w3c
Duplicate normative requirements around implementing DID resolution algorithm
All conformant DID resolvers MUST implement the DID resolution function for at least one DID method and MUST be able to return a DID document in at least one conformant representation.
https://w3c.github.io/did-resolution/#resolving:~:text=All%20conformant%20DID%20resolvers%20MUST%20implement%20the%20DID%20resolution%20function%20for%20at%20least%20one%20DID%20method%20and%20MUST%20be%20able%20to%20return%20a%20DID%20document%20in%20at%20least%20one%20conformant%20representation.
A DID resolver MUST support the DID resolution algorithm for at least one DID method and MAY support it for multiple DID methods:
https://w3c.github.io/did-resolution/#resolver-architectures-multiple:~:text=A%20DID%20resolver%20MUST%20support%20the%20DID%20resolution%20algorithm%20for%20at%20least%20one%20DID%20method%20and%20MAY%20support%20it%20for%20multiple%20DID%20methods%3A
Suggest we remove the normative language from DID Resolution Architecture section
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 return a DID document ~in at least one conformant representation~.
Change the second paragraph to:
A DID resolver might support multiple DID methods:
This PR should remove the second normative statement (in DID Resolution architectures) and remove the in at least one conformant [representation](https://w3c.github.io/did-resolution/#dfn-representations). fragement from the first statement
This was discussed during the #did meeting on 11 November 2025.
View the transcript
w3c/did-resolution#239
Wip: There are duplicated satements, we might want to remove items.
Wip: Same requirement -- second normative statement we probably don't need it
manu: +1, don't need it.
JoeAndrieu: We only have one conformant representation.
Wip: That's a separate issue.
JoeAndrieu: We had a long discussion about this w/ VCs -- we say that things that can be transformed into VCs are VCs... you can't give me a media type and not be serialized in that format.
Section about representations: https://
JoeAndrieu: This is all legacy
JoeAndrieu: This could confuse the market -- we don't want to revisit that -- it would be better if we could update via wisdom learned from that conversation
manu_: I tried to modify the spec according to the charter
… I tried to do the minimal changes possible
JoeAndrieu: If you send me someething that is not a DID Document, it shouldn't work.
pchampin: This isn't aying media type should be the same.
JoeAndrieu: The media type defines the serialization, and we have one media type and one serialization.
JoeAndrieu: All this laguage creates confusion that we don't need to have.
Wip: This has been my sense, but relates to use of accept -- if we have one media type, and you do did resolution if there is an accept header, why do we have this?
Wip: markus_sabadello has said you might ask for CBOR, application/did-cbor -- not a DID Document, repreentation that can be tranforme dinto a DID Document.
markus_sabadello: I'm not sure, Joe -- we did remove abstract data model, there could be other representations... don't know what this means for accept option, still makes sense to have that.
JoeAndrieu: To speak to accept header, in DID Resolution, enabling feature extensibility, but we don't ave any use for it right now.
manu_: I don't think the language says you can shove anything that is not application/did in the resolution result
… I agree this is confusing to have production and consumption rules in DID 1.1 when we only have one media type
… there are many normative requirements in this section. I wanted to avoid making class 4 changes
Wip: We got off topic on this -- feels like this group doesn't have time to take that on -- do we want to raise an issue on didv1.1 and label it future. I'd be wary about getting this in.
Wip: Back to 239 -- are we ok w/ the suggested change -- no duplicate requirements. I'm going to make this change
JoeAndrieu: +1
markus_sabadello: The change would be to remove the second statement -- yes, that's fine. We can remove/change it to say resolvers might support multiple DID Methods.
JoeAndrieu: I think I understood your pushback -- that's not what this issue is about -- can we change conformant representation -- I think it's understood that a non-conformant representation is not what we're talking about.
