Will Abramson

> Not sure what you mean by "this iteration". I mean this working group I guess. > It's my expectation that interoperability between DID methods is a major point of...

Following on for our discussion last week I reached out to Patrick St Louis who pointed me in the direction of the script to extract normative statements from the spec....

Reflecting on yesterdays call I just want to flag that did:btc1 identifier are never NOT_FOUND. See https://github.com/dcdpr/did-btc1/issues/124 So for our first fail state, we should pick something else. Probably INVALID_DID...

I would like to see this enhancement added to the spec. I agree that technically a DID as a serviceEndpoint is currently supported in DID core, but we document how...

This also looks like it can be closed.

This looks good, although I wonder about the SHOULD. To me the DID Resolution spec should be placing requirements on implementations of DID Resolvers and Dereferencers. Not DID Methods. Also,...

Lets discuss this on the call next week. I do not think we will be able to make changes to the CID spec at this time due to it going...

@entin-hun, while this extension would be possible for DIDs it is not how they were intended to be used. DIDs are a type of identifier that can be used to...

Because the DID Resolution work has been taken on the by DID WG, the spec has moved locations along with the context. The new location for the context is: https://w3c.github.io/did-resolution/contexts/did-resolution-v1.json...

I also support a "serviceType" parameter for DID resolution. I think it is both useful and broad enough to be worth including in this spec. DID Core defines services and...