13:54:59 RRSAgent has joined #did 13:55:04 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/05/06-did-irc 13:55:57 rrsagent, make logs public 13:56:05 Meeting: Decentralized Identifier Working Group 13:56:08 Chair: ottomorac 13:56:27 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2026May/0002.html 13:56:28 clear agenda 13:56:28 agenda+ We need a smaller PR that achieves the minimal change here 13:56:28 agenda+ Will Abramson 13:56:28 agenda+ Pierre-Antoine Champin 13:56:28 agenda+ Otto Mora 13:56:30 agenda+ [Decentralized Identifier Working Group](https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/did/) ([View Calendar](https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/did/calendar/)) 13:56:41 previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/04/30-did-minutes.html 13:56:50 next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/05/07-did-minutes.html 14:02:12 JoeAndrieu has joined #did 14:02:21 swcurran has joined #did 14:02:27 present+ 14:03:10 Wip has joined #did 14:03:14 present+ 14:03:29 Topic: Agenda 14:03:49 present+ 14:04:20 TallTed has joined #did 14:04:49 transcriber-bot, resume 14:04:49 scribe+ 14:04:52 Otto Mora: Okay. Alright... 14:04:55 ... So, transcription's on 14:04:57 Topic: Feedback from Conversations at IIW 14:05:02 ... Uh, maybe let's start with this first one. Um 14:05:07 ... feedback from conversations at IAW. I guess, Joe, since you're here 14:05:12 ... Maybe you can summarize a bit of what that conversation was 14:05:24 Joe Andrieu: Sure. Um, I'm bummed Marcus isn't here. Um… uh… We had a good conversation. Um... 14:05:37 ... Some of what we talked about seem to move towards potential alignments 14:05:37 ... Um, in particular, I proposed that, um 14:05:39 ... You know, sort of towards the end of our conversation, that 14:05:47 ... Uh, it may be a suitable option to define dereferencing independent of the dereferencer 14:05:54 ... And if it is valuable to support the existing remote dereferencers out there 14:05:57 ... To, um, define that as a separate thing 14:06:03 ... Um, rather than having a dereferencing algorithm that depends on something that has a dereferencing signature 14:06:12 ... Um, that that may be a good way to support what Marcus is pushing for, is that some people have these dereferencers 14:06:18 ... Um, and they want them to be part of the ecosystem and how you use this 14:06:22 ... Uh, so that was one proposal that was put on the table 14:06:33 ... Um, but Marcus was gonna sleep on it, so Marcus wasn't quite ready to buy into that, which is why I'm bummed he's not here. So I can… I can speak to the fact that we talked about that possibility 14:06:41 ... Um, but not that we had consensus on it. Um, another aspect, um… That came up was, um 14:06:49 ... uh, some understanding, I believe, on Marcus's behalf, that the relative ref algorithm really, um, is a problem 14:06:56 ... Um, in particular, he didn't realize, uh, I think until that conversation, that it also breaks the DIDCOM messaging service endpoint 14:07:06 ... Like, the ability to use the algorithm the way it's defined right now would break expectations around how he thought DIDCOM messaging would apply that algorithm 14:07:16 ... Um… and one of the things I think that I think we've seen in the chat, and, you know, Marcus echoed there, although he didn't make a big point of it 14:07:23 ... Um, is he kind of just wants to be done. He's frustrated that we were almost to the finish line, and then there are all these changes 14:07:30 ... Um, so, you know, I appreciate that challenge, but I think where we're at, the tech still needs some work 14:07:40 ... Um… and with that, I was… I was hoping to hear from Marcus what he thought about it after he had a chance to… To let those ideas settle in 14:07:50 q+ 14:07:50 q? 14:07:52 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm. Okay, that's good, thank you. Let's see if the account's race… Appreciate that... 14:07:54 ack Wip 14:07:57 ... Um, okay, so… oh, actually… well, yeah, go ahead 14:08:04 Will Abramson: Yeah, I mean, I think that all sounds great, and I did read Marx's message in the chat, and it was... 14:08:11 ... useful. I guess, like, I'm wondering how that affects our agenda today, just, I mean 14:08:17 ... you know, the topics we wanted to get closure on were both topics that I feel like we've discussed quite a lot, um 14:08:26 ... I was hoping to make a decision on them today, but obviously Marcus not being here. I mean, we can just make a decision without him, but it feels like it would be better 14:08:26 q+ 14:08:27 ... have him involved, so I don't know 14:08:28 ack Manu 14:08:31 Otto Mora: I don't know... 14:08:34 Manu Sporny: Um... 14:08:43 ... It would be wonderful to have Marcus Moore involved, but he has been pretty clear that he does not have the time to engage 14:08:48 ... At the level that we need him to engage for us to make progress 14:08:56 ... You know, standards and specs are made by the people that show up. We are showing up 14:09:01 ... We need to make decisions and move on. Um 14:09:02 s/Marcus Moore/Markus more/ 14:09:07 ... you know, and it's up to Marcus if he wants to implement the stuff that we have 14:09:14 ... suggested. I mean, I think the biggest problem here is that he does have one of the, you know, um, most popular resolvers, and 14:09:22 ... you know, he can just decide that he's not going to implement the specification. But, you know, at this point, not having a specification, I think, would be a worse outcome 14:09:29 ... So, we need to, you know, I think we've talked some of this stuff to death 14:09:38 ... And if we are fairly certain we know what Marcus's position is, we can make a decision. Um 14:09:47 ... I don't wanna… I don't wanna continue delaying decisions because, you know, Marcus is showing up to 1 out of every… and calls 14:09:48 q? 14:09:55 Otto Mora: Okay... 14:10:02 Manu Sporny: I mean, I will, I will also note that a number of us are not being paid to be here. I know Marcus is in the same position... 14:10:07 ... But, like, show up to the meetings if you want something done, right? Um 14:10:17 ... And I don't… and I don't think, you know, not showing up to the meetings is a good reason anymore. We're so far past our… are, uh 14:10:24 ... Uh… we're past the end of our charter, we need to… we need to make decisions and move on 14:10:25 transcriber-bot, pause 14:10:25 Otto Mora: No... 14:10:25 scribe- 14:10:40 transcriber-bot, resume 14:10:40 scribe+ 14:10:46 q+ 14:10:47 Otto Mora: Okay, transcription, background. Uh, okay... 14:10:48 transcriber-bot, pause 14:10:48 Joe Andrieu: Actually, could you turn it back off for a second?... 14:10:48 scribe- 14:12:37 present+ 14:13:42 present+ 14:13:54 q+ 14:14:05 ack JoeAndrieu 14:14:18 ack ottomorac 14:14:30 q+ 14:14:41 ack Wip 14:16:21 q+ 14:16:26 ack manu 14:16:57 q+ 14:17:03 the IRC log hasn't been written to since 13:56:50 UTC 14:18:14 ack JoeAndrieu 14:18:36 q+ 14:19:04 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/06-did-minutes.html TallTed 14:19:16 ack Wip 14:21:06 transcriber-bot, resume 14:21:06 scribe+ 14:21:09 Otto Mora: Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah, sorry... 14:21:10 Manu Sporny: Alright, uh, can we go back on the record? I want to get some of this on the record. I'm happy to… happy to state it... 14:21:13 Otto Mora: Go for it... 14:21:16 Manu Sporny: Um, okay, so, so… my concerns... 14:21:30 ... Our Marcus continues to not show up to these meetings, uh, and it makes it very difficult for the group to make progress when he is objecting, but he's not at the meetings. I completely understand that he is not funded for this 14:21:41 ... But I will remind the group that the vast majority of us are not funded to do dead resolution work right now. So we're all in the same position, but a core group of us continue to show up 14:21:47 ... So, if we want this thing done, we're past our charter, that core group needs to come together and get stuff done 14:21:53 ... Um, I don't think, uh, you know, the, the, the, uh 14:21:58 ... current, you know, framework for editing on the spec is working either. Um 14:22:08 ... Uh, I think, uh, you know, Joe and Steven, uh, uh, have put tremendous amount of work toward trying to 14:22:25 ... get the spec into a particular shape, uh, that is going to work. Um, they have demonstrated that they can be, you know, co-editors, whatever. They can move the spec forward, right? I am also happy to help in whatever capacity I can. Will's also, you know, done 14:22:32 ... done PRs, we just need to get the people that are actually doing work in the group in a position where they can drive the spec forward 14:22:44 ... Right? And for those reasons, I think, you know, we should list Steven and Joe as, you know, co-editors, or with the power to make editorial decisions, because, you know 14:22:47 ... Those things need to be pushed forward at this point 14:22:58 ... Um, and with that all said, uh, you know, I expect that this will lead to some amount of consternation by, you know, people that are not showing up to the meeting. Too bad 14:23:05 ... that's where we are, right? Like, we're here, let's move it forward. Um, uh… With that said 14:23:20 ... let's focus on the things, on the decisions that need to be made today, and let's make some decisions. We have been talking about some of this stuff endlessly, let's just do some polls, see if we've got some 14:23:29 ... general path forward that… that might be okay, and start making decisions so that we can start raising PRs that… that put these things. Uh, in… into motion 14:23:39 ... I expect fully that we will get formal objections moving forward by people that are not here, and that's okay, because 14:23:44 ... We have given many opportunities to engage, and it's just not happening, so 14:23:46 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/06-did-minutes.html TallTed 14:23:55 Otto Mora: Dimitri, do you have any particular opinion? And also, if you want the transcription of 2, let me know... 14:23:58 Dmitri Zagidulin: You're welcome... 14:24:08 Otto Mora: Oh... 14:24:08 Dmitri Zagidulin: I was just reaching for the thumbs up button, uh, plus one for everything on the side... 14:24:08 Otto Mora: Okay... 14:24:08 Dmitri Zagidulin: Yes, I totally agree... 14:24:17 Otto Mora: Okay, thanks, Dimitri, appreciate it. So, anybody object to the proposal of... 14:24:25 ... the co-editor role being given to Steven and Joe? 14:24:29 Joe Andrieu: For the record, we probably should make it a proposal... 14:24:34 Otto Mora: Okay. Proposal, please... 14:24:41 Will Abramson: Uh, I don't… well, I think we can, but I… Can we do proposals in this group?... 14:24:41 Otto Mora: Or rather, in the main… in the main call... 14:24:44 Will Abramson: I feel like maybe we should queue it for tomorrow. First thing... 14:24:47 Otto Mora: Okay, that's fine... 14:24:48 Will Abramson: Mm-hmm... 14:24:51 Dmitri Zagidulin: So yes, but it's informative, non-binding, but yes, we can just save it for next group tomorrow... 14:24:53 Will Abramson: Yeah... 14:24:56 Joe Andrieu: Right, and we would call it a poll, right? I forgot all that sort of subtlety... 14:24:59 Will Abramson: Well, no, this will be a proposal we'll run tomorrow, just to get it formal... 14:25:01 Joe Andrieu: No, no, no, we should not call it a proposal, because those are magic words... 14:25:04 Will Abramson: Yep... 14:25:10 Joe Andrieu: That was part of my understanding, is that in the task force, this is maybe more from the VCWG, so maybe you didn't hear that, Will... 14:25:22 ... But over there, we went through the same question. We have all these task forces, and if the task force makes a proposal, then, unfortunately, to many eyes who are just reading the transcript, it looks like it's the working group working and having a proposal 14:25:27 Will Abramson: Mm-hmm, mhm... 14:25:32 Joe Andrieu: So the suggestion was, hey, just do a poll, don't call it a proposal, and then the proper working group can take the poll as input. To a proposal... 14:25:38 Will Abramson: Yeah, but I think we don't even need to do that. We will just run a formal proposal... 14:25:44 Joe Andrieu: Sure, that works for me as well. I had forgotten about the… That whole jam... 14:25:46 transcriber-bot, pause 14:25:46 Otto Mora: Okay. Hold... 14:25:46 scribe- 14:26:06 POLL: Joe A. and Stephen C. to become co-editors of the DID Resolution Spec 14:26:09 +1 14:26:10 +1 14:26:12 +1 14:26:13 +1 14:26:18 +1 14:26:32 transcriber-bot, resume 14:26:32 scribe+ 14:26:33 Otto Mora: Yeah. Well, not for… I'll turn it right back on. So, okay... 14:26:36 Will Abramson: Yeah, yep... 14:26:46 Otto Mora: So, done, okay, cool. So, Paul, uh, shows majority evidence for agreement. With the… Idea of, uh... 14:26:59 ... doing… having Joe and Steven as co-editors, and we will discuss more formally. As proposal in the next meeting. Okay. So, with that, uh 14:27:01 Topic: Summary from last week's call 14:27:04 ... being done, uh, from our, uh 14:27:13 ... Last week's call, just would like to summarize here, and… We, um 14:27:20 ... Talked about the refactoring of the dereferencing function signature and the associated algorithm 14:27:26 ... Uh, we also did debate replacing that concrete function with more flexible 14:27:31 ... Uh, algorithm that could define some minimum outputs and outputs 14:27:35 ... And then we also talked about service path 14:27:49 ... I know that Steven had submitted a detailed proposal for path handling. We also talked about, um, doing smaller PRs as a more. Let's say… Manageable way of managing… of 14:27:49 i/Otto Mora: Yeah. Well, not for… I'll turn it right back on/ +1 14:27:59 ... affecting change into the spec, because if we do just really large PRs, that would not be as easy to get agreement on the group to merge them in 14:28:05 ... So, Manu did provide some plus one to that, and agreement on that, and then 14:28:12 ... Yeah, I think that was, uh, in general, the conversation was some 14:28:16 ... clarification of some doubts that we had internally. But, uh, yeah 14:28:19 q? 14:28:20 q+ 14:28:20 ... Anything I missed, or 14:28:23 ack Wip 14:28:27 ... Uh, Will 14:28:38 Will Abramson: Yeah, it was just, uh… it was a good conversation. I think we focused on the dereferencing algorithm, that's why we decided to put... 14:28:44 ... The dereferencing algorithm as the only topic that we're going to talk about tomorrow on the call 14:28:55 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/05/06-did-minutes.html TallTed 14:29:01 ... with the aim, I think Manu suggested it, to… to get to… okay, we want to refactor this algorithm. What are, like, the high-level steps in that algorithm? And then 14:29:09 ... what are the inputs and outputs of those steps? Or, like, what's the purpose of them, and then we can get those as PRs into the specs. So we have a framework for other people, like, future PRs, to go into those algorithms 14:29:15 ... and define the steps. That was the idea behind it, to get something into the spec that starts to move us 14:29:18 ... in the direction that I think we all want to go in. Uh 14:29:19 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm... 14:29:22 Will Abramson: So hopefully that's tomorrow's conversation... 14:29:22 q? 14:29:24 q+ 14:29:28 ack Swcurran 14:29:30 Otto Mora: Yep. Okay. Uh, Steven... 14:29:37 ack swcurran 14:29:38 Stephen Curran: Is someone gonna lead that meeting, and… or could someone volunteer to lead that?... 14:29:48 Will Abramson: I can… I can lead it. I'll take a look and put together. Some steps, if you want... 14:29:51 Stephen Curran: Good. That would really be appreciated. I think that would be the best way to go... 14:29:57 ... Thanks, Will 14:29:57 Topic: 1 - Remove dereferencing function signature 14:30:00 Otto Mora: So, with that, next topic is... 14:30:05 q+ 14:30:06 ... Uh, topic one, which is remove the referencing function signature 14:30:11 ack Manu 14:30:15 ... Uh, anything in particular we want to align there, I guess, prior to our call tomorrow, I see Mano 14:30:25 Manu Sporny: I mean, plus one, let's remove it. Um, but I do think we do need… still need the algorithm, and that algorithm needs inputs and outputs, minimum inputs and... 14:30:29 ... Minimum outputs, and then we should say that, uh 14:30:35 q+ to say outputs are a challenge 14:30:36 ... You know, you can implement anything you want to, as long as the inputs and the outputs are the same as the algorithm provided 14:30:37 q+ 14:30:42 q+ 14:30:44 ack JoeAndrieu 14:30:44 JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say outputs are a challenge 14:30:45 Otto Mora: So... 14:30:49 Joe Andrieu: Yeah, I think the outputs are a challenge, Manu. Um... 14:30:58 ... I think there's likely to be effect on program state, um, but I don't think we can determine it in terms of outputs. Um 14:31:08 ... you know, the short little scriptlet that I've shared in a couple meetings now. Um, doesn't need a return value. It's just changing the state of the application 14:31:12 ack swcurran 14:31:14 q+ 14:31:14 ... So… um… I still think we have that… that issue to deal with 14:31:19 Otto Mora: Even... 14:31:24 q+ to note functions with side-effects aren't great. 14:31:26 Stephen Curran: I think we've… because the resolution. It has a signature on it... 14:31:31 ... Um, and is… and they should be binding that 14:31:36 ... Creates complications that we're gonna have to deal with, such as 14:31:42 ... Um, resolution metadata has to be taken into account. And that's gonna get 14:31:50 ... tricky when we don't… if we're… if we're saying, oh, you just have… like, the ideal would be you just have a URL as the input 14:31:56 q+ to say resolution != dereferencing 14:31:59 ... And that's it, but because of what we've done already, and existing extensions and things, we can't do that. I think that gets a little tricky 14:32:01 Otto Mora: Right... 14:32:04 Stephen Curran: So, for... 14:32:10 ... mine and Joe's comments, other than the inputs and outputs, we can just have inputs and outputs, it would be great 14:32:17 ... That was a joke, the last one. Attempt 14:32:17 ack manu 14:32:17 manu, you wanted to note functions with side-effects aren't great. 14:32:24 Otto Mora: Manu... 14:32:40 Manu Sporny: I'm on the queue to say I'm chuckling. That's fine, Joe. I mean, I don't like functions that have side effects, like, that's typically a bad code smell, but if people want to do it, like, you know, go right ahead... 14:32:41 +1 to manu 14:32:54 ... Uh, the return value could be null. We could say, like, you know, you don't have to return anything, and you may return, you know, these values. Uh, doesn't quite necessarily lead to good interop, but, you know, I mean, I think I'm at a point where I don't really care 14:32:58 ... About, like, you know, like, if we can't force people to do 14:33:05 ... things that they don't want to do. So, if we've got an implementer going like, I don't want to return something from this 14:33:14 ... And we can say, like, yeah, okay, fine, like, you don't need to return it, you know, here's what you should return, but, you know, that allows you to kind of break that 14:33:21 ... Um, or not do that, Joe. So, you know, this may be just a should versus may, uh, language 14:33:23 q+ 14:33:30 ... Um, the same thing for options as inputs, you know, um, should versus may. URL? 14:33:38 Otto Mora: Can you repeat that last part, sorry? Same thing for inputs and outputs... 14:33:41 Manu Sporny: Uh... 14:33:46 ... Uh, you, you, we can 14:33:52 ... Specify shoulds and mayes for input options and return values 14:33:59 ... So that would address Joe's thing. If Joe's like, I don't want to return anything, then we can say, fine 14:34:09 ... Uh, you should return, uh, you know, what markets wants returned. Uh, but you don't have to. Right? Um 14:34:19 ... Now, how you demonstrate, you know, interop with, uh, internal program state change, Joe, I think is a challenge, but, like, you know, it's 14:34:31 ... It's a should, so we don't even need to check the return value, which is… which is not great. Like, we can't do that, like, our test suite for that is gonna be like, yeah, I called the function 14:34:39 ... And that's it. Like, we're not testing any kind of return value from the function, right? And that means that I would imagine, on the whole 14:34:43 ... Uh, it leads to a much worse interoperability story. Um 14:34:50 ack Wip 14:34:52 ... But there are ways to, like, you know, there are ways to negotiate our way past this, like, you know, we don't have to take a hardline position on any of this stuff 14:34:58 Otto Mora: Well... 14:35:04 Will Abramson: Yeah, I think I agree with what Manu said. I mean, one way to look at, like, Joe, your example... 14:35:12 ... function, right? Like, it does some stuff, and it dereferences to. a verification 14:35:21 ... method. And then it uses that method in the function to do a verification, or whatever. I think that was the example 14:35:31 ... But it still does dereference to a verification method in this case, so that, in a way, like, depending… it's where you draw the boundaries, like, that could be the output of the 14:35:38 ... of, like, the algorithm that we're defining here, just your, like, the code boundary that you've drawn 14:35:44 ... Uh… is not… is not in the same place. But I think you could still say 14:35:48 ... I think we talked about this last week too, like, I think you could still say that does have 14:35:55 q? 14:35:56 ... Uh, and output is just being consumed in the same place that it was. Retrieved. Okay 14:36:02 Otto Mora: Uh, Joe?... 14:36:02 ack JoeAndrieu 14:36:02 JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say resolution != dereferencing 14:36:17 Joe Andrieu: Yeah, I don't think we can say that function has an output. I think it does stuff, and there's… there is a school of thought in programming that functions that have side effects are bad ideas, and it is certainly one way to think through how you're going to architect your program... 14:36:20 ... But ultimately, what we need interop around is resolution 14:36:37 ... Um, this is sort of the whole point of my frustration with the introduction of this thing that is now a dereferencer, which now introduces a whole other set of interfaces that we are talking about interop, and does the input and output of this thing 14:36:45 ... map how people are going to use it. For example, we have… we had in that interface that people might get back a list of URIs stripped of all context 14:36:51 ... Right? That doesn't make sense when you need the context to decide which URI to actually dereference 14:37:05 ... And so, sort of forcing everything through that straw of that output created a problem where the recipient didn't have the metadata to understand which URI refers to which service. Like, that wasn't even in there 14:37:06 q+ to note we're talking about dereferencing function signature... 14:37:13 ... Um, so… I think our focus should be on how do we clarify how a client calls a resolver? 14:37:24 ... That is the point where we were trying to get interoperability between the necessarily unique things that different did methods do. We have, by architecture, isolated that into 14:37:28 q+ to say what core thing does Joe/Stephen want to talk about? 14:37:37 ... resolution. And so, we need that formalized. That needs to both be able to be over HTTPS, we've talked about that, and it needs to have explicit inputs and outputs, because that's the wire 14:37:41 ... That we are trying to say that can go to any one of these conformant resolvers 14:37:46 ... to lift that burden of multiple conformant dereferencers is what I'm 14:38:03 ... that's what I'm trying to get off our plate, because it's an unnecessary range of debates and arguments about what is the right inputs and outputs, and I'm suggesting we don't need them any more than my browser needs specific standard inputs and outputs on how it dereferences 14:38:17 ... It's going to execute the algorithm, and we need to describe the algorithm that is executed, so we knew what… we know what to do before we resolve, how do we prepare for it, how do we actually make the resolve call, and then how do we respond to the answer 14:38:22 ... And I think that is not something where we're trying to get interoperability, except for that resolve call 14:38:32 ... Um, the other things are context-specific. If I am, um, uh, doing analysis over an RDF graph, and I come across a DID as a URL 14:38:40 ... What I do there is going to be fundamentally different than what I might do in verifying a proof, or trying to display some resource in a browser 14:38:48 ... So, I don't think that interoperability is around, sort of, that component of what you put into and get out of a dereferencing 14:38:52 ack swcurran 14:38:56 ... It is how you dereference in the scope of how do you prepare, how do you call, and then what do you do with the response. That's it 14:38:59 Otto Mora: Steven?... 14:39:09 Stephen Curran: So, I wanted to agree with, um, Will, and what we're trying to do is figure out what is the, I think, the fundamental agreement, and I think Joe just... 14:39:15 ... or disagreement, I mean, and Joe just laid it out there, which is, where does the spec end? 14:39:20 ... Um, I don't think it ends at the end of resolution. I think that's the easy part 14:39:27 ... I think much more interesting is having consistent meaning that when you, for example 14:39:33 ... Put a fragment on the end of one, not only does that identify 14:39:35 q+ to correct that I did not say the spec ends at resolution 14:39:40 ... a portion of the JSON LD, but the type of that thing 14:39:43 ... defines what you should do at that point. Now 14:39:48 ... What you should do varies, I think, in this group as in 14:39:56 ... Is that the dereferencer that's supposed to do that, or is that the client that called the dereferencer is supposed to do? 14:40:02 ... But I think that… coming up with, okay, how far is it supposed to go, I believe… I want to know 14:40:09 ... I want to be able to put a did URL into a… as an identifier, for example 14:40:14 ... And I want consistent behavior out of that, and I want the, um 14:40:28 ... somebody implementing a DID-based system to know, oh, they got a DID URL was put in, and I'm gonna get a consi… and we're gonna have an interoperable way of interpreting that and getting something out 14:40:29 i/Otto Mora: Yeah. Well, not for… I'll turn it right back on/ +1 14:40:29 present+ dmitriz 14:40:32 ... And so I think it should go further than… than simply resolution 14:40:35 ack manu 14:40:35 manu, you wanted to note we're talking about dereferencing function signature... and to say what core thing does Joe/Stephen want to talk about? 14:40:41 Otto Mora: Uh, yeah, man... 14:40:48 Manu Sporny: I feel like we are not sticking to the topic that was... 14:41:01 ... under discussion, which is fine, but it shows us that we're talking about the wrong thing, so the topic was the dereferencing function, and whether or not we define it. It is not all these other things that we're talking about right now, so 14:41:13 q+ 14:41:15 ... What is the core thing that we want to talk about and get to agreement on? It sounds like it's resolution, so let's just build from the bottom up. What are the inputs to the resolution function? What are the outputs? Like, it sounds like, Joe, you really want to talk about it 14:41:19 ... Steven, you want to talk beyond that, but, like, can we just agree on the 14:41:23 ... function signature for resolution, then, I guess? Like 14:41:29 ... I'm frustrated that we're jumping away from the topic that was explicitly set by the chairs 14:41:35 ... So, what do we want to talk about? What is the core of the foundation that we need to build on? 14:41:39 ack JoeAndrieu 14:41:39 JoeAndrieu, you wanted to correct that I did not say the spec ends at resolution 14:41:41 ... And let's go from there. It sounds like it's… what is the function signature for resolution? 14:41:46 Otto Mora: So... 14:41:51 Joe Andrieu: So, Manu, I think that's changing the topic. I think, actually, Steve and I were arguing about what is the boundary of dereferencing... 14:41:57 ... Um, the, um… What did… what did I put in my tag? 14:42:00 Otto Mora: Um, so you had said about the, um... 14:42:02 Joe Andrieu: Oh, right, and, and, um... 14:42:05 Otto Mora: The spec end, yeah... 14:42:14 Joe Andrieu: To that point, Steven, you had said that I was advocating that the spec stops at resolution. No, we have to explain what you do after resolution... 14:42:19 +1 joe 14:42:22 ... Maybe I wasn't clear about the three steps. We need to explain what you do before resolution, we need to explain how you call resolve, and we need to explain what you do after it 14:42:28 sounds like we're in violent agreement? 14:42:30 ... So, I'm absolutely not saying that we stop at resolution, but I am saying that what you do with the result depends on the media type of the results 14:42:37 ... And so, if the result is an image, you're going to deal with it differently than if it is a node in a JSON-LD file 14:42:46 q? 14:42:47 ... Um, so we do talk about how you use it, and we need to talk about that, um, but I don't think we need to specify any further API coming out of that 14:42:50 ack Wip 14:42:52 Otto Mora: Well... 14:42:55 Will Abramson: Uh, yet. So... 14:42:59 ... I think what you said there, Joe, you know, like, you said something like, uh 14:43:15 ... we're gonna do different things depending on the result and the media type of the result, right? Like, for me, like, I think the boundary that we're talking about is… is that result. I mean, yes, we can say, obviously, depending on the media type of this result, right, this result. You are going to handle it differently 14:43:21 ... But, like, I think the bit that we're defining is you call resolution, you get a resolution result 14:43:23 q+ 14:43:30 ... Then you do some stuff with that result, and you get a resource, and here are the ways in which you can do things with that result to get a resource 14:43:30 q? 14:43:38 ... And… depending on the media type of that resort, obviously, you're gonna handle that differently. Like, some way to say is, like, that resource is 14:43:50 ... quote-unquote, the output. And then just what I was actually on the queue to say is, to Manu, I think there is agreement that we want to get rid of the function signature. Where this conversation really started is 14:43:54 q+ to ask what is the call to resolve? What do you get back? 14:43:56 ... The, you know, like, we're getting rid of this function signature, but we're still defining an algorithm, and is that algorithm having inputs and outputs? 14:43:56 Maybe we need a sample set of DID URLs that we talk through to say where the spec ends. 14:44:03 ... Um, I think it's really about the outputs and, like, you know, the end of the system, I suppose, is what we 14:44:15 ... got to discuss. And maybe the question that Manu raised at the start is, like, is it okay if we say shoulds to all these outputs? And maybe that's just a good way to move boards, right? Uh 14:44:20 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm... 14:44:26 ack manu 14:44:26 manu, you wanted to ask what is the call to resolve? What do you get back? 14:44:32 ... And then, uh, Steven's saying that we maybe sample set of the URLs, like, uh, sort of, like, scenario. That we can react to, right? Uh, mano? 14:44:41 Manu Sporny: Uh, I don't know what we're talking about anymore. I'm sorry I'm being… You know, dense, but... 14:44:47 ... Do we have a… it's… are we getting rid of the func 14:45:00 q+ 14:45:01 ... I'm having a really hard time figuring out, like, what we're talking about. Um, do we agree that we can get rid of all the function signatures in the specification 14:45:05 ... And just have algorithms that have inputs and outputs 14:45:15 ... And specifically, for Resolve, it sounds like we agree, at least the input to resolve is a did URL 14:45:15 q+ NO. We don't agree with getting rid of all function signatures 14:45:18 ... And then maybe you have some options to it 14:45:20 q+ to say NO. We don't agree with getting rid of all function signatures 14:45:24 ... And the output from that is a DID document with a single media type 14:45:28 ack Wip 14:45:28 ... and I haven't talked about dereferencing yet, but, like, do we have agreement on that? 14:45:43 Will Abramson: Uh, yeah, I'm on the computer part. I think… I don't know how we've confused you, Manu, but I think we're not talking about that at all. Like, I think there is agreement from the… we're not talking about the resolve function signature. Like, for me, that's staying in the spec... 14:45:55 ... Because that is what we want people to conformantly bind to, and it has inputs and outputs. Actually, I think one thing that we maybe don't have agreement on there is whether that… one of those inputs is a did URL, but I think we 14:46:02 ... probably everyone in this group does, apart from Mark, but I think the thing that we're talking about is the function signature in the dereferences in the spec today 14:46:09 ... there is a function signature that defines dereferencing as inputs and outputs, and I think there is consensus to remove that function signature 14:46:13 ... Uh, and just define an algorithm 14:46:23 ... And I think the debate that we've been having is about that algorithm and the inputs and outputs that it should, or… What's that? 14:46:25 ack JoeAndrieu 14:46:25 JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say NO. We don't agree with getting rid of all function signatures 14:46:32 Otto Mora: We could, Paul, for that, but before that, Joe... 14:46:38 Joe Andrieu: Uh, yeah, we'll mostly just set it. Um, I don't know why it feels slippery, like we're talking about resolution, uh, Manu... 14:46:44 ... Um, I think we are all talking about what do we need to specify for dereferencing? 14:46:50 q+ to note that Markus disagreed with some of this -- that's why it feels slippery to me. 14:46:54 ... Um, and, you know, whether that has HTTPS or a function signature is about the dereferencing algorithm 14:46:57 s/We could, Paul, for that, but before that, Joe/We could, POLL, for that, but before that, Joe 14:47:00 ... And it is not about removing all function signatures in the spec. That would… I don't think anyone's proposed that 14:47:03 ack manu 14:47:03 manu, you wanted to note that Markus disagreed with some of this -- that's why it feels slippery to me. 14:47:05 Otto Mora: Okay. Uh, man off... 14:47:20 Manu Sporny: Yeah, the reason it feels slippery is I've seen Marcus disagree with some of these things, and I don't know who else in the group agrees or disagrees with him. So, if we can… if we can build up to, like, I'm hearing people agree with each other... 14:47:24 ... and I want the poll to get some of those things locked in, because it helps 14:47:35 ... at least me know what we're focusing on. If we're just, you know, if we're totally fine… like, for example, Marcus was like, no, the input to the resolution function is not a dead URL 14:47:41