Meeting Date & Time

03 Apr 2024 This Task Force meets every Wednesday. The first meeting (for the NA/EU time zones) is dedicated to the TSPTF. The second meeting, for the APAC time zones, is the joint weekly APAC meeting of all Task Forces in the ToIP Technology Stack Working Group.

NA/EU meeting: 08:00-09:00 PT / 15:00-16:00 UTC
APAC meeting: 18:00-19:00 PT / 01:00-02:00 UTC

See the Calendar of ToIP Meetings for exact meeting dates, times and Zoom links.

Zoom Meeting Recordings

NA/EU:

APAC:

Agenda Items and Notes (including all relevant links)

Time	Agenda Item	Lead	Notes
3 min	Start recording Welcome & antitrust notice New member introductions Agenda review	Chairs	Antitrust Policy Notice: Attendees are reminded to adhere to the meeting agenda and not participate in activities prohibited under antitrust and competition laws. Only members of ToIP who have signed the necessary agreements are permitted to participate in this activity beyond an observer role. New Members: None.
2 min	Review of previous action items	Chairs	ACTION: Darrell O'Donnell to create a Spec-Up issue concerning external specifications. ACTION: Move to specification template channel. ISSUE CREATED: https://github.com/trustoverip/specification-template/issues/8 ALL: Review the Implementers Draft and file issues.
20 mins	Report-out on Internet Identity Workshop TSP sessions	Wenjing Chu	Wenjing Chu called one session each of the three days of IIW: 1) Overview, 2) Technical Deep Dive; 3) Implementations & Demo. In the first session, Wenjing covered direct mode. In the second one, he covered routing mode. In the third, he showed the Rust implementation his team is working on and gave a short demo. Most of the feedback was questions about higher level applications. One that was brought up was a way to prevent voice fraud on mobile calls. It could be implemented by telcos. Currently spoofing of phone numbers is widespread, so authentication needed to rely on voice recognition. AI is decimating the latter, so applying TSP could be a solution. Social media is another application area. This is about the longstanding goal of building a decentralized social media platform. Another area is personal data stores and wallets. There was also discussion of how it would fit into existing SSI/decentralized identity projects like ACA-PY. Ed Eykholt asked about different VID types that Wenjing mentioned. Wenjing Chu also said his TSP sessions led to several conversations that were outside the typical IAM focus that we often have at ToIP and at IIW. These areas included superapps and 3D content management and social media. Ed Eykholt suggested that we might want to create a video series. Drummond Reed agreed. Judith Fleenor said there is discussion about how to make those videos for the ToIP Trust Canvas. APAC: Wenjing said that in the IIW sessions, there were multiple questions to understand the overall goals and purpose of the TSP. However it becomes much easier to explain when we show the code and how it can be used for sending/receiving messages. Talking about API designs and how you can use the protocol makes it easier to understand and quickly takes it to application discussions. Wenjing also held a session about our AI and Metaverse TF on the final day of IIW. The AIMTF is currently consolidating use cases and preparing a high-level solution that the TF feels that it could be very helpful. The discussions are moving to Github discussion in order to encourage asynchronous discussion. Jo asked about whether there was any feedback from users of other protocols. Wenjing said that there was a little discussion comparing TSP and DIDComm, but this IIW was so intensely busy that there wasn't as much as we would have liked. We discussed how we might start direct discussions with the DIDComm community about how we will work together/evolve. There was also another session on building a bridge between X.509 PKD and DIDs in which there was quite a bit of interest. We also discussed the proposal for the new did:tdw method that got a very good reception at IIW. We discussed how important it is going to become to talk about the relationship of TSP and the OID4VC* family.
10 mins	Report-out on IIW CESR 2.0 session	Sam Smith	Some attendees thought Sam's session on CESR 2.0 was one of his best ever. Here are the slides he shared. Sam said that even some in the KERI community were surprised about how performant KERI would be. Judith Fleenor said that her main takeaway is that Sam has been "burying the lead" about the cost-efficiency of CESR's bandwidth savings. The second lead is the cryptographic agility of CESR and its ability to help us deal with quantum-proofing. Eric Drury said that Sam highlighted a key takeaway for him was that it helped him answer questions about Web text comment. Darrell O'Donnell mentioned the Web Origin protocol.
20 mins	The case for a separate VID 1.0 specification	Drummond Reed	See this new GitHub discussion thread for a specific proposal. On the NA/EU call, we had a 20 minute discussion on this topic—see the recording for details. Tim Bouma I took a crack at writing something up for VIDs about 5 months back. It might be outmoded, but still worth looking at: https://github.com/dgc-cgn/CAS-Digital-Trade-Documentation/blob/main/scheme/objects/obj-verifiable-identifier.md The resolution of the discussion is summarized in this Github discussion post. DECISION: We do not need to create a separate VID spec because VIDs represent an abstract class of identifiers that meet the functional requirements of authenticity, confidentiality, and metadata privacy in the Trust Spanning Protocol specification. However we still need to decide about how to manage a registry of VID type codes to use in CESR code tables. We agreed to defer that decision until we have more implementation experience.
5 mins	Review decisions/action items Planning for next meeting	Chairs

Decisions

DECISION: We do not need to create a separate VID spec because VIDs represent an abstract class of identifiers that meet the functional requirements of authenticity, confidentiality, and metadata privacy in the Trust Spanning Protocol specification. However we still need to decide about how to manage a registry of VID type codes to use in CESR code tables. We agreed to defer that decision until we have more implementation experience.

Action Items

ACTION: ALL—Review the Implementers Draft and file issues.

Browser not supported