Markus Sabadello

> * Indicated that base "conforming DID resolver" also implements local binding What is the reason for this? To me this doesn't make much sense.. In my mind a "conforming...

@erdemonal11 I know I agreed with your idea in my comment https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/212#issuecomment-3386218963, but now after reviewing the PR, I am wondering if this change is really the right thing to...

@erdemonal11 We discussed this in the DID WG meeting yesterday: https://www.w3.org/2025/10/16-did-minutes.html#d627 In this meeting, we thought that it's better to leave things as-is. In other words, in case of an...

> @peacekeeper It is fine for me I checked and I don't see any problems. Thank you, in this case should we close this PR here? Alternatively you could update...

I agree we should add this feature, and I also still find the discussions in https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/25 and https://github.com/w3c/did-resolution/issues/26 useful. Having such a feature can help with the "achieving practical interoperability"...

To address this: Change the first paragraph to: > All conformant DID resolvers MUST implement the DID resolution function for at least one DID method and MUST be able to...

I think the answer is simply "no". This step in the DID Resolution Algorithm is specifically about expanding relative URIs, not about extensions. In other parts of the algorithm, we...

Could we maybe call it a "conforming HTTPS-based DID resolver" instead of a "conforming network-based DID resolver"? My understanding has always been that there can also be other network-based /...

@did-health Can you update your PR?

@did-health Any updates, or can we close this?