Clarity on DID Resolution as it refers to DID WG

There is a line in our current charter that was a topic of debate in our
DID WG special call today. Namely, this one:

> Establish a deterministic mapping between DID method
> identifiers and the resolution process used to resolve that
> DID method.

Interpretations of what that sentence means have been varied and have
spilled into the DID Resolution discussion. If the DID WG takes a
consistent (and official) position on the interpretation of that
statement, it'll help us figure out how to bring this DID Resolution
discussion to a close.

Hindsight being 20/20, that statement probably should have said
something more along these lines:

Define a concrete, generalized, and extensible DID resolution process
for DID Method implementers that transforms a DID into a DID Document.

Specifically, this means that:

* It is in scope for the DID WG to define a concrete process
  that takes a DID as input and provides a DID Document as
  output.

* It is in scope to make that process take in options and
  provide back a document along with different
  classes of metadata (e.g., subject, document, and
  resolution metadata).

* It is in scope to add resolution tests to the test
  suite that exercise the generalized DID resolution
  process in the specification on concrete DID Method
  implementations.

* It is out of scope to normatively define DID Method specific
  details of implementing DID resolution.

* It is out of scope to normatively define DID Resolution
  protocols and representation formats.

* It is out of scope to test concrete DID Resolution
  protocols and data formats beyond the necessary
  process to demonstrate interoperability between the
  test suite and an implementation.

If we can get consensus on the above, it'll provide clarity around
exactly how far we can take this DID Resolution discussion and exactly
what is in scope and out of scope.

My request is that the Chairs put this (or some variation) to the WG
during the next call where getting consensus on this would be an
appropriate use of everyone's time.

-- manu

PS: Thanks to Dave Longley for kicking off[1] this thought process to
get more clarity.

[1] https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/253#issuecomment-614787033

-- 
Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches

Received on Thursday, 16 April 2020 18:16:23 UTC