[Introduction] Clarify the role of the DID Resolution spec relative to other DID specs

[mwherman2000]

This is a specific "todo" closed related to #17...

TODO: Clarify the role of the DID Resolution spec relative to other DID specs (esp. the DID spec).

[mwherman2000]

As discussed in today's DID Resolution community call, there's more than one perspective to be considered:

1. How are these concepts related from a software perspective?
2. How and where will the knowledge gleaned from question 1 will be written down/preserved?

The short answer ("consensus") appears to be:

a. "Data model stuff" will go in the DID Specification (e.g. DID Identifier and DID Document) - due to current wording in a previously submitted W3C charter document

b. "Protocol stuff" will go in the DID Resolution Specification (e.g. DID-Reference Protocol and DID Resolution Protocol)

Here's a sketch..

[peacekeeper]

@mwherman2000 What do you mean by "DID-Reference Protocol"? I don't think that exists.

[mwherman2000]

Section https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-resolution/#input-didreference describes a protocol. This is the protocol I'm referring to when I use the label DID Reference protocol.

The DID Reference section in the DID Resolution spec defines the DID Reference protocol as...

did-reference = did [";" did-service ] [ "/" did-path ] ["?" did-query ] [ "#" did-fragment ]

[mwherman2000]

For reference I'm including this previous diagram which there was some acceptance for but it supposedly did match up with the scope of the draft W3C Decentralized Identifier Working Group Charter (it sort of does and sort of doesn't ...hence the subsequent version of the diagram that appears at the top of this issue)...

[peacekeeper]

This isn't a "protocol", it's just an ABNF syntax for the DID Reference. And probably this syntax definition should be removed here, since it's already in the main DID spec. Also see my answer here: w3c-ccg/did-spec#167

[mwherman2000]

@peacekeeper I think we need to be more precise than simply saying "an ABNF syntax for the DID Reference" ...yes, it's a syntax but a syntax of what/for what? A syntax specification describes a set of rules for how a [valid] sequence of tokens is parsed and gives names to the parts. ...but you still need to define/label what the "thing" is that is being described.

How can the DID Reference [section] of the DID Resolution specification be anything other than a syntax specification for a protocol? If the DID Reference part of the DID Resolution specification doesn't describe a protocol, what is it describing?

RE: And probably this syntax definition should be removed here, since it's already in the main DID spec.

What does this reduce the DID Resolution spec to? ...some sort of "users/programmers/maintainers guide"? If so, the entire purpose of the spec (as currently documented in Introduction of the spec) needs to be re-spec'ed.

p.s. This discussion it getting too spread out. I suggest we continue the DID Reference "protocol" discussion here: w3c-ccg/did-spec#167 (comment)

[peacekeeper]

I believe that this issue can be closed, considering that the last comment suggests that the discussion be continued in this issue w3c-ccg/did-spec#167, which has been closed by now.

[peacekeeper]

Actually, I take that back.

I feel like the original comment in this issue (clarify the role of DID Resolution to other DID specs) is separate from the closed "DID Reference protocol" topic, and is still something we could indeed describe a bit better.

[pchampin]

This was discussed during the did meeting on 19 September 2024.

View the transcript

w3c/did-resolution#49 Issue#48 fix Capitalization fix for DID spec

<markus_sabadello> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Apending-close

markus_sabadello: Closing the above issues after this call.

<markus_sabadello> w3c/did-resolution#29

markus_sabadello: A couple of other issues I would like to mark pending close
… issue 29 about the term DID resolver being defined correctly
… I think this is addressed in the spec

<manu> +1 to closing this one

<Wip> +1 to closing

<markus_sabadello> w3c/did-resolution#30

markus_sabadello: Also issue 30 that can be marked pending close. It is about dereferencing and whose responsibility it is
… The spec also addresses this

<manu> +1 to closing this one as well

markus_sabadello: I marked a couple of issues as good first issues. COntributions welcome.

#17 w3c/did-resolution#18

markus_sabadello: These issues are about the relationship between DID core and DID resolution
… It would be good to clarify this relationship in the spec with a couple of sentences

<manu> +1 to explaining relationships

---

[pchampin]

This was discussed during the did meeting on 19 September 2024.

View the transcript

good first issues -- #17 w3c/did-resolution#18

markus_sabadello: Explaining that DID resolution happens against DID core etc
… Anyone want to write about this?

decentralgabe: Be great to get these issues assigned

<smccown> I'm happy to write some text for 17 & 18

decentralgabe: Thanks for volunteering smccown

markus_sabadello: Quite a few issues are labelled enhancement to the did-resolution spec
… Important to figure out the fundamentals and get common understanding across the WG
… Would rather focus on these big fundamental topics

<manu> +1 to focus on big issues first

Kim: Did you mention the first DID method Wg
… We want to do a DID Method Wg kick off before TPAC
… This is an ad hoc meeting to settle some of the details for how the group will function
… I have more information here: https://blog.identity.foundation/did-method-standardization-initiative-progress-update-and-next-steps/

more info: https://blog.identity.foundation/did-method-standardization-initiative-progress-update-and-next-steps/

ivan: For the minutes, this is not a W3C Working Group

Kim: This is a DIF working group that includes a sharing agreement with the W3C. There is some followup work happening at TPAC to launch a W3C WG focused on DID Methods
… Idea would be to hand over work from the DIF Wg to the W3C Wg eventually

decentralgabe: There is a meeting on this at TPAC on the DID Method standardization
… Thanks all, see you next week at TPAC

---

[mwherman2000]

Has a PR been created for this?

[peacekeeper]

Has a PR been created for this?

No not yet, this is currently assigned to @mccown, like issue #17