w3c
Proposal: Define DDO as "DID Descriptor Object" that can bootstrap into EDO "Entity Descriptor Object"
Issue moved from the CCG did-spec repo (https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/issues/17).
Coming back to this issue after a while, I'm trying to understand if it is still relevant. To me it seems that in the original issue at https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/issues/17, there were some useful statements which we could still add to the spec, such as:
intermediate DID Documents SHOULD NOT be returned by Resolvers
it is up to the DID Method to define interim pieces that may constitute a non fully formed DID Document
intermediate DID Documents SHOULD NOT be returned by Resolvers
it is up to the DID Method to define interim pieces that may constitute a non fully formed DID Document
+1 to incorporating these statements into the spec somewhere.
I had a look into this some more. Currently, the spec does not mention intermediate DID documents at all.
On reviewing the spec, I think there are two places that this text might fit.
- In the definition of didDocument (what is returned from the resolve function) - https://w3c.github.io/did-resolution/#dfn-diddocument
- The Method Architecture section - https://w3c.github.io/did-resolution/#method-architectures
Neither are perfect fits.
There is also this note in the DID core specification - https://w3c.github.io/did/#did-subject
Potentially we could tweak the language there instead?
This was discussed during the #did meeting on 10 July 2025.
View the transcript
Proposal: Define DDO as "DID Descriptor Object" that can bootstrap into EDO "Entity Descriptor Object" #45
<ottomorac> w3c/
<ottomorac> There was a suggestion by Will that we incorporate at least of the 2 suggestions from Chris Allen about intermediate did documents and how did methods define interim pieces that eventually form DID documents.
WIp: there are some changes we can make, I'm not sure where they fit
… there's a couple of PRs that are similar. my querstion to the group -- based on having merged this PR in DID Core, is that sufficient, or do we also want to add something to the Resolver spec?
manu: I don't think we want to use the terms DDO and EDO anymore
… because of exactly what Will said -- we can just call them Intermediate DID Docs, and Resolved DID Docs
… the major concern is - we don't want to add more specialized DID terms
… ideally, we want to minimize those
markus_sabadello: agreed, we definitely don't want to introduce terms DDO and EDO. the question is - do we want to mention anything about Intermediate DID Docs, during resolution process?
… but as Will also mentioned, there was an issue merged today in DID Core, which talks about that a bit
<ottomorac> w3c/
markus_sabadello: w3c/
… also the Read operation is defined by the DID Method, and that does whatever, in regards to the Intermediate DID doc
… so, we probably don't need to change spec
<Wip> +1 I think I agree
<Wip> I am advocating we do nothing :)
bengo: I'm noticing that nobody's advocating for this except Wip, who is +1 on this currently
… and my instinct is -- I don't see a reason to recommend against it, but maybe Wip does
Wip: yeah, to be clear, I'm not actually advocating we do anything
<bengo> I'd probably be -1 on adding that language without understanding a rationale.
<bengo> let's close the issue
Wip: we already say DID Resolvers must return conforming DID Docs, not intermediate ones, so, no change needed
<manu> +1 to what Will is saying... I'm hearing that the folks providing an opinion are aligned.
markus_sabadello: ok, I'll add these comments to the issue and we'll mark it pending closed
In the last WG call, we said that no change was needed to address this issue, but I thought it can't hurt to propose another sentence in DID-1.1, to clarify that DID method operations can internally use intermediate DID documents:
https://github.com/w3c/did/pull/900
This has been addressed by https://github.com/w3c/did/pull/894 and https://github.com/w3c/did/pull/900.