14:58:37 RRSAgent has joined #did 14:58:41 logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/08/06-did-irc 14:58:41 rrsagent, make logs public 14:58:49 Meeting: Decentralized Identifier Working Group 14:58:52 Chair: ottomorac 14:58:59 previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/07/30-did-minutes.html 14:59:04 next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/08/13-did-minutes.html 14:59:18 transcriber-bot has joined #did 15:01:31 TallTed has joined #did 15:02:24 denkeni has joined #did 15:04:28 transcriber-bot, connect 15:04:31 scribe+ 15:04:35 Topic: Agenda Review, Introductions 15:04:46 Otto Mora: Okay, so for today, uh, we have the… Uh, first topic is... 15:04:53 ... an update regarding the transition request. Uh, so we'll talk about that 15:04:55 JennieM has joined #did 15:05:01 present+ 15:05:09 ... Then, secondly, we're going to touch upon the DID Methods Charter update. And I know that Pierre also has some updates there. Also, we have just a brief discussion on 15:05:19 ... the short name for DIDCOR and, um, and how to manage that for, um, the TRDID endpoint and that redirection there 15:05:25 ... Then we can briefly talk about the URL dereferencing PR 15:05:33 ... from Joe, which has some, uh 15:05:42 ... feedback from Marcos, maybe we'd also hear from other folks here about that, see what they think. And then, uh, probably the rest of the call, uh, will be just did resolution issue processing 15:05:48 ... So, any additions or anything else that people want to add before we start? 15:05:49 present+ 15:05:56 swcurran has joined #did 15:05:59 Topic: CR Transition Request Review 15:06:02 present+ 15:06:02 present+ 15:06:03 ... Okay, so, first topic… So 15:06:08 https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/823 15:06:10 ... Uh, CR transition request, um, so as, as you folks saw, like, uh 15:06:11 \o/ !!! 15:06:18 https://www.w3.org/TR/did-resolution/ 15:06:20 w00t! 15:06:24 ... PLH approved the transition request here in this issue, and then I think Pierre will request publication hopefully for today, right? Uh, so I'll let Pierre maybe add some details 15:06:30 Pierre-Antoine Champin: Oh, I can confirm that did resolution... 15:06:35 woo hooo!!!! :) 15:06:38 ... as a candidate recommendation was published today. So I just pasted the link 15:06:43 Otto Mora: Excellent... 15:06:59 Pierre-Antoine Champin: Uh, as a… as a… as a consequence, I disabled, uh, Echidna autopublish, uh, on the… it's not that it is required, but from now on, Echidna would refuse anyway to… to publish new snapshots, uh, candidate recommendations, or... 15:07:12 dmitriz has joined #did 15:07:12 q+ to note CRDs are fine, though, right? 15:07:15 ... something that needs manual intervention. The editor's draft on GitHub Pages, of course, will still update when we push for requests, but now every CR snapshot must go through the 15:07:17 danpape has joined #did 15:07:22 ... The manual process. So I did disable it now just because it won't work anyway 15:07:28 ack manu 15:07:28 manu, you wanted to note CRDs are fine, though, right? 15:07:40 Manu Sporny: Otto, you're muted, or disconnected, uh, if you're talking... 15:07:44 Otto Mora: My bad, my bad. I was just giving you the word. Go ahead... 15:08:00 Manu Sporny: Okay, no problem. PA, for the… I thought we can just publish CRDs as they come up, candidate recommendation drafts, so we re-enable Echidna, and we continue to be able to publish CRDs to... 15:08:03 ... TR Spaces, has that changed? 15:08:12 JennieM has joined #did 15:08:21 Pierre-Antoine Champin: That probably hasn't changed, but that's the first working group I'm dealing with that's doing CRDs. You are probably right and I'm probably wrong... 15:08:24 ... I will re-enable it a wee bit 15:08:35 q? 15:08:40 ... Okay, I'll, I'll, uh, I'll see what needs to be done, because currently the auto-publish action says working draft, and so probably we don't want that, but, uh, okay, thanks for letting me know, I will, uh, I will fix that 15:08:52 Manu Sporny: Yeah, and just a heads up, I think the way that that's done is in the, I forget which config file, but in the Echidna config file, you can change it from... 15:08:55 Pierre-Antoine Champin: Yes. Yep... 15:09:09 Manu Sporny: WD to, uh, uh, CRD, and then that will make the right thing happen. It, it is, it is very common to turn off Echidna because you don't want things to overwrite, um, until you make that update, so I think the correct order of operations is... 15:09:17 Pierre-Antoine Champin: Okay... 15:09:22 Manu Sporny: update the Echidna file to publish CRDs, and then re-enable Echidna, and we should be fine. Because what we do want is we want people to see, you know, the updates to DID resolution as we make them... 15:09:25 Pierre-Antoine Champin: Okay, yeah, I will, uh, I will, uh... 15:09:37 q? 15:09:39 Otto Mora: Perfect... 15:09:42 Pierre-Antoine Champin: I will do what's needed. I will double check. No offense. But yeah, I will make sure I'm not breaking anything and I'll fix that. Thanks for that... 15:09:51 Otto Mora: Amazing. Okay. I don't see anybody else with… My hand raised, so… We can move on... 15:09:56 Topic: DID Methods Charter Update 15:09:57 ... Uh, yeah, second topic, uh, that's 15:10:02 ... Um 15:10:14 ... Yes, on this one, um, I think, uh, Pierre, uh, we wanted… well, first of all, I guess, yeah, Manu wanted to see whether we were gonna discuss it at the 15:10:21 ... Deepak, but I think you also had some updates from your side that I think you can go ahead and share, and then we can discuss more 15:10:33 Pierre-Antoine Champin: Yeah, well, not much at this point, but I just wanted to let this group know that the... 15:10:44 present+ 15:10:48 Otto Mora: Thank you... 15:10:54 Pierre-Antoine Champin: a technical strategy team at W3C has decided to reopen, uh… the… the charter… the charter on the Deed Methods Working Group. We have new elements... 15:10:57 Otto Mora: Hahaha... 15:11:00 Pierre-Antoine Champin: Uh, still, still in discussion. I don't know, maybe, Grace, you want, uh, you want to say, say more, right? I don't know what, what I can share, uh, so far... 15:11:05 Grace Rachmany: About the DID methods, sorry, I got a little distracted. You're talking about the DID methods working group? Yeah, another… the, um... 15:11:09 Pierre-Antoine Champin: The… Yep... 15:11:17 Grace Rachmany: The DIF Steering Committee has voted to have Juan Caballero as our representative... 15:11:23 ... Uh, to chair the W3C Working Group, and we've made a formal request 15:11:40 ... Uh, for him to chair, uh, the W3C Did Methods Working Group, and obviously we'll be, you know, they'll, they'll need to be also a co-chair, but, uh, yeah. So that's, well, I don't know, is there something else to say about that? 15:11:40 q+ 15:11:44 q+ 15:11:52 q+ 15:11:55 q- later 15:12:11 Pierre-Antoine Champin: No, thank you, Grace, and thanks to Diff for this. So those new elements led the technical strategy team to reconsider the currently blocking of the charter. So I'm expecting that we will start the charter refinement period soon enough because the charter is quite... 15:12:14 ack ottomorac 15:12:16 ... mature already. We should be able to go to AIC review, well, early this fall 15:12:21 q+ to ask "to AC Review well before W3C TPAC" :) 15:12:21 dmitriz has joined #did 15:12:29 ... Hopefully 15:12:35 Otto Mora: Perfect. I put myself on the queue just to say thank you to Grace, uh, for… for jumping in here. Very, uh, very helpful. Yeah, yeah, we do need, uh, people to help us out sharing this group, and… I think one is definitely the ideal person to. Go share, so like... 15:12:37 ack manu 15:12:37 manu, you wanted to ask "to AC Review well before W3C TPAC" :) 15:12:40 ... Good to hear that 15:12:44 ... Then, uh, Manu was next 15:12:47 ack swcurran 15:12:48 Manu Sporny: Steven was next, I think... 15:12:51 Otto Mora: Oh, Steven was next. My bad. Sorry, Steven... 15:12:53 q+ to ask "to AC Review well before W3C TPAC" :) 15:13:06 Stephen Curran: No problem, um, Manny took himself off the queue. Um, I am interested in that group, um, and would like to move it forward. I've recently got some, um... 15:13:16 Excellent! 15:13:22 ... funding from the Sovereign Tech Agency, in Germany, to help out with standardization or with standardization in general and in particular work at W3C. And I'm very interested in this. So I had a talk with Juan yesterday 15:13:42 ... about the status would like to be kept up to date with what's happening and and get involved in the did method standardization working group. So grace as you move that forward. Keep me in mind and and glad to be involved in the discussion. That's it 15:13:55 Grace Rachmany: Great, yeah, my understanding is that, uh, that Pierre Manton is moving it through the W3C official channels, and we're hoping to have it up for a vote at the October Ireland meeting... 15:14:03 ... So, that's… that's my understanding of the process. I… obviously, I'm the newest person in this room. Uh, but that was what I under 15:14:11 Otto Mora: Okay... 15:14:14 +1 that's the plan 15:14:21 ... Great. Um, uh, thank you also, Steven. I think that you'd be also ideal. Um… Manu, you still wanted to ask a question about the… Review 15:14:25 s/Pierre Manton/Pierre-Antoine 15:14:42 Manu Sporny: Yes, yeah, just on specifics there. So yeah, huge plus one to this. Thank you, Grace, for working at DIFF to get someone representative to chair. I think DIFF is... 15:14:53 ... Very ideally suited to be a chair of the group. So huge plus one to that. With my AC rep hat on, Digital Bazaar is very, very supportive of this stuff moving forward. We look forward to joining the group 15:15:15 ... Uh, in participating. Um, uh, uh, Pierre-Antoine, what, what, um, I think we, ideally the AC vote goes out as soon as possible, um, so that if there are any formal objections to it, we can catch those 15:15:24 ... Uh, and discuss them at W3C TPAC. Uh, and if not, uh, have our first meeting at W3C TPAC. So, I don't… I think there's enough time for that to happen between now and TPAC. What… what do you think 15:15:33 ... what do you think the blockers are to… to putting it up for an AC vote? Like, how… how quickly do you feel like you could… you could get that into the… into the voting queue? 15:15:45 Pierre-Antoine Champin: So, uh, basically, uh, basically we now must have a charter refinement period. Uh, I don't think the process... 15:15:51 ... Gives a minimum delay on that period, but we… what used to be the 15:15:55 q+ 15:16:07 q+ to note we already announced that many months ago, no? 15:16:12 ... I forgot, but the fact that we are working on a charter needs to be announced to the AIC and then we need to leave some time for for reactions and stuff like that. But again, the charter is pretty mature 15:16:28 ... So I think we can keep this to the minimal, so a few weeks. So yes, if we play this right, we could have the vote ended by TPAC, and I do my best to achieve that. Um 15:16:31 ack manu 15:16:31 manu, you wanted to ask "to AC Review well before W3C TPAC" :) and to and to note we already announced that many months ago, no? 15:16:33 ... Yeah, I guess that's all I have right now 15:16:35 Otto Mora: Pardon?... 15:16:38 Manu Sporny: Okay... 15:16:54 ... We… we already announced to W3C many months ago that there was a charter under review. Uh, I don't think that time's out per W3C process. Um, you know, I'm okay with, you know, just a quick ping to folks to say, like, hey, we've got a chair, you know 15:17:03 ... We're moving forward, but I don't I don't think there's anything we already made the announcement. I'm wondering what what invalidated that, if anything 15:17:08 Pierre-Antoine Champin: No, that's a good point. That's a good point. So yeah, I need to double check whether there's some... 15:17:31 ... de jure or de facto timeout on this, but I think it would be polite to re-announce that, at least, yeah, and say we have new chairs in this charter, but you have a point, yeah. So, again, I think we will try to keep the delay before starting the vote to the strict minimum 15:17:46 +1 15:17:50 Manu Sporny: Yeah, and the reason I'm concerned about it is that some people sit on their formal objections until the very last hour of the voting period, and if that's going to be past TPAC, they're going to do it at TPAC, right? And so, it would be good to collect all the formal objections... 15:18:00 ... before TPAC, so that we can use TPAC to address them, if there are any. That's my concern, is that people will game the process to drag this out longer than necessary. That's it 15:18:03 q? 15:18:06 Otto Mora: Yep... 15:18:13 ... Okay. Thank you. Great, great to hear that. Okay, so 15:18:14 Topic: DID Core Shortname 15:18:16 bigbluehat has joined #did 15:18:31 ... And up. Yeah. So the next topic like during the so during the conversation that me and Pierre had this week to set up the agenda, and we were talking about the publication of the did resolution. Uh, we talked about 15:18:37 present+ 15:18:42 ... the short name that is used. Uh, at least for DIT resolution, we used, uh, DIT-resolution-1.0. Um 15:18:49 ... And then that also brought the topic of how this is managed for DidCore 15:18:57 ... Um, so I think Pierre wanted to raise the point that asks, should this, uh, slash TR slash did 15:19:04 ... point to the CR that we have, or should we wait until we are in our REC status? Is that the question up here, essentially, or did I miss? 15:19:08 q+ to suggest something. 15:19:21 Pierre-Antoine Champin: Yes, so basically, uh, uh, we have… we have three short names involved here. Uh, on slash TR, we have slash TR slash did dash 1.0. We have slash TR... 15:19:40 ... which is a REC. We have /tr/did-1.1, which is a candidate REC. And then we have /tr/did, which identifies not a specification, but a specification family. in W3C opponents. Now 15:19:58 ... What the family points to is really up to the working group to choose. Currently, we haven't done anything, so it's still pointing to the latest REC, which is 1.0. Common practices can be 15:20:05 s/in W3C opponents./W3C parlance./ 15:20:15 ... Either we wait until the next version comes to REC and then the family, so the version-less short name /tr/did will only point to DID-1.1 until it's a full-fledged recommendation 15:20:36 ... But another option, which still makes sense, is to make the transition as soon as the next version reaches the candidate recommendation state, because that's the moment where we want to advertise it, where we want to make it public that a new version is on its way. So 15:21:00 ... Uh, I… currently, again, this is not the case. TR slash did still points to 1.0. Uh, if we want to change that, if we want to, uh, to make it, uh, uh, point to, uh, 1.1, I believe we need, uh, we need a group 15:21:00 q? 15:21:00 ... resolution. I think it makes sense, but I obviously can leave with the current option as well 15:21:00 ack manu 15:21:00 manu, you wanted to suggest something. 15:21:00 Suggestions: /TR/did-core/, /TR/did/ and /TR/did-1.0/ -> latest REC, /TR/did-1.1/ and /TR/did/upcoming/ - latest TR snapshot for v1.1 15:21:04 Otto Mora: Okay. Thank you. Uh, see if I know. Go ahead... 15:21:24 Manu Sporny: Yeah, I think, PA, we have also the /upcoming URL that we need to talk about and then the versioned and unversioned ones. I put a brief suggestion into the chat channel 'cause all the /did/cores, I don't know if we're... 15:21:42 ... redirecting it to the… to the right place today, but we really should. Um… and then the new name, the new short name for DID, at least, is just slash DID 15:21:46 ... And then, we're supposed to have versions… versions, so slash did slash… or sorry, slash did dash 1.0 and dot 1.1 15:22:05 ... Um, I think we need to take all those right into, into account. Um, I suggest we don't. Point. TR slash DID to the latest candidate recommendation, um, for the, for the DID spec, for DID resolution 15:22:09 ... we might as well. Um, but for the DID spec, I don't think we want 15:22:20 ... implementations of 1.1 until DID resolution is really locked in. Um, because we may have some updates to the DID. Vocabulary 15:22:29 ... in maybe the… and I think the JSON-LD context needs to be updated, because we're gonna try to align it with the SID spec. Um 15:22:41 ... So, what might be helpful, uh, PA, is just a full list of every single URL you've got to map. I don't think I captured all of them, uh, looking at my suggestion. And then 15:22:53 q? 15:23:07 ... you know, every concrete place that it's going to point to, and then the group can kind of take a look at that, knowing what all the options are. We had to do that with, you know, VCs and whatever. It was just… it became really difficult to make the decision until everyone saw every single URL that was involved, and it was much more than. any 15:23:07 of us thought was there. That's it, just some suggestions 15:23:11 Otto Mora: Okay... 15:23:14 ... Um, is there any reaction, or 15:23:39 Pierre-Antoine Champin: Uh, yeah, Manu, you're right, I forgot about the slash upcoming. I may still forget about others, but, uh… uh… but maybe not. So, okay, I'll try to write down something that's exhaustive, and uh... 15:23:41 Just in the issue tracker would be helpful so we can make suggestions. 15:23:54 ... and make an email proposal or propose different alternatives 15:23:58 ... Basically, most of those URLs are updated automatically. The decision… I don't think we have to make a decision per URL, but more what is the strategy of the group for switching 15:24:16 ... what's considered the current spec versus the upcoming spec. I hear what you're saying, that you prefer this transition to be when the next one becomes a REC. And again, yeah, I think it also makes sense 15:24:29 ... So, but you're right, I probably need to make a more exhaustive and precise and written summary for the group to make an informed decision. So I'll try to do that 15:24:34 Otto Mora: Okay, perfect. Table it for next week... 15:24:37 q? 15:24:41 ... We can follow up on that. Oh, that's good. Seamless 15:24:54 Topic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/pull/344 15:24:55 ... So, uh, yeah, so the second topic is the DDRL dereferencing discussion, uh, namely… This PR… Um 15:25:02 ... Which is, uh, 344 15:25:19 ... Okay, well, I guess mine is dropping, but if you have two minutes, it would have been good to see if you had any reactions on the latest comment from Marcus on that PR. But if not, that's fine. And go ahead 15:25:37 ... The latest share on this beer is 15:25:42 ... Yeah, it's essentially this part here. Let's see. Very nice 15:26:06 ... So, it's, uh, this… this sets of comments from… From Marcus, um 15:26:08 present+ 15:26:15 ... I don't know, maybe Steven… Some ideas of how… But if not, Steven, that's fine, I guess 15:26:18 ... I'll tell Joe what's back 15:26:21 Stephen Curran: Yeah, I've been… I read through it... 15:26:31 ... the other day, and I'm trying to call it out quickly to remind myself. I don't think it's huge. I mean, the one thing he 15:26:44 ... the big… the first thing that he leads with is about the DID and DID URL, and if that's not clear yet, we need to make it clear, so I don't think that one's a big deal. Um 15:27:03 ... still sending a did URL to the resolver. We're not sending a did URL to resolver. We're sending a did. So that's clear. That's out of there. There's a couple of things he's got that I don't think are. Um 15:27:15 ... I mean, it's… it is the way it was before. One of the… I've done a full pass through it, I have a pile of comments that I'm gonna put in. What I'd like to do is 15:27:25 ... Next, and I… and I was just… didn't do that for this call, because I thought we were waiting for Joe to be back, but look at 15:27:47 ... okay, what did the old algorithm say versus, like, that Marcus did a long time ago? So the current Section 5, and how did that compare to 6? What are the differences between them? I personally don't think the differences are… I'm going to be… Significant? 15:27:59 ... And… or in particular, important, like, the things that I've tried to put into the… into it can fit into the old one 15:28:06 ... I'm sure they can fit into the new one, and it's just a matter of making a pass-through and putting them in. So, um 15:28:15 ... I'm confident we can get… I'm hoping we can get through it, um, without… Someone, you know 15:28:29 ... deciding they need to die on a mountain, um, on the algorithm. I think it's… you can do it different ways, let's just try to find a way that we can push it through and use 15:28:38 ... I think the core issues have are dealt with in the 1st one in the in the new one, and we can proceed from there 15:28:47 Otto Mora: Yeah, I think that's fine. And yeah, I take it. Thank you... 15:28:51 ... Summarizing your comments, and 15:28:54 ... Okay, that's good to hear, then 15:28:56 ... And I can respond to Marcos accordingly next week 15:28:57 Stephen Curran: I'm hopeful! At least... 15:29:02 Otto Mora: Yeah, right. um... 15:29:06 Stephen Curran: Um, I think Joe's away another week, though. Is that right? He's not here next week, right?... 15:29:09 Otto Mora: He's… he's back next week... 15:29:14 Stephen Curran: Oh, he's back next week, okay. Well, I'll definitely, um, have, um, have... 15:29:18 ... Put in my comments by then 15:29:22 ... Um, one of the ones I do want to call out, and if Joe happens to read this, um 15:29:32 ... Ted put in a comment, and it was the same thing I was thinking, which is the 15:29:41 ... Putting into Word… into a paragraph a pile of if-then-else statements is not easy to read and interpret and leads to 15:29:51 ... Um, mistakes. So, one of the things I would like to see is this converted into a… each one of his sections. Um 15:30:07 ... converted into an if-then-else bullet list, and I don't know how much… what Joe's reaction to that would be. Uh, Ted put in the comment, I backed it up, so the comments are in there about that, but that would be… Definitely my preference 15:30:07 q+ 15:30:10 ... For, um, what it… what it should look like 15:30:19 Otto Mora: Okay, that's good, yeah, definitely. Thank you... 15:30:19 ack TallTed 15:30:26 TallTed // Ted (he/him) Thibodeau Jr (OpenLinkSw.com): Yeah, just to quickly say, Joe doesn't tend to have an issue with that kind of change... 15:30:29 Otto Mora: So, yeah, Ted, as well, do you want to chime in?... 15:30:34 TallTed // Ted (he/him) Thibodeau Jr (OpenLinkSw.com): I haven't had the free time to make those changes... 15:30:35 q+ 15:30:46 Otto Mora: Got it. Uh, Steven?... 15:30:50 TallTed // Ted (he/him) Thibodeau Jr (OpenLinkSw.com): They're not difficult. They just are time consuming... 15:30:53 Stephen Curran: Okay... 15:30:55 ack swcurran 15:30:56 TallTed // Ted (he/him) Thibodeau Jr (OpenLinkSw.com): Probably an LLM assist will be useful to whomever gets there. I am woefully behind on figuring out how to use any of them, so I won't volunteer to take that path... 15:31:09 Stephen Curran: Um, Ted, what I was thinking of was… was taking one of his sections, say, the first one, the service section, and doing a suggested change, exactly as you say... 15:31:26 ... And then, um, you know, Joe could apply it locally, maybe. I don't know. Could take a look at doing it locally and see what he thinks of it. Um, but that's what I was gonna do, not do the whole thing. I did do it with an LLM, and it was dead simple, and 15:31:33 TallTed // Ted (he/him) Thibodeau Jr (OpenLinkSw.com): Yep... 15:31:44 Stephen Curran: found a logic error in his text, as I think you found. And again, as I see it, it's so much easier if we have it in that form than trying to... 15:31:46 q? 15:31:47 TallTed // Ted (he/him) Thibodeau Jr (OpenLinkSw.com): Absolutely. Yep... 15:31:52 Otto Mora: Yes... 15:31:57 Stephen Curran: parse out, um, English represent… you know, straight paragraph representations of that... 15:32:07 Otto Mora: Makes sense... 15:32:09 q? 15:32:12 TallTed // Ted (he/him) Thibodeau Jr (OpenLinkSw.com): And the reason why I suggested putting them into the bullets and list ordered and unordered is because they expose those logic errors so much faster... 15:32:15 Otto Mora: Okay, well, I guess that's it for that one... 15:32:21 Topic: DID Resolution Issue Processing 15:32:25 ... Let me, um… Move on to our last topic 15:32:43 ... Which is, uh, the resolution issue processing… um. We did close quite a few of these over here. Um, was there any issue in particular that any of you folks wanted to review? Otherwise, I can just pick any. Any of the issues here? 15:32:46 ... For the VR 15:32:58 ... Okay, bye. One 15:33:04 ... Oh yeah, sorry 15:33:04 https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3Aduring-cr 15:33:09 TallTed // Ted (he/him) Thibodeau Jr (OpenLinkSw.com): Could you just paste the link to that page into the chat? Thank you... 15:33:14 JennieM has joined #did 15:33:34 Otto Mora: The architectures as part of the stuff that we have... 15:33:43 ... Mm-hmm 15:33:47 Stephen Curran: auto. Um, so I've gone through them all. There's… there's two that I would highlight that I think we could just… Address... 15:34:02 Otto Mora: And then Twitter internals... 15:34:07 Stephen Curran: with quick pr. So maybe we can hand that at 1 73 and 3 22. So 173 is need some language about implementing HTTPS within a private IP range... 15:34:16 ... And that was one where I thought just a targeted PR could be put in 15:34:17 Slightly changed URL gets the list from oldest-last-update to latest-last-update, means we cycle through the longest-lingering first -- https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3Aduring-cr%20sort%3Aupdated-asc 15:34:23 ... Are we allowed to do something like that in CR, if 15:34:35 ... I guess, yeah, that was a question I had related to these two, is these are not related to the at-risk. I assume we are allowed to make other changes 15:34:45 ... outside of the at-risk during it, as long as they're not substantive. I'm sorry, as long as they're not, you know. Um 15:34:50 ... Massive changes to the spec. Yep 15:34:53 ... What are the rules around CR changes? 15:35:01 Otto Mora: Maybe... 15:35:10 ... Good. I mean, they're not related to the at risk section. Well, maybe, Pierre, do you have any opinion on these? 15:35:32 Pierre-Antoine Champin: I would be careful about making non-editorial changes or substantive changes outside of the at-risk section... 15:35:35 Stephen Curran: Okay... 15:35:39 Pierre-Antoine Champin: To be honest. Um… um... 15:35:45 ... Again, I'm not 15:35:55 ... I'm not super used to the iteration over different CR snapshots and CR drafts, so I might be wrong on this, but my default answer would be 15:36:01 ... Probably not 15:36:04 Stephen Curran: Okay, so in that case, what I would do with this one, Ted, is ask you to take a look at it, see if you think... 15:36:12 ... This just becomes a future one, and we change the label on it to say future 15:36:18 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/173 15:36:19 ... if if you think, given what PA just said about the. Um 15:36:23 q+ 15:36:32 ... you know, the scope of changes we can make in CR, consider putting in a small, um… focus, uh, PR on this 15:36:44 TallTed // Ted (he/him) Thibodeau Jr (OpenLinkSw.com): Uh, this one being editorial, it doesn't matter... 15:36:48 Stephen Curran: And then one way or another, we take it off the list that we have to worry about. If it's future, then that's beyond CR and so on. Okay... 15:36:53 ack pchampin 15:36:57 Otto Mora: Okay. And then I saw that Pierre was on the queue again. Go ahead... 15:37:05 Pierre-Antoine Champin: Yes, just to alter a little bit what I just said... 15:37:37 ... If we find something that we can argue is a bug in the spec, then of course, we are allowed and should fix it. Fixing a bug is a substantive change, but that's the kind of thing that would be acceptable under CR. Obviously. Well. Or maybe not that obvious, hence my remark. But I think you can see where the boundary would be 15:37:40 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm... 15:37:48 ... Okay, so on this one then, do we change the label then? Uh, Steven here? 15:37:52 ... Just to remove the during CR, and just make it… A future changer 15:37:55 Stephen Curran: Sorry, what I'm suggesting is that... 15:37:57 ... Ted take a look at it, and he decide 15:38:00 Otto Mora: Oh, okay... 15:38:06 Stephen Curran: to either market future, um, market future and remove the during CR, or... 15:38:11 ... Perhaps decide to put a editorial, um 15:38:15 ... PR in, if he thinks that's appropriate. Ted, is that okay with you? 15:38:18 TallTed // Ted (he/him) Thibodeau Jr (OpenLinkSw.com): I will do my best to get there... 15:38:19 Stephen Curran: Thank you... 15:38:24 Otto Mora: Okay. Then, 320... 15:38:25 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/322 15:38:32 smccown has joined #did 15:38:40 q+ 15:38:40 ... 3, 22, remove guidance, suggestion that resolvers validate against it 15:38:46 Stephen Curran: Sorry, I... 15:38:49 ... Back on the cube 15:38:49 ack swcurran 15:38:55 Otto Mora: Yeah, go ahead, go ahead. Sorry... 15:38:59 Stephen Curran: Okay, um, this one is, um, just a super small... 15:39:13 ... Um, rewording, I'd be glad to put in a PR. I think it is totally editorial, and it's just saying, you know, lightening the word, saying that, um 15:39:17 ... about resolvers validate against 15:39:27 ... it with… I think it might say a should or something like that, as opposed to saying, you know, it's a good idea to test your resolver 15:39:31 ... Something to that effect. So, um, I could take this one. I think it's 15:39:41 ... fits within. I don't think we need to push it to future. It's such a small change, in my opinion. So I… I could take this one and, um, put it in a small PR 15:39:42 q? 15:39:44 Otto Mora: Perfect... 15:39:49 Stephen Curran: So if you want to assign it to me... 15:39:50 Otto Mora: Yep... 15:39:53 Stephen Curran: I could grab it... 15:40:01 Otto Mora: Right... 15:40:04 Stephen Curran: Hey, that's 2 of them... 15:40:17 Otto Mora: Excellent. Thank you, yes. Now back to the book. Okay, let me see if there's something. The wind is here, live, guys... 15:40:22 ... I really didn't have much time to prepare to… I think another issue 15:40:28 ... These all seem to touch upon the 15:40:34 ... It was… So… We need this. question 15:40:38 ... Anything about this? 15:40:52 ... Proxying resolvers 15:40:57 q+ 15:41:09 ... Yeah 15:41:10 ... Mm-hmm 15:41:13 Stephen Curran: Otto, a couple more that we might want to take a look at. There's a few that I thought... 15:41:16 Otto Mora: Okay... 15:41:23 Stephen Curran: could be closed as duplicates. So maybe we could take a look at those. Um, notably, 92... 15:41:26 Otto Mora: Okay... 15:41:35 Stephen Curran: And that would now become a duplicate of 343, and... 15:41:41 ... Um, this is saying, did resolution test suite. We have a did resolution test suite 15:41:48 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/92 15:41:56 ... 343 says, make sure that the test suite we have gets used and supports at least two methods to achieve the charter success. Um… So, I would say this 15:42:08 ... Whether it be duplicate or simply say we have a DID resolution test suite, now we need it applied to achieve charter success. Um, we can close it 15:42:14 ... And, and, and reference 343. So, that would be my suggestion with 15:42:18 ... With 92, was to close it 15:42:24 Otto Mora: Yeah, that's… Yeah, it mentions... 15:42:37 ... Thank you 15:42:39 Stephen Curran: We're… we're missing what you're saying, Otto. Can't hear... 15:42:43 Otto Mora: Oh, my bad. Are you… are you listening? Am I audible?... 15:42:46 ... Okay, sorry. Yeah, sorry, sorry 15:42:50 Stephen Curran: We can hear you now, yeah. I think you were saying something, and we seem to be cutting in and out. Maybe not... 15:43:03 Otto Mora: I think it's just the the win here. My pleasure. Um, yeah, so... 15:43:10 ... Yeah, it seems to be mainly touchable, sweet, from what I'm seeing here. And then… Very much like you're saying, the… you mentioned… as well. Uh 15:43:41 ... I'm… I mean, this is… it seems to me it's mostly just, uh 15:43:47 ... Kind of wheels tracking issue for the debt resolution test suite 15:43:50 Stephen Curran: Yeah, I mean, basically, I was looking at ways to close off as many as we can. I think… Yeah... 15:43:53 Otto Mora: But if you think this is covered by this other one, I'm happy to mark it. Both... 15:43:59 Stephen Curran: Um, maybe we… we wait. Suggest we'll close it... 15:44:05 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm... 15:44:09 Stephen Curran: Um, if he thinks, uh, the same as I do, which is the resolute… the suite is there, it needs implementation, and 343 covers that... 15:44:12 Otto Mora: Okay... 15:44:39 ... Let's see 15:45:05 ... Okay, perfect. Uh, I see, uh, Dan… Dan, you have your hand raised, uh, go ahead 15:45:17 Dan Pape: Yeah, sorry to interrupt. Um, I actually had a quick little question about the test suite, and I would normally ask Will, but as you know, he's busy right now. Um... 15:45:25 ... If I think there's a little bug in the harness, I mean, obviously I should post an issue, and uh 15:45:33 ... Probably a PR for that. But, you know, given that it seems to me, I think Will, that's kind of like Will's whole thing 15:45:36 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm... 15:45:45 Dan Pape: Is there anyone else that I can talk to about it to determine if it's a bug to bother posting, or should I just post it and… I mean, I don't want to add to all the issues we're trying to get through, but... 15:45:47 Otto Mora: Oh... 15:45:50 Dan Pape: So just sort of a question for the group, I guess... 15:45:56 q+ 15:46:01 Stephen Curran: Yes... 15:46:05 Otto Mora: I'm tempted to say the person, but keep me honest here, Steven, or someone else. I think, uh, sadly, he's the only one. uh... 15:46:11 Dan Pape: Alright, well, I'll just post it while it's in my mind, and… We'll talk when it gets there... 15:46:14 Stephen Curran: I definitely think you should post it, um... 15:46:14 ack swcurran 15:46:24 ... I mean, you can post it in the repository that did resolution test suite repository versus the did resolution 15:46:26 ... Um, but definitely, you should post it 15:46:31 Dan Pape: Oh, right, right, yeah. All right. Thank you. Yeah, good idea. Thanks... 15:46:37 Stephen Curran: Yeah. Um, Will would see it directly and… and take action, hopefully, and a PR to it would be awesome... 15:46:39 Otto Mora: I was trying to find... 15:46:42 Dan Pape: Perfect. Thank you... 15:46:50 Stephen Curran: Oh, you're trying to find the, uh, the suite itself, the repo for it?... 15:46:53 Otto Mora: Yeah... 15:46:53 https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution-test-suite 15:46:57 ... Sorry about that 15:47:07 ... I was looking at the CCG one, which is the old one that Marcus had created. But yeah, this is the last one, I think. Yeah, yeah, pretty much 15:47:10 Stephen Curran: Here's the, uh... 15:47:16 Otto Mora: He only contributed… well, Ben… Ben does have some in… input into it, he's not a… Yeah, but... 15:47:21 ... Was Ben here? 15:47:29 ... But I guess you'd say, Ben, probably the same, right? Will's the… Will's the man 15:47:31 Benjamin Young: Yeah, if you're talking to me, yeah, for sure... 15:47:34 Otto Mora: Yes... 15:47:41 ... Thanks, Dan, I appreciate it. Yeah, just go ahead and post your issue there, directly there 15:47:48 ... Uh, we'll… we'll get to it. Okay, cool 15:47:53 Stephen Curran: Okay... 15:47:54 Otto Mora: Any other ones that jumped out at you, Steven, or anybody else has any other suggestions? Mm-hmm... 15:47:57 Stephen Curran: I can throw... 15:48:00 ... Three more… two more at you. Um 15:48:03 Otto Mora: Mm-hmm... 15:48:21 Stephen Curran: 131 and 133 are related to adding examples to illustrate different did resolution, architecture, added resolution, architecture. Oh, sorry and sorry, not 133. Sorry. 277 and 131... 15:48:27 Otto Mora: Thank you... 15:48:42 Stephen Curran: And one is about removing proxying resolvers. The other is, as I say, examples to illustrate different resolution architectures. We now have this new. Um… Consider revising, removing, did resolution architecture... 15:48:42 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/131 15:48:47 ... As a believe, I believe that was put as an at risk. into the, uh 15:48:54 ... into the, um, CR, uh, version, and so 15:49:01 ... Those specifics around that are just 15:49:05 ... different examples of that. So, you know, again 15:49:11