14:55:58 RRSAgent has joined #did 14:56:02 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/07/09-did-irc 14:56:05 rrsagent, make logs public 14:56:10 Meeting: Decentralized Identifier Working Group 14:56:15 Chair: Will 14:56:21 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2026Jul/0007.html 14:56:45 previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/07/08-did-minutes.html 14:57:02 next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/07/15-did-minutes.html 14:57:08 present+ 14:58:04 Wip has joined #did 14:58:10 present+ 15:01:27 JoeAndrieu has joined #did 15:03:19 swcurran has joined #did 15:03:20 present+ 15:03:24 present+ 15:03:31 present+ 15:05:13 transcriber-bot, resume 15:05:13 scribe+ 15:05:16 Topic: Agenda Review 15:05:31 transcriber-bot, connect 15:05:32 scribe+ 15:05:38 Will Abramson: It's going into CR... 15:05:44 ... Um… maybe the transcriber didn't get it, but… Yeah, okay 15:05:52 Otto Mora: Sorry, I had to… I had… you got to do the connect from the… because now it's more manual, like, it doesn't automatically start it. Um, I… So, yeah... 15:06:11 Will Abramson: I see, okay. Yeah, no worries. Uh, anyway, yeah, quick agenda review. Yeah, so the remaining CR issue at risk. We were hoping to pass a resolution. My sense is we still could pass a resolution. Uh, I mean, I think we can have language around we will... 15:06:22 ... Go to CR when this issue, this PR is merged and potentially on the call today we can decide that we want to merge it over. Marcus's, uh, comments 15:06:25 present+ 15:06:31 ... Uh, and then… so that's the only issue, really, that's blocking us going to CR. I still haven't heard back from TAG, I don't believe. But I'm hoping that's going to be 15:06:43 ... Fine. And then, for the remainder of the call, we will again just be focusing on the Digimonial dereferencing issue, which… I mean, PR, which… Okay 15:06:46 JennieM has joined #did 15:06:48 ... After we're in CR, we'll try and get that in and then do another CR release 15:06:53 ... Anybody have any additions to the agenda they want to add before we dive in? 15:07:03 ... Let's see, hang on 15:07:11 Topic: DID Resolution At Risk Markers 15:07:20 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/346/changes 15:07:29 ... Yeah, okay, so, again, I mean, I don't know what more we're gonna be able to discuss from tomorrow… from yesterday, rather. So, it's this issue, this PR, sorry, 346, and 15:07:45 danpape has joined #did 15:07:52 ... There are a bunch of at-risk markers. I think everyone on this call is happy with the state of this PR, although if you're not, I would love to hear from you. As I mentioned yesterday, for folks who weren't here, Marcus is querying some of the later sections that we've marked at risk around did resolution architecture and did URL dereferencing 15:07:52 results 15:07:56 ... Uh, I think primarily because we hadn't really discussed that on the call before 15:08:03 pdl-ASU has joined #did 15:08:07 present+ 15:08:13 ... Um, which is true, but I think, uh, based on the discussion yesterday, we feel that these issues, these sections are just entangled with the URL dereferencing, and don't have consensus, so it wouldn't make sense for us to make 15:08:14 present+ 15:08:17 ... take these into CR without an at-risk marker. Um 15:08:21 ... So I'd love to hear from folks if you have comments 15:08:25 TallTed has joined #did 15:08:29 ... And maybe thoughts on a direction, like, should we just be saying 15:08:45 ... you know, replying to Marcus, saying, you know, we hear your concerns, but we've discussed it on the group, and we are gonna overrule these, um, requested changes and merge anyway. I mean, we could look to merge maybe tomorrow, I'm not gonna merge it on the call today. um 15:08:46 q+ 15:08:50 ack manu 15:08:55 ... And then secondly, should we be passing a resolution to move to CR once this PR has been merged? So, you know, please jump on the queue if you have thoughts. Might have 15:09:06 Manu Sporny: Um, uh, yeah, I, I think, um, marking a section as at risk... 15:09:29 ... does not mean that uh you know it is guaranteed to be removed or guaranteed to be heavily modified or any of that stuff right and so uh I think you know Marcus has uh let his concerns be known I think there are others in the group that um I'd love for them to 15:09:47 ... to speak to… to it, but, um, there are others in the group that disagree, uh, with the content in those sections, um, uh, pretty strongly, uh, and as a result, it's, you know, Marcus saying, uh, that he doesn't think it should be marked as at risk, and other people saying they think it should be marked at 15:10:13 ... as at risk. It is not, you know, the at-risk markers are not normative texts, they're, you know, editorial, you know, suggestions, or they're editorial comments that signal very clearly that the group is still discussing those sections, which we are. I think we should clearly 15:10:21 ... highlight which sections of the specification that we are, uh, currently discussing and debating, um, including, uh, the two sections that Marcus, uh, didn't see a reason to… to have, um 15:10:40 ... have marked as at risk. So again, to be clear, an at risk issue marker says that the group may change these sections during the candidate recommendation phase. I believe that is 15:10:58 ... the expectation, and so clearly documenting that before we go into CR is the right thing to do. Um, if Marcus, you know, wants to, uh, discuss it with the group and agree or disagree with the changes that we might make in CR, that is a, you know, future discussion, uh, that we 15:11:08 q+ 15:11:13 ... that we have. So I think we should just put these in there because it does reflect what the group is intending to do. And a plus one to, you know, attempting a resolution to go into candidate rec as soon as. 346 is merged. That's it 15:11:29 ack ottomorac 15:11:31 Will Abramson: Yeah, great. Thanks, Manu. I mean, I think partly, you know, the fact that we're debating whether they should be at risk or not is just highlighting how much these sections are, uh, you know, need discussion, and we want to get into CR without any further discussion, so I'm… I'm aligned with what you're saying. Uh, Otto?... 15:11:50 Otto Mora: Yeah, just generally plus one what Manu has commented. I think Joe had some really good points yesterday during the call regarding, yeah, the fact that because that you're the referencing is, you know, very, very much in discussion in the group... 15:12:07 ... the the fact that here sections the architecture 8 here, you know, will be replaced with the resolution threat model. That's definitely something that we should highlight to to folks external to the working group, and then also the the result is 15:12:10 q+ 15:12:16 ack Wip 15:12:16 q+ to say we should ask for any other input, and move to CR 15:12:17 ... that's that. Then you're in the referencing results section here, which is also marked at risk. So I I fully do agree with with that being the current state of things. And yeah 15:12:20 Will Abramson: Thanks, too... 15:12:37 ... Yeah, I put myself on the queue to ask if folks think that before going into CR, we need an editor… we talked about this a little bit yesterday, an editorial pass around marking some of that sections as non-normative. I mean, maybe those sections are just the sections we've marked as at risk, but 15:12:42 ack JoeAndrieu 15:12:42 JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say we should ask for any other input, and move to CR 15:12:47 ... I think maybe there are other sections in the spec. Currently, I don't know if any sections of ARCS is non-normative, and maybe we want to address that before going into CR. Um, just a question. Joe? 15:12:52 Otto Mora: You're on mute, yo... 15:13:03 Joe Andrieu: Thank you. To your last question, I think marking it at risk is sufficient... 15:13:08 ... Uh, we… adding or removing the normative is something that's easy to do, because it's at risk. Um 15:13:24 ... it would also be nice to get the things that we don't want to be normative, but if we need to discuss it, then that's going to slow us down. So, my… my take on your first question was, I think we should have an opportunity for people to raise any concerns here that they have, which we are doing 15:13:27 https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/347 15:13:37 ... Um, and then I think we should move to CR. Um, I did just add an issue, um, so that the, uh, resolution architecture section, um, can refer to what the debate is. Um 15:13:47 ... And my concern with that section and why I want it at risk is that it presents as normative text 15:14:01 q+ to note one small error in PR #346 that I just noticed. 15:14:16 ... Um, things that I don't think we as a group have consensus to support, and in particular, that which violate our, in my opinion, our, um, root security architecture and our security guarantees, which is that you talk to a resolver, you need to trust that resolver 15:14:26 ... If that resolver is then trusting some other resolver in this proxying configuration, which is discussed in that section, um, we have not defined any ways that you could have any confidence that that process would, um, actually be secure. Um, we could come up with ways to do it, but we as a group haven't figured that out, so while 15:14:34 ... It's, um, you know, something that could be done. It is not something I'd recommend. Um, and I know there are entanglements with, um 15:14:43 q- 15:14:43 ... what some organizations are doing right now in terms of trying to stand up a universal resolver that is going to be purely proxying. And I'm like, please, people, this is a point of centralization, it is a point of surveillance, it is a point of compromise 15:15:07 ... Please think through other architectures. So that's that's why I want us to talk about this. So I added an issue saying, let's talk about it, which I think is the appropriate response. You know, part of what Marcus is asking for is a conversation. I think placing it at risk lets us have that conversation 15:15:08 +1 to note that placing something "at risk" does ensure a conversation happens. 15:15:13 Will Abramson: Yes, thanks, Joe. Yeah, and I agree. I think our risk is saying this section needs more conversation, right? Like, not. Maybe Marcus is reading it as, like, we're just trying to get rid of this section without conversation, and we're absolutely not. Um... 15:15:23 Joe Andrieu: Hahaha... 15:15:26 Will Abramson: Okay, so, Manuel, I saw you jump on the queue and then jump off, so you don't have anything there, so that's great. Then, I guess, the next step is, um... 15:15:44 ... we craft… are we… has anyone else got any comments that they want to share about this, or any concerns about us moving to CR? Like, if we crafted a proposal around, um, you know, we will move the DID resolution spec to CR 15:15:50 ... Uh, once we have merged, uh, 346, you know, something in those words, uh 15:15:56 ... I'd love to hear if anyone has concerns, otherwise, I mean, I will… Trying them out or something 15:15:58 +1 to attempt a resolution to go to CR once 346 is merged. 15:16:03 ... At last. Let's hope. Suggestions? 15:16:19 ... Uh, I guess maybe, Pierre, I would love to hear from you as well, around, um… this 15:16:19 https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1157#issuecomment-4602993561 15:16:19 +1 15:16:20 ... So let me just share that before I'm out 15:16:38 ... there's this tag… this is the tag issue, right? They're still open, and we haven't, like, had sign-off from them that says, uh, you know, yes, you're… you're… you've completed… have asked them for that. Um 15:16:40 ... So maybe do we have to… should we reference that in this proposal too? 15:16:55 ... uh 15:17:00 ... Something like that? Oh, no. There's no proposal in there 15:17:25 ... If anyone wants to finesse the language, please feel free to have another go or jump on the queue if you want to discuss any of it. Okay, great. Much better 15:17:32 ... Yep. I like what Manu suggested 15:17:49 ... Last chance to make your thoughts known before we run this proposal 15:17:50 q? 15:17:54 q+ 15:17:56 q- 15:18:04 ... Okay? Um… Then, I'm getting… oh, manual 15:18:05 PROPOSAL: Publish the DID Resolution specification as a Candidate Recommendation once PR #346 has been merged. 15:18:11 bigbluehat has joined #did 15:18:12 dmitriz has joined #did 15:18:12 ... Right. Okay, great. I'm going to run this proposal. Thanks. So that's a proposal, or should I 15:18:12 +1 15:18:14 +1 15:18:15 +1 15:18:15 +1 15:18:16 present+ 15:18:16 +1 15:18:17 +1 15:18:18 +1 15:18:19 +1 15:18:19 +1 15:18:20 present+ 15:18:20 +1 15:18:21 +1 15:18:24 +1 15:18:42 RESOLVED: Publish the DID Resolution specification as a Candidate Recommendation once PR #346 has been merged. 15:18:52 ... Okay, I'm seeing lots of plus ones. Um, maybe that's everyone on the call, but… Going. Going… Come. Okay, thanks everyone, we are resolved. So 15:18:54 q+ 15:18:56 Otto Mora: Uh… no... 15:18:59 Will Abramson: That's great. And I see that I didn't pause the transcriber bot, but it doesn't seem to be. Did you pause it, Otto?... 15:19:04 ... Oh, OK. It was just a bit slow. That's perfect. It was perfectly timed. Waited till I resolved and then started going 15:19:07 ack manu 15:19:07 Otto Mora: Yep... 15:19:13 Will Abramson: Um, okay, wonderful, that's great, I'm very pleased about that. Uh, I see Manu is on the queue. I know... 15:19:29 q+ 15:19:35 Manu Sporny: Yeah, I'll note that, um, you know, usually one of the things that, uh, folks look for is that we've addressed all of our issues, or we've marked them as, you know, during CR, uh, issues. I know that we have a number of new issues where we have not... 15:19:51 ... done that, marked it as during CR, before we send in the transition request, we should do that, um, as, as, you know, say that, uh, you know, all the, all the issues, and I haven't looked at them individually, but all those issues, uh, need to be marked as during CR, so that 15:19:58 ack Wip 15:20:01 ... when they go to… when the, you know, W3 management goes to review where we are, we can say, like, yeah, we know about all these issues, and they're all during CR issues 15:20:14 Will Abramson: Yes, thanks for bringing that up, Manu, that's great. Um, we definitely need to do that. I wonder if maybe I can ask some help from the editors, like maybe Steven and Joe. I mean, I know there was a bunch of issues that have been created that were around, sort of... 15:20:32 q+ 15:20:35 ... related to this DigiURL dereferencing discussion, I think some of them are maybe, uh, stale, or like… basically, they all need a bit of review and processing, uh, and I will try and do that over the next few days, but if you, Steven, or Joe have time, right, let's just try and go through them, close the ones that are, like, out of date, and 15:20:41 ... as Manu says, mark the ones that are during CR. Um, I think that would be great, because it would be really wonderful if, um 15:20:59 ... Yeah, I don't know if… I was gonna say if we can get back into this flow where we are, like, using issues to drive the… drive the agenda. Like, I know Joe just created an issue, and that's… that's a good one. We can say, like, right, this is now on the agenda. Um, I think with the digital DRL dereferencing issues that are open, they 15:21:01 ack ottomorac 15:21:07 https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/144 15:21:11 https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/145 15:21:11 ... uh, Joe's PR, unless we have to, you know, iterate on that again, but I'm hoping not. Um, so… Otto 15:21:24 Otto Mora: Yeah, agree with that. It would be good. And then also like looking at these 2, 1, 4, 4, and 1, 4, 5, which are tag related. I don't know if you need heather and team to come back on the thing we were discussing earlier... 15:21:27 Will Abramson: Hmm... 15:21:33 Otto Mora: to… to be able to label that, but yeah, there's a couple of tech ones, which I don't know if we can… close yet or not... 15:21:36 denkeni has joined #did 15:21:47 Will Abramson: Yes, thanks, that's great. These tag ones, I mean, I was talking to… I remember having a conversation with Pierre around this, and he was like, it's good to keep them open until we move into CR, or, like, be aware. I mean, I know the internationalization, they've come back to us, right, and said, uh... 15:21:48 https://github.com/w3c/i18n-request/issues/275 15:21:51 ... your complete… so maybe this one could just be closed, like… I'll just share that, just 15:22:07 ... So 144 is against internationalization, which they've come back to us and said is complete. Obviously, the TAG review is 15:22:11 +1 15:22:12 ... And accessibility. Yeah, I mean, my sense is, I think I marked them pending close, and then the idea was, once we moved into CR, we would just close them. Uh 15:22:18 Otto Mora: Mmhm... 15:22:23 Will Abramson: But happy to take a different approach if you think that's best. I mean, my understanding is it's really just TAG that we're waiting to hear back from. Um… And, you know, maybe I'll ping them again after this call and just remind them... 15:22:25 ... I'll point them to this resolution as well 15:22:27 Otto Mora: Right... 15:22:28 present+ 15:22:30 Joe Andrieu: I made you breath. That's why I was like, oh... 15:22:33 Will Abramson: Um... 15:22:36 ... Okay, so 15:22:51 ... I think we can move on. I mean, we kind of… I'm kind of celebrating. It's like, yes, we've got the CR. Not quite, right? But I mean, actually, maybe we can talk very briefly about 15:23:05 ... the… the… the process of, like, implementing that proposal, right? So, say we… we merge 2.6, uh, there's gonna be some work to do, right, to cut a candidate rec release, and 15:23:11 q+ 15:23:15 ack manu 15:23:19 ... fully sure of all that work, and maybe whose responsibility, who's going to take on that job? Because I know, like, obviously Manu usually does what he did, but, uh, is that the editor's role, or PA, can you help with that? I mean… Let's just talk about… Manu 15:23:36 https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/tree/main/transitions/2024/FPWD 15:23:39 Manu Sporny: Yeah, the process is pretty straightforward. We create a directory in the DID resolution. I think that already exists, right, for transitions. I'm trying to find them. Trying to, like... 15:23:40 ... Uh, dead resolution. Let me try and get some, uh 15:23:42 Will Abramson: Right, right, yes, it does... 15:23:42 Manu Sporny: Okay, awesome... 15:23:42 Will Abramson: This one. I dropped it... 15:23:43 Manu Sporny: Um, okay... 15:23:45 Will Abramson: Doing this with me... 15:23:46 Manu Sporny: Yeah, so... 15:23:49 Will Abramson: Right, so we create, like, 2026... 15:23:53 Manu Sporny: Yeah, so basically, it's like, you know, um... 15:24:02 ... Hopefully folks can see that. In this transitions directory, someone will create a new 15:24:08 Will Abramson: Mm-hmm... 15:24:12 Manu Sporny: 2026. Directory slash CR. CR1... 15:24:16 Will Abramson: Mm-hmm... 15:24:29 Manu Sporny: So you'll do 2026 slash CR1 because we might have some other snapshots that we released during the the I think the slash CR1 and then you basically do a static snapshot of the specification. It'll result in like, you know, an index and HTML... 15:24:40 ... uh, the diagrams directory. Um, and then you have to link check it, uh, pub rules, or, you know, link check it. There are a set of checks that, um 15:24:57 ... I can send whoever does it an email on like, this is the exact process. And that's pretty much it. I'm making it sound more complicated than it actually is. You basically just take a snapshot of the spec, make sure that all the links work, you know, fix up whatever you need to 15:25:05 ... Um, and then, uh, you hand it off to the W3C, uh, staff contact, uh, which would be, uh, Pierre Antoine, and, um 15:25:20 ... You know, we'll set it, you know, they'll ask for approval from W3 management, and then W3M, you know, either gives their approval or not, and then the staff moves it into place 15:25:23 Will Abramson: Great, thanks... 15:25:27 Manu Sporny: But as far as editor, so it's the editor's work, it takes all of... 15:25:33 ... Maybe a couple hours tops if there are a bunch of broken links. That's it 15:25:44 Will Abramson: Cool, I appreciate that context, mate, that was great. Yeah, so, I mean, Joe or Steven, is either of you able to take that on? If not, I mean, I could be the backup and do it, but... 15:25:48 Stephen Curran: I probably don't know enough about it... 15:25:49 Will Abramson: um... 15:25:54 Joe Andrieu: Yeah, I can do it. Sound good... 15:25:56 Will Abramson: If you can, maybe just jump on the queue and tell me. Okay, great. Thanks, Joe... 15:25:58 Stephen Curran: Okay. Thanks... 15:26:07 Will Abramson: Uh, yeah, so Joe, I guess we'll just wait… yeah, we've got to wait until 346 is merged, but I think I'm going to look to do that tomorrow, probably. I'll just reply to Marcus and merge it... 15:26:13 ... Okay, great. Or early next week would also be good 15:26:23 ... um… Cool. Thanks. Thanks, everybody. Okay, moving on 15:26:27 Topic: DID URL Dereferencing 15:26:28 Otto Mora: Oh, my! Did we run out of issues, or... 15:26:31 Joe Andrieu: Cool. Yeah, I will, um, plan on doing it this weekend... 15:26:36 Will Abramson: Now we're gonna go to, uh, back to didURL dereferencing, and so… let me pull that up again... 15:26:39 Otto Mora: Alright... 15:26:46 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/344 15:26:52 Will Abramson: So this is 344, which I'll subtopic, and I think it was great yesterday we kind of oriented ourselves on the diagram that Joe has in this PR. Maybe, Otto, would you mind sharing that again? And we can start from there... 15:26:55 Otto Mora: Yeah, that's a great idea to. Yeah... 15:27:13 Will Abramson: Uh, because I think there's definitely a lot more people on the call today, so maybe it would be good just to kind of skate over that again, and then we can dive into any of the comments that either folks have from the discussion or, uh, that are already in this, uh, as comments. Yeah, I think if you… no, no, I think if your 15:27:13 file's changed, you just want to open, uh, this one. Yeah, just open it at the... 15:27:25 Otto Mora: This guy here. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, this is a very useful diagram, I agree. And also we should credit Ted for suggesting it, which I think makes a lot of sense... 15:27:28 Will Abramson: Yeah. And, uh, so... 15:27:33 ... I mean, Joe, do you want to just walk us through this again? Uh, is that… okay? 15:27:37 ... Okay 15:27:43 Joe Andrieu: Um, sure. Um, I was taking a quick note of the highlights of what seemed to be some suggested changes tomorrow... 15:27:48 ... I got two written down, but let me go ahead and walk through this, and then I'll note those two changes 15:28:07 ... As we go. So this this starts with you are after you've gotten your did documents. So you have the did URL and the did document and the metadata that was returned in those processes. And so the first question is, um 15:28:24 ... Is there a service query parameter? So if there is, then we check to see if there are multiple. If there are multiple, that's an error. And so we go to raise error. And the first adjustment to this diagram that I think we have consensus on is that in 15:28:35 ... uh, instances of an error, what we should do is return the… the, uh, DID document. Um, and there was a… there was a flow through here that… that Steven identified that… that could mean that 15:28:48 ... Um, there's a service query, but it doesn't have the right match, and then we don't know what to do. So, the right thing is, I think, uh, whenever we get to this raise error, we're in fact going to go to the use default document strategy. Um 15:28:53 Will Abramson: Yeah, thanks, Joe. And just quickly to jump in, if anyone has comments throughout this, just jump on the queue, and I guess we can take them as we go, Joe... 15:28:56 Joe Andrieu: Yeah, that'd be great... 15:29:04 q+ 15:29:07 ... Okay, so if there are not multiple parameters, then you use the service selection algorithm, which we've defined 15:29:20 ack swcurran 15:29:20 ... And that is basically does the, query parameter match the ID of the service? It's a very simple algorithm. It doesn't have, it's not a best match. It's an identical match. Um 15:29:23 Will Abramson: And I see Steven on the queue. Steven?... 15:29:26 Stephen Curran: Yeah, so this comes back to my comment about... 15:29:31 ... Um, is service completely a unique 15:29:39 ... parameter? Or is it a category of parameter? And 15:29:51 q+ 15:29:51 ... If it's a category like service type is similar and it's just saying instead of using ID, I'm going to use type and that's going to identify a single service. Um, that doesn't appear to fit. Here 15:29:58 ack JoeAndrieu 15:29:59 ... what's the what's your thought on that? I've raised that. I raised that question in the comments. So I just wonder what your your feedback was on that, Joe 15:30:00 q+ 15:30:02 Will Abramson: Yeah, go for it... 15:30:20 Joe Andrieu: Yeah My understanding was that we agreed that we we didn't have a clear use case, for service type being passed in here... 15:30:20 Stephen Curran: Thank you... 15:30:20 q+ 15:30:27 Joe Andrieu: and that we were just going to use an identical service property. Because one of the things that happens with service type is depending on how you get back out of it. You you lose some context. So I believe we talked about that maybe a month ago. And so this is... 15:30:37 ... an attempt to implement that and say, what we're talking about is service, not service type, and not any other query parameters. So that… that is a 15:30:50 ... a big potential addition here, which is… this is the only query parameter, um, that the left-hand side here, uh, of the flow considers. Um 15:31:03 ack Wip 15:31:06 ... uh, we… I think we don't have good support for arbitrary query parameters, and I don't know which ones influence the referencing in a way that we should elevate it up here. Um, but I'm open to. Examples, but this was service, not service type 15:31:21 Will Abramson: I put myself on the queue. I mean, I think this is an interesting one, and I kind of am more aligned with Steven here. I mean, you know, uh... 15:31:27 ... query parameters, I think, are a point of extension in the spec, and it's hard to know how those 15:31:37 ... query parameters are going to be used and defined. But, I mean, one example that I had was, like, imagine, Joe, that we define a query parameter that's, like, linked resource. And it works exactly the same as service, but it's targeting linked resources with an ID. Ah 15:31:56 ... like, I think how I read your… you have a note about this, and I think the note is great to flag that, you know, we need more discussion on this, but it kind of was saying that, you know, like, query parameters that aren't service are, like, legacy, or, like, they're not really in this flow, and I think at the moment, you're right, they're 15:31:56 not in this flow, but the question is whether they should be 15:32:00 ... Um 15:32:07 q+ 15:32:12 ... Uh, because it's, you know, like, people are going to want to define query parameters that do impact dereferencing, and if we don't have support for those, then it's not an extension point anymore, and it's kind of… uh… Yeah, not well supported 15:32:14 ack swcurran 15:32:15 ... Uh, Steven 15:32:51 Stephen Curran: Yeah, pretty much the same point. It's just that the problem is that there's nowhere anymore in the algorithm that would allow for those, which means extensions now become impossible because there's no place for them... 15:32:57 ... And that's what I'm concerned about. What we said about service type was we were going to demote it from being referenced in the spec to being an extension. So it's still 15:33:09 ack JoeAndrieu 15:33:14 Will Abramson: Thanks. Joe?... 15:33:22 Joe Andrieu: Yeah, I agree. If we want to support queries, I think we should... 15:33:25 Stephen Curran: could exist if someone proposed it as an extension. Will gave another one... 15:33:32 ... But there's no place for it to be used now, because it can't. You can't. There's no place in the algorithm for extensions, and that's my concern. If we don't want them, that's okay with me, because, um, I don't have particular use cases for them, but the fact that we have an extensions registration 15:33:35 Joe Andrieu: one of the challenges… my position is we should recommend that people don't do that, um, but of course people are going to do it, and we have a decentralized system. So, the question for me would be, in this flow... 15:33:48 Stephen Curran: system, but now we're not gonna use it. That's… that's the concern... 15:33:51 Joe Andrieu: Where would we handle the fallback to query? Because I do still feel that if you have a service query, I want that to dominate. I think that is a clear and unmitigatable signal. And I think it's important and useful that we do that... 15:33:57 ... Followed by our preferred option, which is, have 15:34:02 ... for extensibility is define a path handler. uh 15:34:17 ... And so those are… that's why that's the first two, and then the rest are fallback. So I would be good with adding, you know, query terms, um, somewhere in that loop. Based on our conversation yesterday. It seems like it should probably happen, um… After 15:34:30 ... uh, the DID method check, and before… well, it could be before the DID method check or not, uh, but certainly before the metadata. The… one of the things that we did speak about yesterday 15:34:37 ... And I think and it helped a lot with clarifying sort of, a metric for which we might consider this hierarchy, which was about visibility 15:34:48 ... Who has visibility to control these different elements? And I think putting something in the DID URL is pretty intentional and pretty visible. So I think that should be elevated above 15:34:59 ... Um, save metadata. Um, the DID document is something that the… we expect the controller to be able to control, so that's… that's why it's handled first in the fallback session 15:35:08 ... Um, and then Manny made a good case for the DID method being before the metadata, because people select specific DID methods for specific reasons 15:35:22 q+ 15:35:25 ... Um, and I like that. I thought the visibility distinction between those two allowed us to tease it out. So I think it's… for me, it's, you know, where in that flow would… would we process query parameters? Unfortunately, we don't have a way for query parameters to tell us 15:35:34 ack Wip 15:35:34 ... that they, um, should affect the referencing, right? We don't have a way to add a type of path handler to a query property. Um, so those are some of the complexities, but… I'll yield the floor 15:35:53 Will Abramson: Yeah, thanks. I mean, that is the thing, it's very… it's a… it's a complex, because it's this open-ended system that we're trying to, like, leave space for, and, you know, maybe that is… well, that's certainly part of the challenge. I think, you know, to your point, like... 15:36:09 ... query parameters don't have a way to signal what they're for. I think all of these… I mean, I get why you want to define service at the top, and that makes sense, right? Because we have defined it in our spec, this is how service works. But I think, for me, the rest of the query parameters 15:36:16 ... are, you know, you're the deref… you're doing dereferencing, do you understand these parameters? And it's kind of like, and if you understand them, then 15:36:27 ... I almost feel like maybe you should, like, they should get to decide where they fit in this flow, because there is some kind of query parameter that might help me select which path handler to use, like, that kind of, like 15:36:30 Stephen Curran: Thank you... 15:36:47 Will Abramson: like, I don't know if it's separate from the path handling… path matching algorithm, but just like service, would… would potentially allow me to select a path handler in the service while ignoring a path… a path handler. that it's in a linked resource or in a did document property... 15:36:54 q+ to say the client can always do crazy things. what we're talking about a standard way to figure out the dereferencing intention of the DID URL Author and DID Controller 15:37:02 ... But at the same time, like, you know, I don't really have use cases. I think a lot of us don't, you know, like, maybe we're just arguing over these things, just trying to make it work, and it's something that we can revisit when people come back and tell us that 15:37:03 q+ 15:37:06 ack JoeAndrieu 15:37:06 JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say the client can always do crazy things. what we're talking about a standard way to figure out the dereferencing intention of the DID URL Author and DID 15:37:09 ... Controller 15:37:10 ... you know, this isn't working because X, Y, and Z… yeah. I… I don't… I don't have good skin in the game, to say, so… Ciao 15:37:13 Joe Andrieu: Yeah, um... 15:37:14 +1 lets revisit once we get feedback from DID method authors 15:37:21 ... I wanted to say that… Did you 15:37:24 Will Abramson: I think I can see it, yeah. Right... 15:37:33 Joe Andrieu: Yeah. Right. So the client can always ignore this flow. I mean, that's just reality. If someone's writing a client and they don't want to go through the algorithm, then fine. There's literally no way we can make them... 15:37:49 ... But what we can do is define a coherent and consistent way such that a client who wants to do it the standard way can do it in a way that the did URL author and the did document controller are expecting 15:38:09 ... Right? I think that's the important thing, is that the… the person resolving this DID URL, they did not… they… they probably did not create it. I mean, often they do, actually, in our… in… in reality, in the systems we build. Um, but we can't presume that the person who's doing the resolution created the DID URL. It could be an attack 15:38:09 vector, it could be whatever 15:38:13 ... Um, and we can't presume that they chose the DID method. Um 15:38:16 ... So, in both of those cases. ah 15:38:30 q+ 15:38:32 ack swcurran 15:38:37 Will Abramson: Thanks, Steven... 15:38:41 Joe Andrieu: Um, what we're… what I was trying to do with this was have a rigorous flow that let there be a deterministic, understandable outcome that's consistent for everyone who wants to play a conformant dereferencing game. And people want to customize their thing, they can be non-standard... 15:38:50 Stephen Curran: Um, I… I agree that it's kind of arbitrary. It is somewhat… there's arguments all over of where to put it. I just want to see it put somewhere, so I would say… you know... 15:38:58 ... let's… let's pick a place to put it. I sort of get the argument for. Putting the first two first 15:39:11 ... I'm a little mixed on that, but again, just because there's arguments multiple ways, I just want to see it put in somewhere. So that's where I would suggest 15:39:14 ... what… what I would suggest, and Joe, just pick a spot that you think is right, and… and include… include it 15:39:17 ack Wip 15:39:17 Will Abramson: Thanks... 15:39:19 Stephen Curran: Yes... 15:39:20 Joe Andrieu: Cool. I'll do that in an x-ray. I've got to update this and then, you know, we'll get more feedback... 15:39:23 Stephen Curran: Yep... 15:39:35 q+ 15:39:40 Will Abramson: Yeah, I had a last suggestion, which is maybe slightly separate, or, like, different, is maybe we don't put it, like, concretely in this algorithm, but we just have, like, we could capture it in a note, and we could leave it to the extension to... 15:39:45 ... sort of define where they think they should slot in. And then it's… because again, it's really about, like, do you support this extension? If you do, then you're gonna 15:39:50 q+ 15:40:04 ack JoeAndrieu 15:40:08 ... do it the way the extension tells you, but if not, you're just going to ignore these query parameters and fall back to these sort of standard defined flow. And then over time, if people develop strong use cases and query justification for standardization. We can integrate them into this. Algorithm? Uh, Joe 15:40:33 q- 15:40:51 Joe Andrieu: Yeah, I really don't agree, Will. I think having the client make up the algorithm is us not defining the algorithm. If we don't tell them that this is where you should check to see if there are any query parameters you understand, then they might check them first... 15:40:54 Will Abramson: Okay. Fine, cool... 15:40:57 Joe Andrieu: They might check them last, and that may create a disconnect between what the DID controller was expecting, or what the DID URL author was expecting... 15:40:59 ... Um and so that's…that's what I'm trying to create is an algorithm that can be expected from the people who create the DID URLs choose the DID methods, um and start the process and the the downstream can respect that because they're ordering their decisions in the right way. um… So, I think we just need to put it in here somewhere, and I'. 15:40:59 Yeah, I'll take a stab and get some feedback. Okay, shall I continue? Is there anyone else in the queue? 15:41:05 Will Abramson: Yes, I think so. Nope... 15:41:07 Joe Andrieu: I don't think so. Okay. Um, okay, so that was about, um... 15:41:19 ... Whether or not there were multiple service endpoints, and then, if the service that was selected, does it have a handler strategy? 15:41:25 ... Um, because lots of our services that we have today didn't know that this was something that they should do. Um 15:41:34 ... Uh, so if they don't, then, um, we use a default service handling strategy, um, and I took a stab at defining that, and that is 15:41:51 ... De novo, it's all new. It's immature. It can use some feedback. But the idea was to try and do basically what I think most of us expect today. If the… If the service type does have a specific handler strategy, because like it's a path service 15:42:12 ... Then we would go use that. You would select that as a handler strategy, and then we would be done 15:42:13 Will Abramson: Uh, maybe I have a quick question on that. Like, what do we, uh… what did we imagine? So, like, set handler strategy end, like, what comes out of this end that would then flow into the next... 15:42:13 Joe Andrieu: So that's that top flow when a service query parameter is in the DID URL... 15:42:16 Will Abramson: Um… by the execution... 15:42:19 Joe Andrieu: Okay... 15:42:22 Will Abramson: Right... 15:42:31 Joe Andrieu: Sure. Oh, that… The… the next execution is invoke the handler... 15:42:33 q+ 15:42:35 ... So if you know what the handling strategy is and you have a handler for it, then you could do it. You might know the handling strategy and not have a handler. And so you can't invoke it. And so both of those are handled in the invoke the handler. Step 15:42:40 Will Abramson: Okay... 15:42:44 q+ 15:42:46 Joe Andrieu: Um, um... 15:42:49 Will Abramson: Yeah, and the handle strategy would say what it needs, right? Like, it'd say, like, I need the… I mean, or is it just going to always get the DID document and the DID resolution result and that sort of thing? Right... 15:42:55 Joe Andrieu: Uh, well, it depends on the handler. Like, the strategy… is, um... 15:43:13 ... A conceptual definition, not a piece of software. So you may have a library that handles that strategy, but then you will have a signature and understand what the parameters are to call the function in that library. But how that library defines what you hand off to it 15:43:27 ... Will depend on what logic makes sense in terms of, I just want these parts of the DID document or I just want these parts of the DID URL. Or they might want everything. Give me the full DID URL, give me the full DID document. That's an implementation choice in terms of the library. And we're not 15:43:27 pdl-ASU4 has joined #did 15:43:29 Will Abramson: Okay... 15:43:32 Joe Andrieu: in this flow, talking about what library we're using. We're just talking about figuring out which... 15:43:34 ack swcurran 15:43:36 ... Which approach you should use to get to the next step 15:43:39 Will Abramson: Yeah, that makes sense to me. I see the queue. Steven?... 15:43:45 Stephen Curran: I would slightly… I would say it has access to everything that has been collected to this point... 15:43:48 Joe Andrieu: Yep... 15:43:59 Stephen Curran: And… and that can be important, because things like… you don't… you want to make sure that it has access to the path, if there's a path in it. So if you pick a service type... 15:44:07 ... and there's a path in it, but you used a service parameter, you might want to use that. So it should have access to everything 15:44:10 pdl-ASU4 has left #did 15:44:16 Will Abramson: Uh, okay, uh… I don't know if you want to respond, Joe, but otherwise I'll go to Ot... 15:44:22 Joe Andrieu: Oh, I just think it's up to the library. If… if… if you're passing it off to a library… I mean, I agree with… with the… the... 15:44:36 ... general perspective that Steven said, is that the… the referencing clients that's performing this algorithm is presumed to have all the data that's generated during this algorithm, and… and the two steps before 15:44:41 ack ottomorac 15:44:45 Will Abramson: Uh, Otto?... 15:44:48 Joe Andrieu: But a given library may pick and choose what parameters you want to send to it. And you would have to know that when you read the documentation for the library when you integrate it into your code base... 15:45:09 Otto Mora: Yeah, my thing is, it's a minor, Nate. I think it occurred to me as you were asking a question, like, what does the end state here mean, right? To a naive reader, just an external person that is not as familiar with this, maybe just for readability, like, you could say end, and then, like, a little, like... 15:45:11 Joe Andrieu: So, could you... 15:45:14 Otto Mora: You know, invoke chosen handler, like, little wording here, would... 15:45:15 Joe Andrieu: Whoever's controlling the screen, if you could put up the other diagram?... 15:45:16 Otto Mora: Oh, yeah... 15:45:19 Joe Andrieu: This is one step in another diagram... 15:45:20 Otto Mora: Okay, yeah, yeah. So this other one here?... 15:45:23 Joe Andrieu: Right... 15:45:24 ... Right. So we're in determined handling strategy 15:45:26 Otto Mora: Using handovers. Uh-huh... 15:45:28 Will Abramson: Yep... 15:45:31 Joe Andrieu: And so, when you're done with that, you go to 4... 15:45:35 ... Right 15:45:51 Otto Mora: Invoke handler. OK. OK, so that'll be there for even before the other diagram gets shown, right? This in the reading continuum, this is first, and then this other diagram is shown later. Is that right? Okay... 15:45:55 ... Okay 15:45:56 Joe Andrieu: Correct. If you look at the… I don't know if anyone has a preview of that PR. The immediately preceding section has that outline... 15:45:57 Otto Mora: Okay... 15:45:59 Joe Andrieu: Um, if you go up a little bit further... 15:46:01 Will Abramson: That's not me, it's Satya... 15:46:04 Otto Mora: Yeah... 15:46:08 Will Abramson: uh... 15:46:08 Joe Andrieu: Well a little bit more because we have the first two So that image is here in figure four and it's it's again in text Here are the here are the five steps or six steps whatever it is... 15:46:11 Otto Mora: Got it, got it... 15:46:19 Will Abramson: So just a comment, maybe instead of end, it could be continue? I don't know. I don't mind that, it's fine for me, though... 15:46:26 Otto Mora: Or go to step three or four or five, whatever. I don't know. Could be. Either way... 15:46:27 Joe Andrieu: Could be next step, maybe... 15:46:30 Otto Mora: Yeah... 15:46:38 Joe Andrieu: My concern with the linguistics of that is it, or the semantics of it, it feels like that's saying... 15:46:47 ... Determining the handling strategy has a next step that didn't fit on this diagram. But we are done with the determined handling strategy algorithm when we get to that point 15:46:51