Copyright © 2026 World Wide Web Consortium. W3C® liability, trademark and permissive document license rules apply.
Decentralized identifier (DID) resolution is the process of obtaining a DID document and accompanying metadata for a specific DID. It is a vital step in the process of dereferencing a DID URL; dereferencing any URL returns (or presents) the resource referred to by the URL. DID Resolution takes a DID URL and returns the authoritative DID document and associated metadata, taking into account any query parameters that affect DID document selection. The resulting DID document contains information that enables cryptographically verifiable interactions with the DID subject, including, e.g., cryptographic public keys. This specification covers the algorithms and guidelines to be used for DID resolution and dereferencing, relying on the core DID specification Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0 for DID and DID URL syntax and the DID document data format.
This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C standards and drafts index.
Comments regarding this document are welcome. Please file issues directly on GitHub, or send them to public-did-wg@w3.org (subscribe, archives).
Portions of the work on this specification have been funded by the United States Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate under contracts HSHQDC-17-C-00019. The content of this specification does not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the U.S. Government and no official endorsement should be inferred.
Work on this specification has also been supported by the Rebooting the Web of Trust community facilitated by Christopher Allen, Shannon Appelcline, Kiara Robles, Brian Weller, Betty Dhamers, Kaliya Young, Kim Hamilton Duffy, Manu Sporny, Drummond Reed, Joe Andrieu, and Heather Vescent.
This document was published by the Decentralized Identifier Working Group as an Editor's Draft.
Publication as an Editor's Draft does not imply endorsement by W3C and its Members.
This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than a work in progress.
This document was produced by a group operating under the W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent that the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.
This document is governed by the 18 August 2025 W3C Process Document.
DID resolution is the process of obtaining the authoritative DID document for a given DID URL. Building on top of DID resolution, DID URL dereferencing is the process of retrieving and using the resource specified by a given DID URL.
Software and/or hardware that is able to execute Resolution are called called DID resolvers. Software and/or hardware that is able to execute DID URL dereferencing are called DID URL dereferencers.
This specification defines a standard interface that clients can use to execute DID resolution and algorithms for both DID resolution and DID URL dereferencing, independent of any specific DID method's "Resolve" operation. Additionally, this specification discusses security and privacy considerations relevant to implementing a DID resolver or DID URL dereferencer.
Note that while this specification defines some base-level functionality for DID resolution, the actual steps required to communicate with a DID's verifiable data registry are defined by the applicable DID method specification and are out of scope here.
This section is non-normative.
When using a DID URL to interact with a resource, first perform resolution, then apply that result to the relevant workflow.
By invoking a DID resolver using the standard
resolve(didURL, resolutionOptions) interface (as defined in
the DID Resolution section), one
obtains
the authoritative DID document and accompanying
metadata.
With that DID document, clients may
The resolving client MAY choose any of these options depending on the context in which the DID URL is used.
For example, the following html snippet would cause the associated image to be shown in the browser displaying the html page containing it.
{
"proof": {
"type": "DataIntegrityProof",
"cryptosuite": "eddsa-rdfc-2022",
"created": "2021-11-13T18:19:39Z",
"verificationMethod": "did:example:abc#key-1",
"proofPurpose": "assertionMethod",
"proofValue": "z58DAdFfa9SkqZMVPxAQp...jQCrfFPP2oumHKtz"
}
}
As well as sections marked as non-normative, all authoring guidelines, diagrams, examples, and notes in this specification are non-normative. Everything else in this specification is normative.
The key words MAY, MUST, MUST NOT, NOT REQUIRED, OPTIONAL, RECOMMENDED, REQUIRED, and SHOULD in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
A conforming DID resolver is any algorithm realized as software and/or hardware that complies with the relevant normative statements in 6. DID Resolution.
A conforming network-based DID resolver is a conforming DID resolver that additionally complies with the normative statements in 11.1 HTTP(S) Binding.
A conforming DID URL dereferencer is any algorithm realized as software and/or hardware that complies with the relevant normative statements in 4. DID URL Dereferencing.
There is no network-based dereferencer as dereferencing is fundamentally a client-side function in which the client retrieves (or interacts with) a remote resource.
This section is non-normative.
This specification has three primary audiences: implementers of conformant DID methods; implementers of conformant DID resolvers; and implementers of systems and services that wish to resolve DIDs using DID resolvers. The intended audience includes, but is not limited to, software architects, data modelers, application developers, service developers, testers, operators, and user experience (UX) specialists. Other people involved in a broad range of standards efforts related to decentralized identity, verifiable credentials, and secure storage might also be interested in reading this specification.
This section is non-normative.
This specification supports a broad range of use cases including:
This section defines the terms used in this specification and throughout decentralized identifier infrastructure. A link to these terms is included whenever they appear in this specification.
A set of parameters that can be used together with a process to independently verify a proof. For example, a cryptographic public key can be used as a verification method with respect to a digital signature; in such usage, it verifies that the signer possessed the associated cryptographic private key.
"Verification" and "proof" in this definition are intended to apply broadly. For example, a cryptographic public key might be used during Diffie-Hellman key exchange to negotiate a shared symmetric key for encryption. This guarantees the integrity of the key agreement process. It is thus another type of verification method, even though descriptions of the process might not use the words "verification" or "proof."
The DID URL syntax supports a simple format for parameters (see section Query in [DID-CORE]).
did:example:123?versionTime=2021-05-10T17:00:00Z
did:example:123?service=files&relativeRef=/resume.pdf
For each DID parameter that is present, its associated value MUST be a scalar value string serialized into ASCII according to section 3.1 of RFC3987.
Some DID parameters are completely independent of any specific DID method and intended to function the same way for all DIDs. Other DID parameters are not supported by all DID methods. Where optional parameters are supported, they are expected to operate uniformly across the DID methods that do support them. The following table provides common DID parameters that SHOULD function the same way across all DID methods. Support for all DID Parameters is OPTIONAL.
| Parameter Name | Description |
|---|---|
service
|
Identifies a service from the DID document by service ID. |
serviceType
|
Identifies a set of one or more services from the DID document by service type. |
relativeRef
|
A relative URI reference according to RFC3986 Section 4.2
that identifies a
resource at a DID service endpoint, which is
selected from a DID
document by using the service
parameter.
|
versionId
|
Identifies a specific version of a DID document to be resolved (the version ID could be sequential, or a UUID, or method-specific). |
versionTime
|
Identifies a certain version timestamp of a DID
document to be resolved.
That is, the most recent version of the DID
document that was valid for a DID
before the specified versionTime. If present, the
associated value
MUST be represented in the datetime format as defined in
3.1 Datetime.
|
Implementers as well as DID method specification authors might use additional DID parameters that are not listed here. For maximum interoperability, it is RECOMMENDED that DID parameters use the DID Document Properties Extensions mechanism [DID-EXTENSIONS-PROPERTIES], to avoid collision with other uses of the same DID parameter with different semantics.
The DID resolution can be influenced by passing 6.1 DID Resolution Options to a DID resolver that are not part of the DID URL. This is comparable to HTTP, where certain parameters could either be included in an HTTP URL, or alternatively passed as HTTP headers during dereferencing. Specifying additional parameters can be useful for directing the resolver to return a document selected by its versionTime or versionId instead of returning the current DID document.
If a Resolve is called with a resolution option of the same name as a DID parameter in the input DID URL, the resolution option takes precedence when interpreted by the Resolver.
All datetime values in this specification MUST be an
ASCII string which is a valid XML datetime value defined
by the
[VC-DATA-MODEL] in Verifiable Credentials Data Model v2.0.
Additionally, timestamps used in DID Resolution MUST be
adjusted to UTC
without sub-second decimal precision. For example:
2020-12-20T19:17:47Z
DID URL dereferencing function dereferences a DID URL into a resource for subsequent processing and display. The process may vary depending on on the DID URL's components, including the DID method, method-specific identifier, path, query, and fragment, as well as the client context in which dereferencing occurs, and properties in (a) the DID document, (b) document metadata, and (c) resolution metadata.
This process depends on DID resolution of the DID URL and might involve multiple steps (e.g., when the DID URL being dereferenced includes a fragment), and the function is defined to return the final resource after all steps are completed. The following figure depicts the relationship described above.
The left part of the diagram contains a single rectangle with black black outline, labeled "DID URL". This rectangle contains four smaller black-outlined rectangles, aligned in a horizontal row adjacent to each other. These smaller rectangles are labeled, in order, "DID", "path", "query", and "fragment.
The top right part of the diagram contains a rectangle with black outline, labeled "DID document". This rectangle contains three smaller black-outlined rectangles. These smaller rectangles are labeled "id", "(property X)", and "(property Y)", and are surrounded by multiple series of three dots (ellipses). A curved black arrow, labeled "DID document - relative fragment dereference", extends from the rectangle labeled "(property X)", and points to the rectangle labeled "(property Y)".
The bottom right part of the diagram contains an oval shape with black outline, labeled "Resource".
A black arrow, labeled "resolves to a DID document based on query parameters and resolution options", extends from the rectangle in the left part of the diagram, labeled "DID URL", and points to the rectangle in the top right part of diagram, labeled "DID document".
Above the diagram in the top right, labeled DID document is the text "Document properties (including metadata) can declare specific resources for dereferencing.
A black arrow, labeled "refers to", extends from the rectangle in the top right part of the diagram, labeled "DID document", and points to the oval shape in the bottom right part of diagram, labeled "Resource".
A black arrow, labeled "dereferences to a resource based on content of DID document", extends from the rectangle in the bottom left part of the diagram, labeled "DID URL", and points to the oval shape in the bottom right part of diagram, labeled "Resource".
All conforming DID URL dereferencers MUST implement the algorithm below using the defined inputs and, optionally, establishing intermediate values for subsequence processing.
The inputs of the dereferencing algorithm are
as follows:
This algorithm may or may not return one or more values and may affect program state, depending on the context of use. For example, dereferencing in the context of web browsing may support any number of common URL usage patterns:
A DID URL dereferencer implements the following DID URL dereferencing algorithm, consisting of the following five steps:
did-url rule of the
DID
URL Syntax.
If not, the DID URL dereferencer MUST return
without further processing, indicating a failure due to
an
https://www.w3.org/ns/did#INVALID_DID_URL
did:ex:abc#key-1 becomes did:ex:abc .In the simplest case, retrieval is a simple HTTPS GET on a Retrieval URL. However, some DID methods or properties may provide a means for retrieving a resource from on-chain data rather than from a web service.
When a DID URL contains a service parameter use the following algorithm to determine which service should be used for dereferencing the DID URL.
did:example:1234?service=files&relativeRef=%2Fmyresume%2Fdoc%3Fversion%3Dlatest
id
property matches the value of the
service DID parameter. If the
id
property or the service DID parameter
or both contain relative
references, the corresponding absolute URIs MUST be
resolved and used for determining
the match, using the rules specified in RFC3986 Section 5:
Reference Resolution
and in section Relative
DID URLs in Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0.
When a DID URL contains a serviceType parameter use the following algorithm to determine which service should be used for dereferencing the DID URL.
We should add a better example.
did:example:1234?serviceType=pathService&relativeRef=%2Fmyresume%2Fdoc%3Fversion%3Dlatest
serviceType:
Select the service if
its
type
property matches the value of the
serviceType DID parameter.
relativeRef and a service of type
"PathService" is selected from either the service
selection algorithm or the service-type selection
algorithm, set the retrieval strategy to
RelativeRef and use the following retrieval
algorithm.
relativeRef.
Resolving a DID service endpoint—particularly one that is itself a DID—might result in a resolution cycle, which is a set of steps that result in an infinite loop. For example, a DID service endpoint might indirectly point back through a sequence of resolutions to a previously dereferenced identifier. A DID resolver recursively resolving a DID service endpoint is advised to detect and handle such a cycle to prevent an infinite loop or resolution failure. For further guidance, see Section Resolution Cycles.
When no other dereferencing strategy applies, simply return the DID Document as the final resource. DID URLs that contain a fragment part should further apply the Fragment Dereference Algorithm
If the input DID URL contains a DID fragment, then dereferencing of the fragment is dependent on the media type ([RFC2046]) of the resource, i.e., on the result of #dereferencing-algorithm-resource.
verificationRelationship option:
verificationRelationship
option.
did:example:1234?service=files&relativeRef=%2Fmyresume%2Fdoc%3Fversion%3Dlatest#intro
fragment component, raise an
error.application/did,
then
the fragment is treated according to the rules associated
with the
JSON-LD
1.1: application/ld+json media type
[JSON-LD11].
This use of the DID fragment is consistent with the definition of the fragment identifier in [RFC3986]. It identifies a secondary resource which is a subset of the primary resource (the DID document).
This behavior of the DID fragment is analogous to the
handling of a fragment in an HTTP URL in the
case when dereferencing it returns an HTTP 3xx
(Redirection) response with a
Location header (see section 7.1.2 of
[RFC7231]).
Given the following input DID URL:
did:example:123456789abcdefghi#keys-1
... and the following resolved DID document:
{
"@context":[
"https://www.w3.org/ns/did/v1.1",
"https://didcomm.org/messaging/contexts/v2",
"https://identity.foundation/linked-vp/contexts/v1"
],
"id": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi",
"verificationMethod": [{
"id": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi#keys-1",
"type": "Multikey",
"controller": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi",
"publicKeyMultibase": "z6MkmM42vxfqZQsv4ehtTjFFxQ4sQKS2w6WR7emozFAn5cxu"
}],
"service": [{
"id": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi#messages",
"type": "DIDCommMessaging",
"serviceEndpoint": "https://example.com/messages/8377464"
}, {
"id": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi#linkedvp",
"type": "LinkedVerifiablePresentation",
"serviceEndpoint": "https://example.com/verifiable-presentation.jsonld"
}]
}
... then the result of the 4. DID URL Dereferencing algorithm is the following output resource:
{
"@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/did/v1.1",
"id": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi#keys-1",
"type": "Multikey",
"controller": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi",
"publicKeyMultibase": "z6MkmM42vxfqZQsv4ehtTjFFxQ4sQKS2w6WR7emozFAn5cxu"
}
Given the following input DID URL:
did:example:123456789abcdefghi?service=messages&relativeRef=%2Fsome%2Fpath%3Fquery#frag
... and the same resolved DID document as in the previous section.
... then the result of the 4. DID URL Dereferencing algorithm is the following selected DID service endpoint URL:
https://example.com/messages/8377464/some/path?query#frag
The DID resolution function resolves a DID into a DID document by using the "Resolve" operation of the applicable DID method as described in Method Operations.
All conforming DID resolvers implement the function below, which has the following abstract form:
resolve(did, resolutionOptions) →
« didResolutionMetadata, didDocument, didDocumentMetadata »
All conforming DID resolvers MUST implement the DID resolution function for at least one DID method and MUST be able to return a DID document.
Conforming DID resolver implementations do not alter the
signature of
this function in any way. DID resolver implementations
might map the
resolve function to a
method-specific internal function to perform the actual DID
resolution
process. DID resolver implementations might implement and
expose
additional functions with different signatures in addition to
the
resolve function specified here.
The input variables of the resolve function are as
follows:
resolve function in addition to
the
did itself. This structure is further defined in
6.1 DID Resolution Options. This input is
REQUIRED, but the
structure MAY be empty.
This function returns multiple values, and no limitations
are placed on how these values are returned together.
The return values of resolve are
didResolutionMetadata, didDocument, and
didDocumentMetadata. These values are described below:
error property
describing the error. See Section 10. Errors.
id
in the resolved DID document MUST be string equal to
the DID that was resolved.
If the resolution is unsuccessful, this value MUST be empty.
didDocument
property. If the resolution is unsuccessful, this output MUST
be an empty metadata
structure. This structure is further
defined in 6.3 DID Document Metadata.
This is a metadata structure that contains input options for the DID Resolution process.
The possible properties within this structure and their possible values SHOULD be registered in the DID Resolution Extensions [DID-EXTENSIONS-RESOLUTION]. This specification defines the following common input options:
Accept header value as defined in HTTP Semantics, Section 12.5.1. The
DID
resolver implementation SHOULD use this value to
determine the
representation of the returned
didDocument if such a representation is
supported
and available. This property is OPTIONAL.
This is a metadata structure that contains metadata about the DID Resolution process.
This metadata typically changes between invocations of the DID Resolution function as it represents data about the resolution process itself.
The source of this metadata is the DID resolver.
Examples of DID Resolution Metadata include:
contentType).error) (see Section 10. Errors).The possible properties within this structure and their possible values SHOULD be registered in the DID Resolution Extensions [DID-EXTENSIONS-RESOLUTION]. This specification defines the following common metadata properties:
didDocument.
This property is
OPTIONAL. If present, the value of this
property MUST be an ASCII
string that is the Media
Type of the conformant representations. In this case,
the
caller of the resolve function MUST use this
value
when determining how to parse and process the
didDocument.
Some DID resolvers and DID URL dereferencers use proofs when executing the DID Resolution or DID URL Dereferencing functions. See 8.2 Resolver Architectures for details.
DID resolution metadata MAY include a
proof property.
If present, the value MUST be a set where each item is a
map that represents a proof.
The use of this property
and the types of proofs are DID method-independent.
This is a metadata structure that contains metadata about the DID Resolution process.
This metadata typically does not change between invocations of the DID Resolution function unless the DID document changes, as it represents data about the DID document.
The sources of this metadata are the DID controller and/or the DID method. DID document metadata attested to by the DID controller comes with no inherent guarantee of accuracy. Clients are advised to proceed with caution when relying on DID document metadata to inform business logic.
Examples of DID document metadata include:
created,
updated, nextUpdate).versionId, nextVersionId).proof).
The possible properties within this structure and their possible values SHOULD be registered in the DID Document Properties Extensions [DID-EXTENSIONS-PROPERTIES]. This specification defines the following common metadata properties.
created property to
indicate the timestamp of the Create
operation.
The value of the property MUST be represented in the
datetime format as
defined in 3.1 Datetime.
updated property to
indicate the timestamp of the last Update
operation for the document version which was resolved.
The value of the property
MUST be represented in the datetime format as defined in 3.1 Datetime.
The updated property is omitted if an Update
operation
has never been performed on the DID document. If an
updated
property exists, it can be the same value as the
created property
when the difference between the two timestamps is less than
one second.
true. If a DID has not been deactivated, this
property is OPTIONAL,
but if included, MUST have the boolean value
false.
nextUpdate property if
the resolved document version is not the latest version of
the document. It
indicates the timestamp of the next Update
operation. The value of the property MUST be
represented in the datetime
format as defined in 3.1 Datetime.
versionId property to
indicate the version of the last Update
operation for the document version which was resolved.
The value of the
property MUST be an ASCII
string.
nextVersionId property
if the resolved document version is not the latest version
of the document. It
indicates the version of the next Update
operation. The value of the property MUST be an ASCII string.
A DID method can define different forms of a
DID that are
logically equivalent. An example is when a DID
takes one form prior to
registration in a verifiable data registry and
another form after such
registration. In this case, the DID method
specification might need to
express one or more DIDs that are logically
equivalent to the resolved
DID as a property of the DID document. This
is the purpose of the
equivalentId property.
DID document metadata MAY include an
equivalentId property.
If present, the value MUST be a set where each item is a
string that conforms to
the rules in Section Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0. The relationship
is a statement that each
equivalentId value is logically
equivalent to the
id property value and thus refers to the same
DID subject.
Each equivalentId DID value MUST be
produced by, and a form
of, the same DID method as the id
property value. (e.g.,
did:example:abc ==
did:example:ABC)
A conforming DID method specification MUST
guarantee that each
equivalentId value is logically
equivalent to the
id property value.
A requesting party is expected to retain the values from
the id and
equivalentId properties to ensure any
subsequent
interactions with any of the values they contain are
correctly handled as
logically equivalent (e.g., retain all variants in a
database so an interaction
with any one maps to the same underlying account).
equivalentId is a much stronger form
of equivalence than
alsoKnownAs
because the equivalence MUST be guaranteed by
the governing DID method. The use of
equivalentId
means that the same DID document describes both the
equivalentId DID and the
id property
DID.
If a requesting party does not retain the values from the
id and
equivalentId properties and ensure any
subsequent
interactions with any of the values they contain are
correctly handled as
logically equivalent, there might be negative or
unexpected issues that
arise. Implementers are strongly advised to observe the
directives related to this metadata property.
The canonicalId property is identical
to the
equivalentId property except: a) it is
associated with a
single value rather than a set, and b) the DID is
defined to be
the canonical ID for the DID subject within the
scope of the containing
DID document.
DID document metadata MAY include a
canonicalId property.
If present, the value MUST be a string that conforms to the
rules in Section Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0.
The relationship is a statement that the
canonicalId value is logically
equivalent to the
id property value and that the
canonicalId
value is defined by the DID method to be the
canonical ID for the DID
subject in the scope of the containing DID
document. A
canonicalId value MUST be produced by,
and a form of, the
same DID method as the id property
value. (e.g.,
did:example:abc ==
did:example:ABC).
A conforming DID method specification MUST
guarantee that the
canonicalId value is logically
equivalent to the
id property value.
A requesting party is expected to use the
canonicalId value
as its primary ID value for the DID subject and
treat all other
equivalent values as secondary aliases (e.g., update
corresponding primary
references in their systems to reflect the new canonical
ID directive).
canonicalId is the same statement of
equivalence as
equivalentId except it is constrained
to a single value that
is defined to be canonical for the DID subject in
the scope of the DID
document. Like equivalentId, the
use of
canonicalId means that the same
DID document describes both the
canonicalId DID and
the id property DID.
If a resolving party does not use the
canonicalId value as
its primary ID value for the DID subject and treat all
other equivalent values
as secondary aliases, there might be negative or
unexpected issues that arise
related to user experience. Implementers are strongly
advised to observe the
directives related to this metadata property.
Many DID methods use proofs when executing method operations. See 8.1 Method Architectures for details.
DID document metadata MAY include a
proof property.
If present, the value MUST be a set where each item is a
map that represents a proof.
The use of this property
and the types of proofs are DID method-specific.
A DID resolver implements the following DID resolution algorithm.
did rule of the
DID
Syntax.
If not, the DID resolver MUST return the following
result:
https://www.w3.org/ns/did#INVALID_DID
null«[ ]»https://www.w3.org/ns/did#METHOD_NOT_SUPPORTED
null«[ ]»https://www.w3.org/ns/did#FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED
null«[ ]»https://www.w3.org/ns/did#INVALID_OPTIONS
null«[ ]»https://www.w3.org/ns/did#NOT_FOUND
null«[ ]»
«[ ... ]»
null«[ "deactivated" → true, ... ]»
expandRelativeUrls option with a value of
true:
id property of a service or
verification
method
(including those embedded in verification
relationships) is a
relative DID
URL, or if a
verification
relationship is a
relative DID
URL:
«[ ... ]»
«[ "contentType" → output DID document
media type, ... ]»
If the DID resolver encounters any unexpected errors during the execution of the DID Resolution algorithm, it MUST return the following result:
https://www.w3.org/ns/did#INTERNAL_ERROR
null«[ ]»Input and output metadata is often involved during the DID Resolution, DID URL dereferencing, and other DID-related processes. The structure used to communicate this metadata MUST be a map of properties. Each property name MUST be a string. Each property value, and each value within any complex data structure such as a map or list, MUST be a string, number, map, list, set, boolean, or null. The entire metadata structure MUST be serializable according to the JSON serialization rules in the [INFRA] specification. Implementations MAY serialize the metadata structure to other data formats.
All implementations of functions that use metadata structures as either input or output are able to fully represent all data types described here in a deterministic fashion. As inputs and outputs using metadata structures are defined in terms of data types and not their serialization, the method for representation is internal to the implementation of the function and is out of scope of this specification.
The following example demonstrates a JSON-encoded metadata structure that might be used as DID resolution input metadata.
{
"accept": "application/did"
}
This example corresponds to a metadata structure of the following format:
«[
"accept" → "application/did"
]»
The next example demonstrates a JSON-encoded metadata structure that might be used as DID resolution metadata if a DID was not found.
{
"error": "notFound"
}
This example corresponds to a metadata structure of the following format:
«[
"error" → "notFound"
]»
The next example demonstrates a JSON-encoded metadata structure that might be used as DID document metadata to describe timestamps associated with the DID document.
{
"created": "2019-03-23T06:35:22Z",
"updated": "2023-08-10T13:40:06Z"
}
This example corresponds to a metadata structure of the following format:
«[
"created" → "2019-03-23T06:35:22Z",
"updated" → "2023-08-10T13:40:06Z"
]»
The DID resolution algorithm involves executing the Resolve operation on a DID according to its DID method (see 6. DID Resolution).
Every DID method defines this method operation, i.e., how a DID resolver can obtain a DID document from a DID. The underlying data formats, protocols, technical infrastructures, and processes can vary considerably among DID methods.
Examples of DID method considerations include the following:
Based on the above considerations combined with the nature of a DID method's "Resolve" operation, the interaction between a DID resolver and the verifiable data registry could be considered either a verifiable resolution or an unverifiable resolution:
A verifiable resolution maximizes confidence in the integrity and correctness of the result of the "Resolve" operation, to the extent possible under the applicable DID method. This can be accomplished in a number of ways, such as the following:
An unverifiable resolution does not have such guarantees and is therefore less desirable, for example:
Whether or not a verifiable resolution is possible depends not only on a DID method itself, but also on the way a DID resolver implements that DID method. DID methods MAY allow multiple ways of implementing their "Resolve" operation, and SHOULD offer guidance regarding at least one way to implement a verifiable resolution.
The guarantees associated with a verifiable resolution are always limited by the architecture(s), protocol(s), cryptographic element(s), and other aspects of the DID method's underlying verifiable data registry. The forms of verifiable resolution implementation that are considered strongest are those that require no interaction with any remote network (for example, see [DID-KEY]), and those that minimize dependencies on specific network infrastructure, reducing the "root of trust" to proven entropy and cryptography (for example, see [KERI]).
To enable verifiable resolutions, many DID methods use digital signatures, state proofs, proofs of inclusion in Merkle trees, cryptographic event logs, or other types of proof. If a DID method uses such proofs, it MUST specify in its DID method specification how they are used for verification of the correctness of the result of a "Resolve" operation.
A DID method MAY also include such proofs in the DID
document itself, or
in a proof property of the
DID document metadata.
This can potentially enable a client to independently
verify the results of a
DID Resolution process, even if it does not trust the
DID resolver.
Note that proofs originating from the DID method are DID method-specific and must be understood within the technology of the applicable DID method. A simple signature on a DID document or DID document metadata does not necessarily prove control of a DID, nor guarantee that the DID document is the correct one for the DID. These proofs help to verify the integrity and authenticity of the results of a DID Resolution process as far as the DID method itself is concerned. However, they do not guarantee that the binding between a client and the DID resolver is secure. See also 8.2 Resolver Architectures.
The algorithms for DID resolution and DID URL dereferencing are defined as abstract functions (see 6. DID Resolution and 4. DID URL Dereferencing).
Those algorithms are implemented by DID resolvers and DID URL dereferencers, which are invoked by a client via a binding. Bindings define how the abstract functions are accessed using concrete programming or communication interfaces.
Examples of bindings include the following:
Based on the above considerations combined with the nature of the binding, the interaction between a client and the DID resolver or DID URL dereferencer could be considered either a local binding or a remote binding:
Whenever possible, local bindings are preferred, as they minimize dependencies on third parties and intermediaries, reduce security risks, and maximize confidence in the integrity and correctness of the results of the DID resolution and DID URL dereferencing functions.
In some cases, it might not be possible to use a local binding; for example, in constrained IoT (Internet of Things) environments, or when a DID method requires complex infrastructure, or when many different DID methods should be supported.
If a client uses a remote binding, the following considerations apply:
A DID resolver MAY also include proofs
in a proof property of the
DID resolution
metadata.
This inclusion can potentially enable a client to
independently verify the results of a
DID Resolution process, as long as it trusts the DID
resolver.
Note that proofs originating from a DID resolver are DID method-independent and can be universally applied by a DID resolver, across all DID methods. These proofs help to verify the integrity and authenticity of the results of a DID Resolution process as far as the DID resolver itself is concerned. However, they do not guarantee that the result from the "Resolve" operation of the applicable DID method is itself correct. See also 8.1 Method Architectures.
A DID resolver might support the DID resolution algorithm for multiple DID methods:
In this case, the above considerations in 8.1 Method Architectures about verifiable resolution and unverifiable resolution implementations apply to each supported DID method individually.
A DID resolver MAY invoke another DID resolver, which serves as a proxy that executes the DID resolution algorithm as defined in 6. DID Resolution.
The first DID resolver then acts as a client and chooses a suitable binding for invoking the second DID resolver. For example, a DID resolver may be invoked via a local binding (such as a command line tool), which in turn invokes another DID resolver via a remote binding (such as the HTTP(S) binding).
When using proxied resolution, a "downstream" resolver SHOULD preserve all DID resolution metadata and DID document metadata from an "upstream" resolver in a transparent manner, including any proofs that may be present. In this process, the "downstream" resolver MAY add its own DID resolution metadata, including any metadata about the proxied resolution process itself.
This is similar to a "stub resolver" invoking a "recursive resolver" in DNS architecture, although the concepts are not entirely comparable (DNS Resolution uses a single concrete protocol, whereas DID resolution is an abstract function realized by different DID methods and different bindings).
Different parts of the DID URL dereferencing algorithm may be performed by different components of a Resolver Architecture.
Specifically, when a DID URL with a DID fragment is dereferenced, then Dereferencing the Resource is done by the DID resolver, and Dereferencing the Fragment is done by the client.
Given the DID URL did:xyz:1234#keys-1, a
DID resolver could be invoked
via local binding
for Dereferencing
the Resource (i.e., the DID document),
and the client could complete the DID URL
dereferencing algorithm by
Dereferencing the
Fragment (i.e., a part of the DID document).
Given the DID URL
did:xyz:1234?service=agent&relativeRef=%2Fsome%2Fpath%3Fquery#frag,
a DID resolver could be invoked
for Dereferencing
the Resource (i.e., a DID service endpoint URL),
and the client could complete the DID URL
dereferencing algorithm by
Dereferencing the
Fragment (i.e., a DID service endpoint URL with a
fragment).
Given the DID URL did:xyz:1234#keys-1, a
DID resolver could be invoked via
local binding, which invokes another DID
resolver via remote binding
for Dereferencing
the Resource (i.e., the DID document),
and the client could complete the DID URL
dereferencing algorithm by
Dereferencing the
Fragment (i.e., a part of the DID document).
This section defines a JSON data structure that represents the result of the algorithm described in 6. DID Resolution. A DID resolution result contains the DID document as well as DID resolution metadata and DID document metadata.
The media type of this data structure is defined to be
application/did-resolution.
{
"didDocument": {
"@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/did/v1",
"id": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi",
"authentication": [{
"id": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi#keys-1",
"type": "Ed25519VerificationKey2018",
"controller": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi",
"publicKeyBase58": "H3C2AVvLMv6gmMNam3uVAjZpfkcJCwDwnZn6z3wXmqPV"
}],
"service": [{
"id":"did:example:123456789abcdefghi#vcs",
"type": "VerifiableCredentialService",
"serviceEndpoint": "https://example.com/vc/"
}]
},
"didResolutionMetadata": {
"contentType": "application/did",
"retrieved": "2024-06-01T19:73:24Z",
},
"didDocumentMetadata": {
"created": "2019-03-23T06:35:22Z",
"updated": "2023-08-10T13:40:06Z",
"method": {
"nymResponse": {
"result": {
"data": "{\"dest\":\"WRfXPg8dantKVubE3HX8pw\",\"identifier\":\"V4SGRU86Z58d6TV7PBUe6f\",\"role\":\"0\",\"seqNo\":11,\"txnTime\":1524055264,\"verkey\":\"H3C2AVvLMv6gmMNam3uVAjZpfkcJCwDwnZn6z3wXmqPV\"}",
"type": "105",
"txnTime": 1.524055264E9,
"seqNo": 11.0,
"reqId": 1.52725687080231475E18,
"identifier": "HixkhyA4dXGz9yxmLQC4PU",
"dest": "WRfXPg8dantKVubE3HX8pw"
},
"op": "REPLY"
},
"attrResponse": {
"result": {
"identifier": "HixkhyA4dXGz9yxmLQC4PU",
"seqNo": 12.0,
"raw": "endpoint",
"dest": "WRfXPg8dantKVubE3HX8pw",
"data": "{\"endpoint\":{\"xdi\":\"http://127.0.0.1:8080/xdi\"}}",
"txnTime": 1.524055265E9,
"type": "104",
"reqId": 1.52725687092557056E18
},
"op": "REPLY"
}
}
}
}
This section defines a JSON data structure that represents the result of the algorithm described in 4. DID URL Dereferencing. A DID URL dereferencing result contains the content as well as DID URL dereferencing metadata and DID URL content metadata.
The media type of this data structure is defined to be
application/did-url-dereferencing.
{
"content": {
"@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/did/v1",
"id": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi",
"authentication": [{
"id": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi#keys-1",
"type": "Ed25519VerificationKey2018",
"controller": "did:example:123456789abcdefghi",
"publicKeyBase58": "H3C2AVvLMv6gmMNam3uVAjZpfkcJCwDwnZn6z3wXmqPV"
}],
"service": [{
"id":"did:example:123456789abcdefghi#vcs",
"type": "VerifiableCredentialService",
"serviceEndpoint": "https://example.com/vc/"
}]
},
"didUrlDereferencingMetadata": {
"contentType": "application/did",
"retrieved": "2024-06-01T19:73:24Z",
},
"contentMetadata": {
"created": "2019-03-23T06:35:22Z",
"updated": "2023-08-10T13:40:06Z",
"method": {
"nymResponse": {
"result": {
"data": "{\"dest\":\"WRfXPg8dantKVubE3HX8pw\",\"identifier\":\"V4SGRU86Z58d6TV7PBUe6f\",\"role\":\"0\",\"seqNo\":11,\"txnTime\":1524055264,\"verkey\":\"H3C2AVvLMv6gmMNam3uVAjZpfkcJCwDwnZn6z3wXmqPV\"}",
"type": "105",
"txnTime": 1.524055264E9,
"seqNo": 11.0,
"reqId": 1.52725687080231475E18,
"identifier": "HixkhyA4dXGz9yxmLQC4PU",
"dest": "WRfXPg8dantKVubE3HX8pw"
},
"op": "REPLY"
},
"attrResponse": {
"result": {
"identifier": "HixkhyA4dXGz9yxmLQC4PU",
"seqNo": 12.0,
"raw": "endpoint",
"dest": "WRfXPg8dantKVubE3HX8pw",
"data": "{\"endpoint\":{\"xdi\":\"http://127.0.0.1:8080/xdi\"}}",
"txnTime": 1.524055265E9,
"type": "104",
"reqId": 1.52725687092557056E18
},
"op": "REPLY"
}
}
}
}
The algorithms described in this specification throw specific types of errors. Implementers might find it useful to convey these errors to other libraries or software systems. This section provides specific URLs and descriptions for the errors, such that an ecosystem implementing technologies described by this specification might interoperate more effectively when errors occur. Additionally, this specification uses some errors defined in Section 3.5 Processing Errors of the [CID] specification.
Implementers SHOULD use [RFC9457] to encode the error data structure. If [RFC9457] is used:
type value of the error object MUST be a URL. Where the
values listed
in the section below do not define a URL, the values MUST be
prepended with the
URL https://www.w3.org/ns/did#.
title value SHOULD provide a short but specific
human-readable string for
the error.
detail value SHOULD provide a longer human-readable
string for the error.
https://www.w3.org/ns/did#INVALID_DIDhttps://www.w3.org/ns/did#INVALID_DID_DOCUMENT
https://www.w3.org/ns/did#NOT_FOUNDaccept input metadata property
is not supported by the DID method and/or DID
resolver implementation.
See Section 6.4 DID Resolution Algorithm.
https://www.w3.org/ns/did#REPRESENTATION_NOT_SUPPORTED
https://www.w3.org/ns/did#INVALID_DID_URL
https://www.w3.org/ns/did#METHOD_NOT_SUPPORTED
https://www.w3.org/ns/did#INVALID_OPTIONS
https://www.w3.org/ns/did#INTERNAL_ERROR
detail field
SHOULD provide a longer description of the feature that is not
supported by the resolver.
https://www.w3.org/ns/did#FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED
This section defines bindings for the abstract algorithms in sections 6. DID Resolution and 4. DID URL Dereferencing.
This section defines a DID resolver binding which exposes the DID resolution and/or DID URL dereferencing functions (including all resolution/dereferencing options and metadata) via an HTTP(S) endpoint. See 8.2 Resolver Architectures.
The HTTP(S) binding requires a known HTTP(S) URL where a DID resolver can be invoked. This URL is called the DID resolver HTTP(S) endpoint.
This binding is generally considered a remote binding,
but could
also be a local binding if the HTTP(S) endpoint is run
in a local environment, such as on localhost.
All conforming DID resolvers MUST implement the GET version of the HTTPS binding and MAY implement the POST version. All HTTPS bindings MUST use TLS. Use of DNS names in certificates is NOT REQUIRED; resolvers MAY use TLS certificates issued for IP addresses.
Using this binding, the DID resolution function (see 6. DID Resolution) and/or DID URL dereferencing function (see 4. DID URL Dereferencing) can be executed as follows:
https://resolver.example/1.0/identifiers/
https://resolver.example/1.0/identifiers/did:example:1234
Accept HTTP request
header to application/did-resolution
to request a complete 9. DID Resolution Result, ORAccept HTTP request
header to the value of the accept
resolution option
to request only the didDocument value of the
result.
https://resolver.example/1.0/identifiers/did:example:1234?service=files&relativeRef=/resume.pdf
Accept HTTP request
header to application/did-url-dereferencing
to request a complete 9.2 DID URL Dereferencing Result, ORAccept HTTP request
header to the value of the accept
dereferencing option
to request only the contentStream value of the
result.
GET request on the
request HTTP(S) URL. This invokes the DID
resolution or
DID URL dereferencing function at the remote
DID resolver.
GET https://resolver.example/1.0/identifiers/did%3Aexample%3A1234?option1=value1&option2=value2 HTTP/1.1 Accept: application/did-resolution
GET https://resolver.example/1.0/identifiers/did%3Aexample%3A1234%3Fservice%3Dfiles%26relativeRef%3D%2Fresume.pdf?option1=value1&option2=value2 HTTP/1.1 Accept: application/did-url-dereferencing
POST request on the
request HTTP(S) URL. This invokes the DID
resolution or
DID URL dereferencing function at the remote
DID resolver.
POST https://resolver.example/1.0/identifiers/did:example:1234 HTTP/1.1
Accept: application/did-resolution
{
"option1": "value1",
"option2": "value2"
}
POST https://resolver.example/1.0/identifiers/did:example:1234?service=files&relativeRef=/resume.pdf HTTP/1.1
Accept: application/did-url-dereferencing
{
"option1": "value1",
"option2": "value2"
}
type property of the error object,
according to the following table:
error type URI
|
HTTP status code |
|---|---|
https://www.w3.org/ns/did#INVALID_DID
|
400
|
https://www.w3.org/ns/did#INVALID_DID_URL
|
400
|
https://www.w3.org/ns/did#INVALID_OPTIONS
|
400
|
https://www.w3.org/ns/did#NOT_FOUND
|
404
|
https://www.w3.org/ns/did#REPRESENTATION_NOT_SUPPORTED
|
406
|
https://www.w3.org/ns/did#INVALID_DID_DOCUMENT
|
500
|
https://www.w3.org/ns/did#METHOD_NOT_SUPPORTED
|
501
|
https://www.w3.org/ns/did#FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED
|
501
|
https://www.w3.org/ns/did#INTERNAL_ERROR
|
500
|
| (any other error URI) |
500
|
true in the
didDocumentMetadata or contentMetadata:
410.
Content-Type
HTTP response header is
application/did-resolution:
200.
Content-Type HTTP response
header. Its value MUST be the value of the
contentType metadata property in the
didResolutionMetadata (see 6.2 DID Resolution Metadata).
Content-Type HTTP response
header.
Content-Type
HTTP response header is
application/did-url-dereferencing:
text/uri-list in
the dereferencingMetadata:
303.
Location header. The value of this
header
MUST be the selected DID service endpoint
URL.
200.
Content-Type HTTP response
header. Its value MUST be the value of the
contentType metadata property in the
dereferencingMetadata (see #did-url-dereferencing-metadata).
Content-Type HTTP response
header.
See here for an OpenAPI definition corresponding to the HTTP(S) binding.
Given the following DID resolver HTTP(S) endpoint:
https://resolver.example/1.0/identifiers/
And given the following input DID:
did:example:123
Then the request HTTP(S) URL is:
https://resolver.example/1.0/identifiers/did:example:123
The resolve() function can be invoked over the
HTTP(S) binding as follows:
GET https://resolver.example/1.0/identifiers/did:example:123 HTTP/1.1 Accept: application/did-resolution
The response is as follows:
HTTP 200 OK
Content-Type: application/did-resolution
{
"didDocument": {
"@context": [ "https://www.w3.org/ns/did/v1.1" ],
"id": "did:example:123",
"verificationMethod": [{
...
}],
"service": [{
...
}]
},
"didResolutionMetadata": {
"contentType": "application/did"
},
"didDocumentMetadata": {
...
}
}
The resolve() function can be invoked over the
HTTP(S) binding as follows:
GET https://resolver.example/1.0/identifiers/did:example:123 HTTP/1.1 Accept: application/did
The response is as follows:
HTTP 200 OK
Content-Type: application/did
{
"@context": [ "https://www.w3.org/ns/did/v1.1" ],
"id": "did:example:123",
"verificationMethod": [{
...
}],
"service": [{
...
}]
}
The dereference() function can be invoked over
the HTTP(S) binding as follows:
GET https://resolver.example/1.0/identifiers/did:example:123?versionId=2 HTTP/1.1 Accept: application/did-url-dereferencing
The response is as follows:
HTTP 200 OK
Content-Type: application/did-url-dereferencing
{
"content": {
"@context": [ "https://www.w3.org/ns/did/v1.1" ],
"id": "did:example:123",
"verificationMethod": [{
...
}],
"service": [{
...
}]
},
"dereferencingMetadata": {
"contentType": "application/did"
},
"contentMetadata": {
...
}
}
The dereference() function can be invoked over
the HTTP(S) binding as follows:
GET https://resolver.example/1.0/identifiers/did:example:123?versionId=2 HTTP/1.1 Accept: application/did
The response is as follows:
HTTP 200 OK
Content-Type: application/did
{
"@context": [ "https://www.w3.org/ns/did/v1.1" ],
"id": "did:example:123",
"verificationMethod": [{
...
}],
"service": [{
...
}]
}
This section contains a variety of security considerations that people using DID Resolution in production settings are advised to consider. Readers are urged to familiarize themselves with the general security advice provided in the Security Considerations section of the Decentralized Identifiers specification before reading this section.
DID resolution and DID URL dereferencing do not involve any authentication or authorization functionality. Similar to DNS resolution, anybody can perform the process, without requiring any credentials or non-public knowledge.
A DID resolver may maintain a generic cache of DID documents. It may also maintain caches specific to certain DID methods.
The noCache resolution option can be used to
request a certain kind of caching behavior.
This resolution option is OPTIONAL.
Possible values of this property are:
"false" (default value): Caching of DID documents
is allowed."true": Request that caching is disabled and a fresh
DID document is retrieved from
the verifiable data registry.
Caching behavior can be controlled by configuration of the
DID resolver,
by the noCache resolution option, or by contents
of the DID document
(e.g., a cacheMaxTtl field), or by a combination of these
properties.
Resolvers that implement noCache might be more vulnerable to
denial of service attacks,
as malicious clients can bypass caching to force expensive
network requests and resource consumption.
Clients requesting resolution with noCache expect
that some resolvers will reject resolution requests that
bypass caching.
Resolvers that deny resolution without caching MUST respond
with a FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED
error that makes it clear that bypassing the cache was not
permitted
so the client can attempt to resolve without using
noCache.
If JSON-LD Context files are fetched from a remote location, an attacker could alter the context file (for example, by compromising the server or intercepting the request via a man-in-the-middle attack).
Therefore, any DID resolver which performs remote retrieval of JSON-LD Context URLs is strongly advised to use a registry of context files and corresponding hashes (or a functionally equivalent mechanism) to help ensure end-to-end security. Implementations are expected to throw errors if the cryptographic hash value for a resource does not match the expected hash value.
If a versionId or
versionTime DID
parameter
is provided, the DID resolution
algorithm returns a specific version of the DID
document.
The DID parameters versionId
and versionTime
are mutually exclusive.
The use of the versionId DID
parameter is specific to the DID method.
Its possible values may include sequential numbers, random
UUIDs, content hashes, etc..
DID document metadata MAY contain a versionId
property that changes with each Update
operation that is performed
on a DID document.
While most DID methods support the Update operation, there is no requirement for DID methods to keep all previous DID document versions, therefore not all DID methods support versioning.
DID methods that use a distributed system (such as a distributed ledger) as a VDR (verifiable data registry) need to manage the potential that network forks may occur. Therefore, the specification of a DID method that uses a distributed system as a VDR SHOULD specify a means by which the VDR they are using can be disambiguated from such forks.
When a DID resolver client dereferences identifiers
and linked resources in a DID document —
especially fields like verificationMethod,
controller,
or alsoKnownAs — it might encounter a
resolution cycle.
These can occur when a DID document references another
DID (or URL) that eventually leads
back to a previously dereferenced identifier, forming a loop.
A DID resolver can
also encounter such a situation when dereferencing a DID
URL that references
a DID service endpoint.
did:example:alice
└── verificationMethod.controller → did:example:bob
└── verificationMethod.controller → did:example:alice
DID resolvers and their clients that perform recursive dereferencing are expected to expect, detect, and handle such cycles.
Security and performance risks: If cycles are not detected and mitigated, recursive dereferencing could lead to:
Mitigation guidance: Components that recursively follow external DID document references are encouraged to track identifiers that have already been dereferenced and to detect when a cycle has occurred and take appropriate action. In addition, developers might wish to limit recursion depth or breadth to reduce the potential attack surface.
This section details the privacy considerations specific to DID Resolution. Readers are urged to familiarize themselves with the general privacy advice provided in the Privacy Considerations section of the Decentralized Identifiers specification before reading this section.
DID resolvers and DID URL dereferencers will be able to log requests to their services for resolution and dereferencing. Over time, these logs could be used to track and profile the clients making requests for these services. To mitigate this privacy risk, clients should make such requests to services they trust, for example, because of an existing business relationship or because the service is running on infrastructure they control. Clients can also take steps to obfuscate their requests to a service in order to limit the possibilities of correlation and profiling.
One of the most common mechanisms used to resolve an identifier to an address on the Internet is the global Domain Name System (DNS) described in [RFC1034]. The DNS and the processes and systems used to map a Domain Name to an Internet Protocol address is a common requirement for hosting a website.
The Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0 specification introduced a new type of identifier that lacks any dependency on the global Domain Name System and introduced the concept of an identifier resolution process that does not require the centralization of any part of the architecture. This new architecture allows the decentralized creation and management of globally-resolvable identifiers that combat identifier rent-seeking and censorship. It enables individuals to fully own and control their identifiers instead of renting the identifiers from a third party.
Individuals that acquire DID URLs use them in their software much like they continue to use DNS-based URLs. The software uses a DID resolver interface (defined in this specification) to determine the location of the resources to be retrieved. The process of DID resolution, much like the process of DNS resolution, is opaque to the individual and happens within the software without needing any direct involvement of the individual.
The research related to DNS centralization and the corresponding invention of DIDs and DID resolution is documented by the Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0 specification in the section related to the history of DIDs.
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in: