...
Time | Agenda Item | Lead | Notes |
3 min |
| Chairs |
|
2 min | Review of previous action items | Chairs | None from the last meeting. |
15 mins | Diagram & terminology | Wenjing Chu | Wenjing started by showing screenshot #1 below to get feedback on the terminology it uses. Feedback was that the diagram could also included the term "message" at the bottom to clarify that a TSP message consists of the envelope + payload + signature. The other feedback is that the diagram is so helpful in terms of a visual overview of what the spec covers that it would be very helpful to have it included in the spec. Ed Eykholt had questions about how all of the following would be handled:
Wenjing clarified that the diagram is a "test vector" diagram that shows one way that the protocol can be used. He said all of Ed's questions/examples could be covered by other test vectors that could all be included in an appendix. Drummond Reed suggested that Ed start one or more GitHub discussions that discuss questions about each test vector. |
10 mins | VID discussion | We discussed VID encoding. We had agreed to have a VID type, which means we need a VID type code table. If we have a four character type code, then the first character indicates that it is a type code, and the next 3 characters are the code. That gives us a code space of 18 bits (2 to the 18th), which should easily be large enough. Sam Smith proposes that a null type code would mean the VID is a URN. We discussed the pluses and minuses of having a type code table. We agreed that we will need to have a governance mechanism. APAC: Wenjing explained that our concept of VIDs allows for some flexibility BUT wants to avoid the explosion of options that has happened with DID method. The solution is by creating a CESR code table for VIDs. That is how we can define a set of policies that a VID type must meet in order to be registered for that code table. We can also allocate a portion of that code table bit space to "experimental" codes to allow for market-driven innovation. | |
5 mins | Prep for the Implementers Draft | Wenjing Chu | Our goal is still to publish the Implementers Draft this month. Wenjing is working on the conversation to Spec-Up. Drummond reported that the Concepts and Terminology WG is almost done with new Spec-Up code that will support external references to other glossaries—and that the ToIP Glossary will be published as a Spec-Up document to support that functionality. |
X.509 VID TF Report | Eric Scouten | Eric reported that he has converted the original did:x509 method spec into Spec-Up format and will show it tomorrow. That original spec is no longer being worked on by Microsoft, so they are fine with us moving forward. We discussed the Spec-Up editing process and how the GitHub Actions that automatically publish to GitHub Pages. Eric very much appreciated the Loom video that Darrell published last month. | |
ACDC TF Spec public review | All | We reviewed the first draft blog post proposed by the ACDC TF for public review of their suite of specifications. There was a discussion about the dependencies between these three specifications. Darrell O'Donnell drew the following diagram suggesting the relationships. ACTION: Drummond Reed and Darrell O'Donnell to have a discussion with the ACDC leadership about the length of the public review and the depth of the announcement blog post. | |
Trust Registry TF Report | Darrell and Eric reported on presentations they had done, along with Mathieu Glaude, this morning to ICANN. Here is a recording of the meeting. The basic message were about trust on the Internet. They were well received and swamped with questions. Eric said that a substantial part of the questions were around trust hierarchies and how they relate. Since all four of them met at ToIP and reported on work going on at ToIP, they felt it was good exposure for the ToIP Foundation as a whole. | ||
5 mins |
| Chairs |
...