- From: Otto Mora <otto@mora.cr>
- Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2026 10:58:08 -0400
- To: Decentralized Identifier Working Group <public-did-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABL5KSe0poe4GqEmn3cfd5md3=13-WBvEU2ExX9FjYbd30wNwg@mail.gmail.com>
Please use this zoom link!! https://us06web.zoom.us/j/5637387869?pwd=R2lzUXpLUC91VitFajRKRVlpTlphUT09 Otto I. Mora otto@mora.cr On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 10:44 AM Otto Mora <otto@mora.cr> wrote: > *Hello All,* > > Please see here for the minutes from yesterday's special topic call: > > https://www.w3.org/2026/04/08-did-minutes.html > > *AI Summary:* > > > > > *The Decentralized Identifier (DID) Working Group met on April 8, 2026, to > primarily address outstanding disagreements regarding Pull Request #316 in > the did-resolution repository. Chaired by Otto Mora, the meeting brought > together key contributors including Stephen Curran, Joe Andrieu, and Will > Abramson to reconcile two competing approaches to DID URL dereferencing. > The discussion focused on finding a consensus for a generic path-handling > algorithm while balancing the need for method-specific logic, with members > acknowledging that the small group size made it difficult to establish a > formal quorum for definitive decisions.A major portion of the technical > debate centered on the "precedence" of DID method-specific handling versus > a generic algorithm. Joe Andrieu raised concerns that prioritizing > method-specific logic could undermine interoperability by forcing clients > to understand the intricacies of every individual DID method. There was > also a significant discussion regarding whether a dereferenced DID URL > should return the actual resource or merely a URL pointing to it. Stephen > Curran suggested moving method-specific handling further down the priority > list in the algorithm to address some of these concerns, though "violent > agreement" and confusion over specific implementations persisted throughout > the session.The meeting concluded with a dive into terminology and > architectural definitions, debating the roles of the "client," "resolver," > and "dereferencer." Participants examined the applicability of the RFC 3986 > reference resolution algorithm, with some members arguing that its > behavior—such as overwriting paths rather than appending them—might not > align with the group’s specific use cases. While no final resolution was > reached on the PR, the group identified specific action items for ongoing > issues and agreed to continue the technical deliberations in their next > meeting.* > > Otto I. Mora > otto@mora.cr >
Received on Thursday, 9 April 2026 14:58:24 UTC