Prepare for DID Resolution v1.0 TAG Review

[msporny]

We need to review the spec to make sure we have the following sections in the DID Resolution spec for the TAG review:

• The WG's request for this TAG review: https://
• Previous early design review, if any: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/####
• An introduction to the feature, aimed at unfamiliar audiences: https://
• A description of the problems that end-users were facing before this proposal: https://
• Alternatives considered: https://
• Examples of how to use the proposal to solve the end-users' problems: https://
• What do the end-users experience with this proposal: https://
• User research you did to validate the problem and/or design, if any: https://
• Web Platform Tests:

If sections do not exist for each of the items above, we will need to create them.

[wip-abramson]

• An introduction to the feature, aimed at unfamiliar audiences: https://w3c.github.io/did-resolution/#introduction
• A description of the problems that end-users were facing before this proposal: TODO
• Alternatives considered: TODO
• Examples of how to use the proposal to solve the end-users' problems: TODO
• What do the end-users experience with this proposal: TODO
• User research you did to validate the problem and/or design, if any: TODO
• Web Platform Tests: TODO

Okay, I took a look at this. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but my sense is that we only have an introduction to the DID resolution feature currently in the spec.

All the rest of these items would need to be added or clarified in the spec.

@peacekeeper do you agree with this. If we agree, I suggest we add reviews to track each of the changes required to address this TAG review preparation

I also wonder about how and where some of these bits should fit into the section. E.g. User research you did to validate the problem and/or design, if any. I guess this is the fact that people were developing DID resolvers and we wanted to standardise the interface. But does this really belong in the spec.

Finall, I don't really know what is meant be Web Platform Tests.

[wip-abramson]

Okay, in conversation with @msporny last Friday, he highlighted this issue as critical to get done ASAP. We need to give TAG 6 months to complete there horizontal review, we are already cutting that fine given our charter comes up next April.

I have created issues against each of the things that the TAG asks for. We need to address each of these, then we can link to these additions to the spec when requesting a TAG review. This is instead of the need to create an explainer document.

See all issues with the TAG label: https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues?q=state%3Aopen%20label%3A%22TAG%22

I hope to assign each of these issues in our call on Thursday. If think any of these are already addressed, then great, please comment with the section of that spec in the issue.

[w3cbot]

This was discussed during the #did meeting on 11 September 2025.

View the transcript

Prepare for DID Resolution v1.0 TAG Review #177

<ottomorac> w3c/did-resolution#177

Wip: we need to prepare for the TAG review

Wip: We have subissues to split the work up.

Wip: DID Resolution is significantly behind on requesting review on DID Resolution - we need to get through horizontal review before going to CR -- HR can take up to six months -- this issue has become critical, would like to assign people.

Wip: We do have to point to sections in spec that address each concern. I don't think we are talking about any of this stuff in the spec, so we need to add content.

Wip: It's a bit tedious, but we need to do this.

ivan: This is the first time I've seen the list.

manu: Yes recall that the TAG had originally done this for web browsers. Feature is referring to the whole spec.

manu: They just want an intro.

ivan: But his comes back to what Will is asking. Some of these things need to taken with a grain of salt.

manu: I can help clarify some of these aspects...

---

[w3cbot]

This was discussed during the #did meeting on 25 September 2025.

View the transcript

Horizontal Review

<ottomorac> w3c/did-resolution#177

Wip: I just want to have this on the calendar as a touchpoint - where are we with the review

<Wip> https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3ATAG

Wip: I think we're in a good state, if you have a look at the PRs
… lets spend some time on that, and also talk about the SING (?) review

ottomorac: let's start with Manu's PR?

<ottomorac> w3c/did-resolution#199

Wip: we just need some more reviews on these PRs

manu: yeah, not much to say about #199
… if TAG needs us to say more than that, they can tell us

<ottomorac> w3c/did-resolution#187

manu: the PR would close 3 of our horiz rev issues

ottomorac: the other one is #187
… I used some AI summary to help answer that question
… mentioned the testing suite
… do people have any comments on this?

Wip: why don't we open this is a PR?

ottomorac: that section, the Relationship to Other Specs -- hasn't been merged into the main branch
… so I wasn't sure if I should branch off of Manu's PR

Wip: ah, so you think this is going to be a subsection to the Relationship to Other Specs section?

ottomorac: I was confused about Manu's PR

<ottomorac> - Add a "Design Goals and Rationale" 1.1 section before Conformance (this section will incorporate the changes required for issues 185, 187-189)- Add a "Relationship to Other Specifications" (New Appendix "C") (this section will incorporate changes required for issue 186)

ottomorac: I asked about doing these 2 sections. which was, Design Goals and Rationale
… and the Relationship one which would be an appendix under pr 186?

Wip: my recommendation is -- just put it in a PR wherever you think it goes. and we can reconcile it later

ottomorac: I'll open an PR, no prob
… anything else?

---

[wip-abramson]

Okay, following the merge of #194, #199 and #207 I think we are ready to request a TAG review. It is asking for the following:

• The WG's request for this TAG review: https://

TODO: Lets pass a resolution or something this upcoming call. cc @ottomorac

• Previous early design review, if any: N/A
• An introduction to the feature, aimed at unfamiliar audiences: https://www.w3.org/TR/did-resolution/#introduction
• A description of the problems that end-users were facing before this proposal: https://www.w3.org/TR/did-resolution/#use-cases
• Alternatives considered: https://www.w3.org/TR/did-resolution/#relationship-to-other-technologies
• Examples of how to use the proposal to solve the end-users' problems:

https://www.w3.org/TR/did-resolution/#implementer-overview

• What do the end-users experience with this proposal:

Is this https://www.w3.org/TR/did-resolution/#relationship-to-other-technologies?

• User research you did to validate the problem and/or design, if any:

Not sure what we put here - @msporny mentioned #199 addresses this. So that would be https://www.w3.org/TR/did-resolution/#relationship-to-other-technologies, but is that right?

• Web Platform Tests:

Not sure what we put here - maybe N/A

I would appreciate a review of this before I submit. I am not fully confidence theses sections I have referenced are addressing all of what TAG is asking for. Or maybe I am missing some sections.

Nearly there though

[wip-abramson]

Okay TAG review requested. w3ctag/design-reviews#1157