w3c/did-resolution#321

Will Abramson: What's that? Uh, so… Moving on
… This next one should also be relatively straightforward. It's 321. It's just a fix, really, to a bug that was in the spec around misnaming of the… Resolution, when it meant. dereferencing. Um
… I think it has strong approvals
… maybe we don't need to talk about it at all, I just wanted to make sure everyone had a chance. Yes. Marcus
… Hmm

Markus Sabadello: I think it's more than maybe just a bug. I think it has to do a little bit with the other discussions about what means resolution, what means dereferencing, what do you do with the DID and with the URL. And so on, so if… if everybody...
… actually agrees with this PR, it could also be helpful to get some alignment on the other. topic, so I would
… I would maybe ask if Joe and Steven could also review this, um
… And if they agree, then maybe some of the other discussions would be easier

Will Abramson: Okay, great, yeah, Stephen has approved it, so, uh… That's good. Manny?...

Manu Sporny: Uh, yeah, I've reviewed this PR, I think it's a good change. I think it does clarify...
… Uh… what, you know, a dereferencing cycle is, and why we care about those, and um
… Anyway, it feels like a good, a good change, um, that… that adds clarity. That's it

Will Abramson: Uh, 2?...

Joe Andrieu: Um, yeah, I think this is a good change in general. Um, there's some languaging I'd like to shift, so I'll take a look at that and give feedback. In particular, just the first line caught me...
… And that we don't dereference a DID service endpoint, we dereference a DID URL that has a service property, or that
… like, we need to figure out how to talk about that better, because if you give me a DID service endpoint, I don't need to
… they reference it. Um, I think the challenge is when you're going from the did URL, and then you trigger that loop

Will Abramson: Okay, great...

Joe Andrieu: But I will… I'll… I'll engage on that...

Will Abramson: Perfect. Thank you. Um...