Re: DID WG Special Topic Call

I'll do my best to attend the meeting. In the event I'm unable to attend,
here's my general opinion on the questions:

> How should DID Resolution relate to the DID Core spec?
Via the contract at the very least. More details on my thinking can be
found in the two related PRs in the did-core spec.

> Should we define a resolution contract?
Yes, and preferably make it normative.


> Can we discuss resolution before covering metadata (which one is the
cart, and which the horse)?
I tend to regard the two as mutually exclusive, but tied together in weird
ways. For example, I think it's important to decide if metadata should even
be included first before considering if it should be a part of resolution.
Once decided, the next question in my mind is where should that metadata
belong? In most cases, I think resolution is the best place for it.
However, given the use of the extensions registry, techinically speaking
there's nothing that precludes a method author from utilizing the did
document as a location for the metadata. Some examples of this that I've
seen could end up in the did document that some may consider metadata are:

1. the "created" field,
2. aspects related to encryption ciphers to be used
3. Object metadata (such as the hash example in this comment here =>
https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/233#issuecomment-603210391 )
4. previous did document hash

and probably more I haven't thought off yet. Now this isn't to say that the
did document is the right place or even the best place for such metadata.
Only to say, these different pieces of data could end up in both and we
should consider the fact that metadata will likely end up in both places
and it would be good to offer suggestions about when data should go in the
did document or in the returned resolution object.

> What does the charter say about resolution, and what does what it says
mean?
I'm sure I can argue for this stuff to go both in and out rather
persuasively. From a biased point of view I'd like to see us move it in so
it gives me greater certainty when using others code, I'm fine to toe the
line on whatever is decided for consensus of the group because I've found
ways to work with both and greatly prefer having a common, standard
contract to work with. In any case, I'll work around whatever happens.

> How normative can we be about this, really; I mean, y'know?
Great question. I'll defer to the experts on this because it's my first go
at standards. I'm happy to help assist in finding ways to make things
testable when possible.

-Kyle

On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 4:05 PM Brent Zundel <brent.zundel@evernym.com>
wrote:

> Greetings DID WG Participants,
>
> We are holding an additional call on Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 12 PM EDT.
>
> We will be using our standard DID WG Zoom room [1].
>
> We will use the call to discuss DID Resolution in all its glory.
> Please join us if you would like to help answer such questions as (for
> example):
>
>    - How should DID Resolution relate to the DID Core spec?
>    - Should we define a resolution contract?
>    - Can we discuss resolution before covering metadata (which one is the
>    cart, and which the horse)?
>    - What does the charter say about resolution, and what does what it
>    says mean?
>    - How normative can we be about this, really; I mean, y'know?
>
>
> Thank you for your commitment to this work. We cannot move forward without
> your input and encourage you to attend these additional meetings as your
> schedules permit.
>
>
> The DID WG Chairs,
> Dan Burnett
> Brent Zundel
>
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-did-wg/2020Mar/0004.html
>

-- 
This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are 
not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me 
immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this 
communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that 
this communication does not designate an information system for the 
purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.