Should the DID Document data model be moved to the DID Resolution spec?

[mwherman2000]

[Duplicate of DID spec comment: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/issues/151#issuecomment-461417659]

Where should DID Documents be defined/spec'ed out? ...given that they are exclusively an output of the DID Resolution process?

Digging deeper...

1. Is there an analogy/are there parallels between:

   • the DID and DID Document "information architecture", and
   • the IP Address/TCP-IP/DNS information architecture?

2. Is the IP Address/TCP/IP information architecture analogous to DIDs?
   ...similar to the way DID Documents are to DNS entries?

3. If it doesn't make sense to spec DNS entries in the IP/TCP-IP specs, why are we trying to spec DID Documents in the DID spec (instead of the DID Resolution spec)?

Reference: Here's a DNS primer that some people might find helpful (DNS is much more than a domain name => IP address resolver):
https://hyperonomy.com/2019/01/02/dns-domain-name-service-a-detailed-high-level-overview/

Here's an updated version of the DID 6-Layer Model to illustrate the above point...

[mwherman2000]

Cross-reference: w3c-ccg/community#20 - DID Resolution spec "charter"

[mwherman2000]

The DID Document data model being defined by the DID Resolution spec is supported by the following statement in the Introduction https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-resolution/#introduction. It states...

This specification defines common requirements, input parameters and output data, architectural options, and various considerations for the DID Resolution process.

[mwherman2000]

Being discussed/answered here: #18 (comment)

[peacekeeper]

@mwherman2000 I think the consensus was that the DID (Document) data model would NOT be moved to the DID Resolution spec. Is there any reason why you re-opened this issue?

[mwherman2000]

@peacekeeper ...only because I had clicked on the Close and comment button by mistake (before we discussed this on the call).

Did I capture the ideas discussed on yesterday's call properly in this diagram? #18 (comment)

[peacekeeper]

Okay I see. How about then we close this issue now and discuss the diagram on the other open issue #18 ?

[peacekeeper]

@mwherman2000 considering this thread, and this comment #18 (comment), and this thread w3c-ccg/did-spec#167, I believe the consensus is that the DID Document data model will NOT be moved to the DID Resolution spec. So we can close this issue, do you agree?

[peacekeeper]

I think this issue can be closed, since it's clear that the DID document data model will not be moved to the DID Resolution spec.

In fact, there is an ongoing discussion now whether DID Core should be updated to reference the Controller Document Specification:

w3c/did-core#854

[peacekeeper]

Closing, as discussed in today's DID WG meeting.