Re: Clarity on DID Resolution as it refers to DID WG

Thanks Manu.  The chairs are aware that we need to take some action here.
Your proposal is definitely an option.

We will talk with Ivan about this to ensure that we follow any needed W3C
processes since this is charter-related.  Given the charter interpretation
dimension, please be prepared for a potential vote by Member organization.
Now would be a good time for individuals to consult with their colleagues
at their company, including legal departments if needed.  We will not take
a binding vote by Member organization until all Members are prepared to do
so.

As background, it would be good to see comments on this list from other W3C
Members (including Invited Experts) expressing support for or concerns with
your proposal, in advance of Tuesday's meeting.

-- dan

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 2:16 PM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>