Page Comparison

31 November 2020  — 8AM PT, 11AM ET, 16:00 UK, 17:00 CET

...

•  Reminders
  •  Education Meetings
    •  Planned: None
    •  Call for Education Sessions
      •  KERI Protocol
      •  KERI - podcast by (private member) Tim Bouma and Sam Smith 
      •  (from Kaliya) The interoperability working group at DIF has been educational sessions that are recorded - this coming week we are hearing about JSON-LD ZKP BBS+ 2pm pacific on Wednesday https://github.com/decentralized-identity/interoperability/blob/master/agenda.md
    •  Reminder: Available Recordings: See ToIP Education and Resources Wiki Page
  •  DIF Interop WG Interlock - Arch Map
  •  Hyperledger Indy DID Method Specification WG
•   

Taskforce - Verifiable Authorizations

•  Review previous suggestion and discuss TF set-up
  •  Sam Smith was not able to attend, so we did not discuss this proposed TF further
  •  Drummond noted that this thread was ongoing in the GitHub for the W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model 1.0 spec, and that it was highly relevant to this proposed TF

Layer 1 Interop Spec

Philip Feairheller explained the open questions about this spec:

1. Should we have separate specs/APIs for DID resolution (reads) and DID registration (writes).
   1. Stephen Curran suggested that yes, it would be best to separate reading, which may often be across DID methods, and writing, which is likely to be specific to writing to a "home network".
2. Should we have a separate spec for DID network discovery?
   1. Stephen Curran also felt this would be helpful because decentralized discovery is already a topic on the Indy DID Method Spec WG.
   2. Philip Feairheller agreed that could be very helpful to be able to do "trusted discovery".
3. Do we need separate specs/APIs for schema discovery?
   1. Stephen Curran felt that this could be more complicated. The goal of the Indy DID method spec is to make access to all these ledger objects based on DID resolution. So to retrieve the object, you would simply resolve the DID. 
   2. Philip Feairheller asked whether this would also apply to revocation registries.
   3. Stephen Curran felt yes, that would also be the best way to access that info.
4. Drummond Reed agreed with all the comments above and strongly endorsed using DID resolution and registration as the primary mechanism we should rely for abstraction of Layer 1.
5. We then discussed what should be specified by DID method specifications and what should be specified by our ToIP Layer 1 specs.
   1. Drummond Reed spoke to the need for the ToIP Layer 1 specs to provide as much guidance as possible to DID method specification authors about interop
   2. This includes defining DID document type for common Layer 1 objects like schemas and revocation registries.
   3. Philip Feairheller agreed, and will take this into account in the specs

...

Decision Points

•  None

Discussion Topics

•  GSWG Proposal: Q1 2021 Joint Deliverables Package
  1. ToIP Technology Stack Design Principles (TSWG) (DP0006 Technology Stack)
     1. Focus on overall design principles – separate deliverable from the specific (DP0003 Laws of Identity) and (DP0004 Privacy by Design) TFs
     2. Focus is on TIP independent and stack layer independent. So this is a separate full-stack deliverable. For example: (DP0005 Decentralization by Design)
  2. ToIP Governance Stack Design Principles (GSWG) (DP0007 Governance Stack)
  3. ToIP Governance Architecture TSS (GSWG) <== underway (TSS0002 Governance Stack)
  4. ToIP Technical Architecture TSS (TSWG): See RFC 289 Conversion TF (TSS0001 Technology Stack)
  5. Design and Architecture of the ToIP Stack (white paper) (joint deliverable of GSWG and TSWG): Update Foundation Whitepaper (WP0010 ToIP Foundation Whitepaper)

...

Low priority items that failed to gain volunteers to champion cause.

•  Change TSWG Mtg slot.
•  ISO Interlock discussion : ToIP Liaison (Vicky Lemieux) to ISO TC 307 (Emily Dawson Secretariat)
•  Need to establish chair duration and cycle times
•  Possible library - collection of links 
•   

...