Copyright © 2025 World Wide Web Consortium . W3C ® liability , trademark and permissive document license rules apply.
Decentralized identifiers (DIDs) are a new type of identifier for verifiable, "self-sovereign" digital identity. DIDs are fully under the control of the DID controller, independent from any centralized registry, identity provider, or certificate authority. DIDs resolve to DID Documents — simple documents that describe how to use that specific DID.
This document specifies the algorithms and guidelines for resolving DIDs and dereferencing DID URLs. Additionally, this document describes the input and output metadata related to the DID resolution processes and further describes the data structures that may be returned from a DID resolution request. This document relies on the core DID specification, Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.1 , which describes the underlying DID architecture in full detail.
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 a DID document for a given DID . This is one of four required operations that can be performed on any DID ("Read"; the other ones being "Create", "Update", and "Deactivate"). The details of these operations differ depending on the DID method . Building on top of DID resolution , DID URL dereferencing is the process of retrieving a representation of a resource for a given DID URL . Software and/or hardware that is able to execute these processes is called a DID resolver .
This specification defines common requirements, algorithms including their inputs and results, architectural options, and various considerations for the DID resolution and DID URL dereferencing processes.
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.
The difference between "resolving" a DID and "dereferencing" a DID URL is being thoroughly discussed by the community. For example, see this comment .
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 , 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 4. DID Resolution .
A conforming DID URL dereferencer is any algorithm realized as software and/or hardware that complies with the relevant normative statements in 5. DID URL Dereferencing .
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 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.
controller
property
at
the
top
level
of
the
DID
document
.
Note
that
a
DID
controller
might
be
the
DID
subject
.
#
).
DID
fragment
syntax
is
identical
to
URI
fragment
syntax.
/
)
character
and
ends
with
either
a
question
mark
(
?
)
character,
a
fragment
hash
sign
(
#
)
character,
or
the
end
of
the
DID
URL
.
DID
path
syntax
is
identical
to
URI
path
syntax.
See
Decentralized
Identifiers
(DIDs)
v1.0
.
?
).
DID
query
syntax
is
identical
to
URI
query
syntax.
See
Decentralized
Identifiers
(DIDs)
v1.0
.
did:
as
defined
in
Decentralized
Identifiers
(DIDs)
v1.0
.
Each
DID
method
specification
defines
a
specific
DID
method
scheme
that
works
with
that
specific
DID
method
.
In
a
specific
DID
method
scheme,
the
DID
method
name
follows
the
first
colon
and
terminates
with
the
second
colon,
e.g.,
did:example:
/
character),
optional
DID
query
(with
its
leading
?
character),
and
optional
DID
fragment
(with
its
leading
#
character).
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 ]). Adding a DID parameter to a DID URL means that the parameter becomes part of the identifier for a resource .
did:example:123?versionTime=2021-05-10T17:00:00Z
did:example:123?service=files&relativeRef=/resume.pdf
Some DID parameters are completely independent of any specific DID method and 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 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. If present, the associated value MUST be an ASCII string . |
serviceType
|
Identifies a set of one or more services from the DID document by service type. If present, the associated value MUST be an ASCII string . |
relativeRef
|
A
relative
URI
reference
according
to
RFC3986
Section
4.2
that
identifies
a
resource
at
a
service
endpoint
,
which
is
selected
from
a
DID
document
by
using
the
service
parameter.
If
present,
the
associated
value
MUST
be
an
ASCII
string
and
MUST
use
percent-encoding
for
certain
characters
as
specified
in
RFC3986
Section
2.1
.
|
versionId
|
Identifies a specific version of a DID document to be resolved (the version ID could be sequential, or a UUID , or method-specific). If present, the associated value MUST be an ASCII string . |
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
an
ASCII
string
which
is
a
valid
XML
datetime
value,
as
defined
in
section
3.3.7
of
W3C
XML
Schema
Definition
Language
(XSD)
1.1
Part
2:
Datatypes
[
XMLSCHEMA11-2
].
This
datetime
value
MUST
be
normalized
to
UTC
00:00:00
and
without
sub-second
decimal
precision.
For
example:
2020-12-20T19:17:47Z
.
|
hl
|
A resource hash of the DID document to add integrity protection, as specified in [ HASHLINK ]. This parameter is non-normative. If present, the associated value MUST be an ASCII string . |
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 Specification Registries mechanism [ DID-SPEC-REGISTRIES ], to avoid collision with other uses of the same DID parameter with different semantics.
DID parameters might be used if there is a clear use case where the parameter needs to be part of a URL that references a resource with more precision than using the DID alone. It is expected that DID parameters are not used if the same functionality can be expressed by passing input metadata to a DID resolver .
The DID resolution and the DID URL dereferencing functions can be influenced by passing 4.1 DID Resolution Options or 5.1 DID URL Dereferencing 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 the dereferencing process. The important distinction is that DID parameters that are part of the DID URL should be used to specify what resource is being identified , whereas input metadata that is not part of the DID URL should be used to control how that resource is resolved or dereferenced .
The DID resolution function resolves a DID into a DID document by using the "Read" 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 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 .
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
4.1
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
match
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
4.3
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 Specification Registries [ DID-SPEC-REGISTRIES ]. This specification defines the following common input options:
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 Specification Registries [ DID-SPEC-REGISTRIES ]. 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 7.2 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
contains
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 .
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 Specification Registries [ DID-SPEC-REGISTRIES ]. 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
a
string
formatted
as
an
XML
Datetime
normalized
to
UTC
00:00:00
and
without
sub-second
decimal
precision.
For
example:
2020-12-20T19:17:47Z
.
updated
property
to
indicate
the
timestamp
of
the
last
Update
operation
for
the
document
version
which
was
resolved.
The
value
of
the
property
MUST
follow
the
same
formatting
rules
as
the
created
property.
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
follow
the
same
formatting
rules
as
the
created
property.
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 7.1 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
contains
a
proof.
The
use
of
this
property
and
the
types
of
proofs
are
DID
method
-specific.
The following DID resolution algorithm MUST be implemented by a conformant DID resolver .
did
rule
of
the
DID
Syntax
.
If
not,
the
DID
resolver
MUST
return
the
following
result:
null
«[
]»
null
«[
]»
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
,
...
]»
Should we define functionality that enables discovery of the list of DID methods or other capabilities that are supported by a DID resolver ? Or is this implementation-specific and out-of-scope for this spec? For example, see here and here .
The DID URL dereferencing function dereferences a DID URL into a resource with contents depending on the DID URL 's components, including the DID method , method-specific identifier, path, query, and fragment. This process depends on DID resolution of the DID contained in the DID URL . DID URL dereferencing 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 top left part of the diagram contains a rectangle with black outline, labeled "DID".
The bottom left part of the diagram contains a rectangle with 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", extends from the rectangle in the top left part of the diagram, labeled "DID", and points to the rectangle in the top right part of diagram, labeled "DID document".
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 "contains", extends from the small rectangle labeled "DID" inside the rectangle in the bottom left part of the diagram, labeled "DID URL", and points to the rectangle in the top left part of diagram, labeled "DID".
A black arrow, labeled "dereferences to a DID document", extends from the rectangle in the bottom left part of the diagram, labeled "DID URL", and points to the rectangle in the top right part of diagram, labeled "DID document".
A black arrow, labeled "dereferences to a resource", 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 implement the function below, which has the following abstract form:
dereference(didUrl, dereferenceOptions) →
«
dereferencingMetadata,
contentStream,
contentMetadata
»
The
input
variables
of
the
dereference
function
are
as
follows:
While
it
is
valid
for
any
didUrl
to
be
passed
to
a
DID
URL
dereferencer,
implementers
are
expected
to
refer
to
5.
DID
URL
Dereferencing
to
further
understand
common
patterns
for
how
a
DID
URL
is
expected
to
be
dereferenced.
dereference
function
in
addition
to
the
didUrl
itself.
This
structure
is
further
defined
in
5.1
DID
URL
Dereferencing
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
dereference
are
dereferencingMetadata
,
contentStream
,
and
contentMetadata
.
These
values
are
described
below:
error
property
describing
the
error.
See
Section
10.
Errors
.
dereferencing
function
was
called
and
successful,
this
MUST
contain
a
resource
corresponding
to
the
DID
URL
.
The
contentStream
MAY
be
a
resource
such
as
a
DID
document
that
is
serializable
in
one
of
the
conformant
representations
,
a
verification
method
,
a
service
,
or
any
other
resource
format
that
can
be
identified
via
a
Media
Type
and
obtained
through
the
resolution
process.
If
the
dereferencing
is
unsuccessful,
this
value
MUST
be
empty.
contentStream
.
If
the
contentStream
is
a
DID
document
,
this
MUST
be
a
didDocumentMetadata
structure
as
described
in
DID
Resolution
.
If
the
dereferencing
is
unsuccessful,
this
output
MUST
be
an
empty
metadata
structure
.
This
structure
is
further
defined
in
5.3
DID
URL
Content
Metadata
.
Conforming
DID
URL
dereferencing
implementations
do
not
alter
the
signature
of
these
functions
in
any
way.
DID
URL
dereferencing
implementations
might
map
the
dereference
function
to
a
method-specific
internal
function
to
perform
the
actual
DID
URL
dereferencing
process.
DID
URL
dereferencing
implementations
might
implement
and
expose
additional
functions
with
different
signatures
in
addition
to
the
dereference
function
specified
here.
This is a metadata structure that contains input options for the DID URL Dereferencing process.
The possible properties within this structure and their possible values SHOULD be registered in the DID Specification Registries [ DID-SPEC-REGISTRIES ]. This specification defines the following common input options:
contentStream
.
The
Media
Type
MUST
be
expressed
as
an
ASCII
string
.
The
DID
URL
dereferencer
implementation
SHOULD
use
this
value
to
determine
the
contentType
of
the
representation
contained
in
the
returned
value
if
such
a
representation
is
supported
and
available.
This is a metadata structure that contains metadata about the DID URL Dereferencing process.
This metadata typically changes between invocations of the DID URL Dereferencing function as it represents data about the dereferencing process itself.
The source of this metadata is the DID URL dereferencer .
The possible properties within this structure and their possible values SHOULD be registered in the DID Specification Registries [ DID-SPEC-REGISTRIES ]. This specification defines the following common metadata properties:
contentStream
SHOULD
be
expressed
using
this
property
if
dereferencing
is
successful.
The
Media
Type
value
MUST
be
expressed
as
an
ASCII
string
.
Some DID resolvers and DID URL dereferencers use proofs when executing the DID Resolution or DID URL Dereferencing functions. See 7.2 Resolver Architectures for details.
DID
URL
dereferencing
metadata
MAY
include
a
proof
property.
If
present,
the
value
MUST
be
a
set
where
each
item
is
a
map
that
contains
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 URL Dereferencing process.
This metadata typically does not change between invocations of the DID URL Dereferencing function unless the content changes, as it represents data about the content.
The sources of this metadata are the DID controller and/or the DID method .
The possible properties within this structure and their possible values SHOULD be registered in the DID Specification Registries [ DID-SPEC-REGISTRIES ]. This specification defines no common properties.
The following DID URL dereferencing algorithm MUST be implemented by a conformant DID resolver . In accordance with [ RFC3986 ], it consists of the following three steps: resolving the DID; dereferencing the resource; and dereferencing the fragment (only if the input DID URL contains a DID fragment ):
did-url
rule
of
the
DID
URL
Syntax
.
If
not,
the
DID
URL
dereferencer
MUST
return
the
following
result:
null
«[
]»
null
«[
]»
did:example:1234
«[
...
]»
resolved
DID
document
«[
resolved
DID
document
metadata
]»
hl
:
did:example:1234?hl=zQmWvQxTqbG2Z9HPJgG57jjwR154cKhbtJenbyYTWkjgF3e
TODO:
Specify
the
algorithm
for
processing
the
hl
DID
parameter.
service
and/or
the
DID
parameter
serviceType
,
and
optionally
the
DID
parameter
relativeRef
:
did:example:1234?service=files&relativeRef=%2Fmyresume%2Fdoc%3Fversion%3Dlatest
service
:
Select
the
service
if
its
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
.
serviceType
:
Select
the
service
if
its
type
property
matches
the
value
of
the
serviceType
DID
parameter.
relativeRef
:
serviceEndpoint
property
of
the
selected
service
is
a
map
,
skip
this
selected
service
.
serviceEndpoint
property
of
the
selected
service
is
a
string
,
add
this
value
to
a
list
of
selected
service
endpoint
URLs
.
serviceEndpoint
property
of
the
selected
service
is
a
set
,
add
all
its
items
that
are
strings
to
a
list
of
selected
service
endpoint
URLs
.
relativeRef
.
«[
...
]»
resolved
DID
document
with
selected
services
«[
resolved
DID
document
metadata
]»
«[
...
]»
«
selected
service
endpoint
URLs
»
«[
"contentType"
→
"text/uri-list",
...
]»
null
«[
]»
did:example:1234/custom/path?customquery
did:example:1234/resources/1234
did:example:1234/whois
did:example:1234?transformKey=JsonWebKey
null
«[
]»
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 5.4.1 Dereferencing the 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 5. 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 5. DID URL Dereferencing algorithm is the following selected service endpoint URL :
https://example.com/messages/8377464/some/path?query#frag
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 MUST be a string , number , map , list , set , boolean , or null . The values within any complex data structure such as a map or list MUST be one of these data types as well. All metadata property definitions registered in the DID Specification Registries [ DID-SPEC-REGISTRIES ] MUST define the value type, including any additional formats or restrictions to that value (for example, a string formatted as a date). It is RECOMMENDED that property definitions use strings for values. 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"
]»
TODO: Describe how DID resolvers are implemented and used, describe the relevance of DID methods . Explain the difference between "method architectures" and "resolver architectures".
The DID resolution algorithm involves executing the Read operation on a DID according to its DID method (see 4. 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 "Read" operation, the interaction between a DID resolver and the verifiable data registry could be considered either a verifiable read or an unverifiable read :
A verifiable read maximizes confidence in the integrity and correctness of the result of the "Read" 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 read does not have such guarantees and is therefore less desirable, for example:
Whether or not a verifiable read 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 "Read" operation, and SHOULD offer guidance regarding at least one way to implement a verifiable read .
The guarantees associated with a verifiable read 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 read 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 reads , many DID methods use digital signatures, state proofs, proofs of inclusion in Merkle trees, cryptographic event logs, or other types of proofs. 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 "Read" 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 7.2 Resolver Architectures .
The algorithms for DID resolution and DID URL dereferencing are defined as abstract functions (see 4. DID Resolution and 5. 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 "Read" operation of the applicable DID method is itself correct. See also 7.1 Method Architectures .
A DID resolver MUST support the DID resolution algorithm for at least one DID method and MAY support it for multiple DID methods :
In this case, the above considerations in 7.1 Method Architectures about verifiable read and unverifiable read 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 4. 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
service
endpoint
URL),
and
the
client
could
complete
the
DID
URL
dereferencing
algorithm
by
Dereferencing
the
Fragment
(i.e.,
a
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 4. 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+ld+json","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" } } } }
Need to define how this data structure works exactly, and whether it always contains a DID document or can also contain other results.
For certain data, it may be debatable whether it should be part of the DID document (i.e., data that describes the DID Subject), or whether it is metadata (i.e., data about the DID document or about the DID resolution process). For example the URL of the "Continuation DID document" in the BTCR method.
This section defines a JSON data structure that represents the result of the algorithm described in 5. 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+ld+json","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.
accept
input
metadata
property
is
not
supported
by
the
DID
method
and/or
DID
resolver
implementation.
See
Section
4.4
DID
Resolution
Algorithm
.
This section defines bindings for the abstract algorithms in sections 4. DID Resolution and 5. 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 7.2 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
.
Using this binding, the DID resolution function (see 4. DID Resolution ) and/or DID URL dereferencing function (see 5. 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"
in
order
to
request
a
complete
8.
DID
Resolution
Result
,
OR
Accept
HTTP
request
header
to
the
value
of
the
accept
resolution
option
.
https://resolver.example/1.0/identifiers/did%3Aexample%3A1234?option1=value1&option2=value2
https://resolver.example/1.0/identifiers/did:example:1234?service=files&relativeRef=/resume.pdf
Accept
HTTP
request
header
to
application/did-url-dereferencing"
in
order
to
request
a
complete
9.
DID
URL
Dereferencing
Result
,
OR
Accept
HTTP
request
header
to
the
value
of
the
accept
dereferencing
option
.
https://resolver.example/1.0/identifiers/did%3Aexample%3A1234%3Fservice%3Dfiles%26relativeRef%3D%2Fresume.pdf?option1=value1&option2=value2
GET
request
on
the
request
HTTP(S)
URL
.
This
invokes
the
DID
resolution
or
DID
URL
dereferencing
function
at
the
remote
DID
resolver
.
error | HTTP status code |
---|---|
INVALID_DID
|
400
|
INVALID_DID_URL
|
400
|
INVALID_OPTIONS
|
400
|
NOT_FOUND
|
404
|
REPRESENTATION_NOT_SUPPORTED
|
406
|
INVALID_DID_DOCUMENT
|
500
|
METHOD_NOT_SUPPORTED
|
501
|
INVALID_PUBLIC_KEY
|
500
|
INVALID_PUBLIC_KEY_LENGTH
|
500
|
INVALID_PUBLIC_KEY_TYPE
|
500
|
UNSUPPORTED_PUBLIC_KEY_TYPE
|
501
|
INTERNAL_ERROR
|
500
|
(any other value) |
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
4.2
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
service
endpoint
URL
.
200
.
Content-Type
HTTP
response
header
.
Its
value
MUST
be
the
value
of
the
contentType
metadata
property
in
the
dereferencingMetadata
(see
5.2
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": [{ ... }] }
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.
The spec should clarify whether or not conformant resolvers MUST be public or MAY restrict access via some authentication and authorization scheme.
The current language doesn't make it clear if authentication is just out of scope or if it is disallowed.
Explain that DIDs are not necessarily globally resolvable, such as pairwise or N-wise "peer" DIDs.
See [ RFC3339 ]: URIs have a global scope and are interpreted consistently regardless of context, though the result of that interpretation may be in relation to the end-user's context.
An advanced idea is that the result of DID resolution could be contextual or depend on policies, see this comment .
A related topic is whether (parts of) DID document could be encrypted, e.g., w3c/did-core/issues/25 . Also see the use of the fragment in the IPID DID method.
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
can
respond
with
an
error
that
makes
it
clear
that
bypassing
the
cache
was
not
permitted
so
the
client
can
attempt
to
resolve
without
using
noCache
.
See corresponding open issue.
Perhaps we can re-use caching mechanisms of other protocols such as HTTP.
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.
There is discussion on the relationship between DID resolution and resolution of non-DID identifiers such as domain names, HTTP URIs, or e-mail addresses. This includes the questions how DIDs can be discovered from non-DID identifiers, and how links between identifiers can be verifiable.
TODO: Define privacy considerations for DID resolution
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.
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in:
Referenced in: