig into, we should do that 15:18:22 ... Uh, the four items on the agenda are remove the dereferencing function signature 15:18:33 ... So that's kind of where we were at last call. We were talking through that, and we made good progress, I think. We didn't get to a final discussion, so we could continue that discussion if there's things people 15:18:39 ... don't understand about what's been discussed there, like, we're talking about maybe removing the function signature entirely 15:18:46 ... And replacing it with an algorithm that maybe has inputs and outputs, that's another thing that's under contention 15:18:51 ... Uh, and then the next one was, like, the HTTPS binding for dereferencing discussion, like 15:18:55 ... If there are things we wanted to talk about that 15:19:02 ... Uh, this other one, which we haven't really got to yet in our discussion, is passing a dig URL into the resolve function 15:19:14 ... Uh, happy to talk about that, too. I think the… I think the set… my sense was from the group, most people are happy to do that, it's just Marcus who's very opposed to it, so maybe that's not the… best use of our time. And then the last one is 15:19:20 ... Again, we haven't really had time to move on to it, but it's talking through the dereferencing algorithm 15:19:24 ... My sense from the group is there is consensus that we should refactor this algorithm 15:19:30 ... I think there is not concerns about what that refactoring might look like, and Stephen, I think that is… that is where the pass service 15:19:35 ... Bit fits in for me, at least. Um 15:19:41 ... Right, like, how does pass service get in this new algorithm? Where does it go? 15:19:41 1 - Remove dereferencing function signature 15:19:42 2 - HTTPS Binding for dereferencing 15:19:42 3 - Passing DIDURL into resolve function 15:19:42 4 - Dereferencing algorithm (PathService) 15:19:49 ... So, yeah, I mean, I opened the queue. I'd really like to hear, is there… I mean, we could just go and spend, like, we have on the agenda 10 minutes for each 15:19:52 ... Um, could do that, or 15:19:58 ... Or we… if there's things or questions that people specifically want to talk about, or if there's other things that you think we really should spend some time on. Uh 15:20:01 Manu Sporny: Let's just… let's just jump into it... 15:20:02 Will Abramson: Okay... 15:20:03 Topic: Remove dereferencing function signature 15:20:07 Otto Mora: Okay. Pick one... 15:20:08 q+ 15:20:11 ... Remove the referencing function signatures 15:20:11 ack manu 15:20:15 ... Yes, madam 15:20:20 Manu Sporny: Alright, so, uh, this is… this is the… this is not the HTTPS… Signature, right? Um... 15:20:23 Will Abramson: No... 15:20:29 Manu Sporny: Okay. Uh, I don't think this does… I think this is a big nothing burger, right? Like, why… I don't understand why people are… are... 15:20:38 ... concerned about the function signature. Um, uh, if we just put it to an algorithm, you still have inputs and outputs 15:20:39 q+ 15:20:49 ... Um, and we say these are the minimum inputs, and these are the minimum outputs, and we leave it at that. I don't… so… so I… I would like… and again, I would like to kind of understand why 15:21:01 ... um, Marcus is pushing back so, so strongly on this. Um, and then, and then, you know, if we go to, like, oh, you know, someone's gonna object over it, it's like, okay, what exactly are you gonna object over? 15:21:07 ... Like, you can't… you can't abuse Jack over some… if the… if the functionality is, you know, still there, so 15:21:10 ack Wip 15:21:16 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm. Well... 15:21:21 Will Abramson: Yeah, my understanding of one of the points of controversy is, um... 15:21:28 ... I think Joe would say that there is no required outputs 15:21:37 ... Alright, like, that maybe the way to say that in your language, Manu, is the minimum outputs from this algorithm is… is nothing. Right? Like, the algorithm can 15:21:46 ... Do the dereferencing, and then use the dereferencing within that algorithm, without having to return it to some other. system. Uh 15:21:53 ... But maybe that gets rounded by saying, like, the minimum output. And then I think to speak to, like, what I hear Mark is saying, it's that 15:21:57 ... You know, if we remove the dereference function signature 15:22:03 ... uh, I think he's worried that then that also rolls up into, like, HTTPS binding, and, like, there are 15:22:05 q+ 15:22:10 ack manu 15:22:12 ... People that depend on, you know, that's a point of interoperability. Option system. Uh, a smile to something 15:22:15 Otto Mora: Right... 15:22:28 Manu Sporny: Yeah, I mean, I would probably end up pushing back on Joe's position, because it's like having a function that doesn't return anything, and instead, it's like some weird state. I mean, you're basically... 15:22:34 ... saving state in the function at that point. Like, if it doesn't return anything, then… It is… it is having a side effect 15:22:40 ... Uh… that's… that's undefined. It's a useless function. Um 15:22:46 ... So, I mean, maybe Joe's got, you know, something more specific there, but, like 15:22:49 ... You know, you use the dere… you know 15:22:57 ... It's a weird thing to define in a spec, um, to have a function that returns nothing. It has a side effect 15:22:57 q+ 15:22:59 Will Abramson: Hmm... 15:23:00 ack Wip 15:23:02 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm... 15:23:05 ... Okay 15:23:17 Will Abramson: Yeah, I guess I can see that, but I think the example that Joe gave last time, which I don't have to hand, should do, apologies for that, but it was, you know... 15:23:24 ... a very simple, like, dereferencing a DID URL with a fragment to a verification method 15:23:28 ... Right, and dereferencing it in the context of, like, I want to verify a 15:23:32 ... A verifiable presentation, or, like, approve on a credential 15:23:42 ... Um, and his… the function that he gave, that, you know, like, the dereferencing operation was happening in that function, and then the verification of the credential was also happening in there 15:23:49 ... And… I guess the return from that function that he, you know, like, mocked up 15:23:56 ... Was, like, yes, the proof is true, you know, comes back as verified. I guess there is some argument 15:24:01 Manu Sporny: Yeah, but within… no, no, that doesn't… within the function, it had to return the document... 15:24:08 Will Abramson: Right, yeah, yeah, so it's where you draw the boundary on that. you know, I… Yeah... 15:24:11 Manu Sporny: Right, but I mean, that is the dereferencing function, like, that is the algorithm, so it does have an output... 15:24:13 Will Abramson: Yeah... 15:24:16 Manu Sporny: I, you know, if that's the case, I'd push back and be like, no, man, that's got an output, it's the DID document... 15:24:20 Will Abramson: Yeah. Yep... 15:24:23 Manu Sporny: Right? Or the verification method, or whatever, but it's definitely got an output... 15:24:27 Will Abramson: Yes, and, and, like, I think... 15:24:40 ... We could say that, you know, that's still conformant. You've got an output, like, it's just not, like… there's not a clear, like, input and output to your, like, concrete function. That you've defined in code. dereferencing still 15:24:44 Manu Sporny: I'm trying to… I'm trying to find… I'm trying to find his exact example. I think it's in… it's in GitHub somewhere, right?... 15:24:49 Will Abramson: Uh, I think it's in the minutes from last week... 15:24:51 Otto Mora: minutes from last week... 15:24:57 Manu Sporny: There's our thing, and it's the past meetings... 15:25:00 Will Abramson: Oh, I've got it here... 15:25:01 function checkProof(didUrl, proof) { 15:25:01 let baseDid = removeFragement(didUrl); 15:25:01 let fragment = getFragment(didUrl); 15:25:01 let didDoc = resolve(baseDid); 15:25:02 let key=getKey(didDoc,fragment); 15:25:02 let result = checkProof_(proof, key); 15:25:02 return result; 15:25:02 Manu Sporny: This was 23rd of April. Read minutes... 15:25:02 Will Abramson: I've got it here. I'll drop it in... 15:25:03 } 15:25:04 Manu Sporny: Okay... 15:25:07 Will Abramson: Uh, and then just copy it... 15:25:10 Otto Mora: Oh, yeah, okay... 15:25:21 Will Abramson: So, I think it's really this get key. That is... 15:25:24 ... It's kind of, like, the key is the 15:25:27 ... Result of the referencing? 15:25:28 q+ 15:25:31 Manu Sporny: Yeah, but I mean, let's see, did Doc and fragment... 15:25:38 q? 15:25:40 ... I mean, he is dereferencing it, and he's getting a key back. That is the dereferencing function. GetKey is the dereferencing function 15:25:43 Will Abramson: Mm. Hmm... 15:25:46 Manu Sporny: Right? And he's getting a return value back, which is the key... 15:26:02 Will Abramson: Well, I would say that get key is one step of the dereferencing, right? Like, you've taken in this dig URL, then you've resolved the document. menu. I guess that, yeah, then you'd be referenced on the… On the returned bid document... 15:26:16 ... Mm 15:26:19 Manu Sporny: Yeah, the other way to go about this is to basically say, you can implement this however you want to, and Joe, you've decided to implement it in a way that, you know, other people might not, um, and it's totally fine and legitimate, because you don't have to implement the exact algorithm that's in the specification... 15:26:24 ... So we just put in language that says you can implement this in whatever way you want, as long as the end result is the same, which is 15:26:29 ... you end up getting the key, and it's valid, and that sort of thing, right? 15:26:31 Otto Mora: I think... 15:26:33 Manu Sporny: and then… then we just get around it, you know, that way, I think. Joe's objection... 15:26:36 ack swcurran 15:26:37 Otto Mora: I think Steven… Steven wants to jump in here... 15:26:40 Manu Sporny: Oops, sorry... 15:26:47 Stephen Curran: And just briefly, um… I mean, it all depends on how you define when does dereferencing end, so... 15:26:54 ... You could say, yeah, you get the did document back, and then you get this fragment that points you to a verification method 15:26:59 ... And there's a definition for what you do with, uh 15:27:07 ... a verification method, because that's part of the spec as well, right? That's… that there. And so 15:27:15 ... you know, Manu, what you said was the dereferencing stop when you pass the did doc back, and the client knows what to do 15:27:19 ... Um, Joe's is 15:27:30 ... You not only process the fragment, but you know what to do once you have processed it. If it points to a service, you process that service in the way that the 15:27:34 ... Definition of that service is… is 15:27:39 ... Specified. So, again, that's where, to me, it gets… it does get tricky 15:27:39 q+ 15:27:44 q+ 15:27:47 ... Is, um, you know, where does dereferencing and. That's it 15:27:50 ack Wip 15:27:50 Otto Mora: Uh, yes, Will... 15:27:57 Will Abramson: Yeah, I mean, I have talked… heard Joe talk about that too, um, you know, like... 15:28:00 ... You do reference and you use it within the context 15:28:05 ... But… I think that's out of scope, almost 15:28:12 ... for me, I think we can address Joe's concerns, and I think Joe would be happy, I don't want to put words in his mouth, like 15:28:19 ... As long as that example that he gave, as one example of how you might implement dereferencing is not non-conformant, right? 15:28:29 ... I think his concern reading the spec was, you know, it says I have to implement this function signature, and I don't want to do that, or I could imagine not wanting to do that. And I shouldn't have to do that 15:28:34 ... Uh, the spectrum tell me how to do it. It shouldn't prescribe the way that I find the reference 15:28:37 ack manu 15:28:39 Otto Mora: Right. Uh-oh... 15:28:49 Manu Sporny: Yeah, I mean, one way to approach this is, uh, when a group can't come to consensus on what the algorithm should do, you just don't write anything down... 15:28:55 ... like, that's the end result. We didn't come to consensus, we're not gonna write anything down. And plus one will, you know, I think 15:29:07 ... Addressing Joe's issue is just adding language saying, you can implement this algorithm however you'd like, as long as the end result is the same 15:29:12 ... Right? And we can stay very loose 15:29:16 ... about what that means, um, without, I don't think, creating any great risk in the 15:29:23 ... interoperability of the ecosystem, right? Because most people are using this stuff to, like, dereference, uh 15:29:29 q? 15:29:30 ... a verification method, and then use it to verify a signature. Like, if you get that wrong, the signature's gonna fail 15:29:37 ... And you're gonna… you are going to, as a developer, have to do something about that, like, align with the other developers, otherwise 15:29:44 ... your software is not interoperable, so they're… they're market forces that'll get people to do the right thing here. Um 15:30:02 ... Uh, and then for… and to Steven's point, you know, if… like, I'm very hesitant of saying, like, oh yeah, now we're gonna do, you know, process the service part. I know the path service thing is, like, involved in there. I'm wondering, Steven, if we can break that out into a separate algorithm? 15:30:04 q+ 15:30:06 ... and just say, like, here's how you, you know, if your service is a path service 15:30:11 ... Then here's the algorithm for processing pad service, and if it's some other service, then 15:30:20 ... you know, up to you. It's implementation-specific, or whatever. So I'm wondering if we can just draw the line somewhere 15:30:25 ack swcurran 15:30:28 ... Um, where, you know, processing the service stuff is a separate algorithm. Um, I don't know if that would help 15:30:39 Stephen Curran: Um, just a matter of interest, that's exactly what I tried to do. And the way I did it was try to say. there's certain... 15:30:48 ... Um, algorithms… there's certain extensions, or there's certain, um, definitions that are part of this spec, and you have to follow those 15:30:55 ... And there's other ones that are extensions, and when you encounter those, look at the extension algorithm 15:31:00 ... But yeah, I agree completely, that's what we've got to be able to get to, which is 15:31:07 q+ to ask if anyone is objecting to breaking out service processing into another algorithm? 15:31:15 ack manu 15:31:15 manu, you wanted to ask if anyone is objecting to breaking out service processing into another algorithm? 15:31:16 ... You're gonna get something back, and then here's the… and then there's a definition somewhere, and it might be in this specification, it might be in the… did method, or it might be in the extensions, um, repository. That says what you should do with it 15:31:21 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm. I know... 15:31:24 q+ 15:31:26 Manu Sporny: Okay, so, I mean, plus one to that, Steven, so is anybody objecting to breaking it out?... 15:31:36 ... I know that people are objecting to the details in it, but, like, what about… I mean, you know, going just from a top-level architecture perspective, like 15:31:40 ack Wip 15:31:42 ... Can we have a dereferencing algorithm, and can we have a path, you know, service resolution? Algorithm separately 15:31:58 Will Abramson: Uh, yeah, I think at the high level, nobody is objecting to that, as far as I can understand, but I think the devil is in the detail... 15:32:02 ... And my understanding of Joe's concern was really about 15:32:05 ... How the referencing algorithm 15:32:11 ... Defines, or selects, or identifies the particular service 15:32:20 ... That it should be using to dereference a… it URL. I think it's the 15:32:21 Manu Sporny: I didn't quite follow that, Will... 15:32:24 Will Abramson: So, like... 15:32:32 ... one… like, so I have a did URL, what does that URL target? Like, if it's targeting a past service 15:32:38 ... like, how do I know that? And I think also, like, path services, like, path-based matching, right? Like, you match 15:32:46 ... on the service, uh, based on the base path, or something like that, if I remember rightly 15:32:54 ... And I think they're saying, well, there could be other ways that… or there could be other things that often would match against that path, potentially 15:32:56 q+ 15:32:59 ... Um, and who has priority, and also, like, you can't 15:33:03 ... there's something around there, right? Like, what is the ordering? Like 15:33:11 ... I think Joe has said it would be best to first decide, like, first have some algorithm by which you 15:33:17 ... sort of run through. There was some ordering, which you go, okay, first I'm going to check this, then I'm going to check that, and 15:33:17 ack manu 15:33:23 ... Uh… that's my understanding, at least. Um 15:33:30 ... in the refactored approach that Joe provided, it was a sort of, like, step, you know, look in these places first, then look in these, then look in there 15:33:47 Manu Sporny: Yeah, I mean, I thought, Steven, you had already done that in your PR, um, and two, if Joe's done that, then that's fine. Like, I don't think… I don't think there's any pushback on that either. Like, yeah, there's… it's an algorithm, you have to do things in a certain order... 15:33:51 ... And decide what you're gonna do, you know, as a pre-processing step, and then do the things 15:33:57 ... As a result, like, I don't… I don't think that's controversial, is it? 15:33:57 q+ 15:34:01 ack swcurran 15:34:06 Otto Mora: Uh, yes, correct? Steven? Go ahead... 15:34:13 Stephen Curran: Um, I don't think it's controversial that we do that. I think settling on what to do... 15:34:20 ... Is still to be determined, but we haven't even got to that conversation, because we can't get there because of the. The holdup on 15:34:31 ... you know, what is dereferencing? Um, so that's, uh… I think absolutely that's where we're going to 15:34:36 ... You know, Joe disagrees with… I think… I think the positions are Joe disagrees with how I've laid it out 15:34:41 ... And… and, um, I definitely don't think 15:34:44 ... His algorithm is complete, or… or 15:34:49 q+ 15:34:49 q+ 15:34:51 ... Or are necessarily accurate in certain places, so… but we haven't got to that conversation 15:34:56 ack manu 15:34:59 Otto Mora: Yes, well… Oh, sorry, actually, my notes first... 15:35:04 Manu Sporny: Oh, right, so to get to that conversation, we just need to figure out where the line… lines are, right?... 15:35:07 Stephen Curran: Mm-hmm... 15:35:12 Manu Sporny: Like, and the lines… and they're just the interfaces, like, you know, where does the… what we're calling the dereferencing... 15:35:18 ... You know, the high-level dereferencing algorithm start and end, and where does the sub-algram that does path processing 15:35:27 ... You know, what are the inputs and outputs to that? And the previous, you know, algorithm calls the secondary algorithm, maybe, at some point 15:35:33 ack Wip 15:35:34 ... And if we can't decide on what the secondary path referencing algorithm is, we're gonna end up specifying nothing in the spec and move on 15:35:40 Otto Mora: Well... 15:35:41 Stephen Curran: Mm-hmm... 15:35:45 Manu Sporny: I think that's the… right, right? I mean, how many different algorithms are we talking about here? At least two... 15:35:53 q+ 15:35:57 ... like, are we just drawing the line on at least two? Like, there's the dereferencing algorithm, and then there's the path… You know, processing algorithm. Whatever we want to call it 15:35:59 Will Abramson: Yeah. Yeah... 15:36:02 Stephen Curran: Um… Right now... 15:36:04 Will Abramson: Uh, how you guys do?... 15:36:05 ... There you go 15:36:08 Stephen Curran: Yeah, sorry, I jumped on. Um... 15:36:09 ack swcurran 15:36:13 ... Right now, there's, um, the… existing 15:36:21 ... query parameters that were put in the spec long ago. Service, service type. And relative ref 15:36:27 ... And there's PATH, which has essentially been 15:36:35 ... ignored. I mean, it's there in the current spec, but it's… it's basically said, do whatever you want with it. Um, based on the DID method 15:36:44 ... Um, and that's what we're trying… that's what the PAT service one tried to come to grips with, is let's define something for what 15:36:53 ... path handling is, and let's do it… and I try to do it in a way that takes into account. Service and service type 15:37:00 ... And relative rep, all 3 of those, in a way that's consistent with what it was done before, and 15:37:04 q+ 15:37:06 ... And adds path handling to it. That's it 15:37:14 Otto Mora: Well, were you gonna say something, or should I let Manu go ahead... 15:37:26 Will Abramson: Um, the only thing I was gonna say is, I think… I think we just need to spend more time, like, as a group, pulling apart the… you know, like, breaking apart the algorithm as it is today, because. I think it is a bit... 15:37:35 ... complicated, right? Like, that one flow. I know Joe's algorithm is not complete, but I do like 15:37:41 ... The, sort of, like, breaking out into sub-steps that can be easily read, and then the third, this step does this 15:37:48 ... And it… I liked that for readability, like, I think the current dereferencing algorithm is 15:37:56 ... is complicated as it is, and was even more complicated, Steven, when you added your, you know, the path handling. I tried to, like 15:38:03 ... uh, address all Joe's concerns about the different types of, uh, paths. Handling things that could exist 15:38:05 ack manu 15:38:10 Otto Mora: Okay, Lionel?... 15:38:24 Manu Sporny: Yeah, I think, you know, we just need… I am hesitant to go with what Joe's proposed, because he has not put as much time and effort into it as Steven has. Steven's approached... 15:38:29 ... Sounds to me like it's almost completely complete. I think Joe's disagreeing with that, but like 15:38:35 ... We need to start with one of them, and then see what parts people want to change, right? 15:38:36