Meeting Date

...

...

• Verifier Requirements guide 
  @ Scott Perry discussed  discussed the potential need for verifier requirements, especially in the context of bridging between X.509 certificates and decentralized identifiers (DIDs). He mentioned the importance of feedback from the market and noted that the X.509 task force could potentially drive the development of verifier requirements. Action items included reviewing feedback on the issuer requirements guide and initiating work on the verifier requirements guide. Scott highlighted the need for additional resources to work on verifier activities.
  
•  Trust Establishment - DIF.

  • The discussion revolved around a proposal by the DIF'sTrust Establishment regarding a credential map aimed at documenting relationships within an ecosystem, such as those between educational institutions and credential issuers. Here are more technical details of the discussion:

    1. Credential Map Proposal: The proposal involves defining a standard format for a verifiable document, referred to as the "base verifiable document." This document would contain signed information, simplifying the process of verifying credentials within an ecosystem.

    2. Purpose of the Proposal: The primary objective of the proposal is to establish a mechanism for cataloging relationships between entities within an ecosystem. For example, it could document the authority relationships within an educational institution's ecosystem, tracing from federal accreditation bodies down to individual certificates issued by the institution.

    3. Metadata and Verifiability: The proposal

    emphasizes

    1. emphasises the use of verifiable credentials and metadata to establish and trace relationships. Each entity's authority and relationships within the ecosystem would be documented in a signed, verifiable manner.

    2. Trust Registries and Governance: There was discussion about how this proposal relates to trust registries and governance. While not explicitly labeled as a trust registry, the proposal shares similarities with the concept. It aims to provide a mechanism for capturing and storing trust-related information in a secure manner.

    3. Trust Chaining and Roots of Trust: Questions were raised about whether this proposal could facilitate trust chaining and establish roots of trust within an ecosystem. Trust chaining involves establishing a chain of trust from one entity to another, while roots of trust represent authoritative sources within the ecosystem.

    4. Clarification: Drummond Reed  clarified that the proposal aligns with the concept of a trust registry. He shared a diagram illustrating how different sources of trust information could interact using a trust registry protocol. This protocol would enable various entities to access and share trust-related information effectively.

• Update on Attraction Pass and its future direction
  There is a concern the interest in Attraction Pass has waned and the discussion centred around the reasons for it and what needed to be done next. Here's a summary of the main points discussed:
  • Original Intent: The original goal was to create a model or case study for implementing an Attraction Pass using techniques learned within the group.
  • Lack of Interest: Interest in the project seems to have waned, possibly due to misunderstandings about the scope, expectations of software development, or other business priorities taking precedence.
  • Proposal for Outreach: There's a suggestion to reach out to industry stakeholders to gauge interest in sponsoring the completion of the study.
  • Shift in Focus: There's also discussion about potentially shifting focus to using Trust over IP tools for content authenticity rather than pursuing the Attraction Pass project further.
  • Future action: There's a desire to either move forward with it by engaging with similar WGs in DIF or pivot to other initiatives.

...