Versions Compared

Old Version 2

changes.mady.by.user Andor Kesselman

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Andor Kesselman

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Zoom Meeting Link / Recording

Agenda Items and Notes (including all relevant links)

Time

Agenda Item

Lead

Notes

5 min

  • Start recording

  • Welcome & antitrust notice

  • Introduction of new members

  • 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:

5 min

Review of previous action items

Chairs

15 mins

Issue/PR Review

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UTzCvFr8np652cnyt-WB3R3TjYjZdL0egw5wX5b5Pf0/edit?usp=sharing

Consider use of "DID method enum" spec ← This is going to be paired with existing work.

https://github.com/trustoverip/tswg-trust-registry-protocol/issues/61 ← this has a PR now.

https://github.com/trustoverip/tswg-trust-registry-protocol/issues/58 ← needs follow up.

https://github.com/trustoverip/tswg-trust-registry-protocol/issues/56 ← blocked by a common data model

https://github.com/trustoverip/tswg-trust-registry-protocol/issues/21 ← aligned to the work we are doing today on the common data models.

https://github.com/trustoverip/tswg-trust-registry-protocol/issues/4 ← responded. moving this along.

10 mins

Previous TRTF Call Review

Andor Kesselman

Recap scope and focuses today.

  • Scope : What’s a problem for us vs. a problem for the ecosystem to figure out?

    • Desire for an implementers guide was requested.

  • Interaction Pattern Documentation : Discussed as Supporting but informs spec. Non-normative.

image-20241128-053550.pngImage Removedimage-20241128-053550.pngImage Added

30 mins

TRQP Common Data Model Work 

Andor

Authorization Data Model Starting Point : We will discuss the abstract data model for authorization and try to work on a normative formalization that will make it’s way to the specification. This gist is a probe but not the final text: https://gist.github.com/andorsk/3c1f1d869644d4d0c58f9cb3f78028b5#authorization-data-model

5 mins

  • Review decisions/action items

  • Planning for next meeting 

Chairs

  • Discussion on how to achieve gradient on the spec:

  • Darrell : Multi-hop scenario out of scope for now.

    Wha

    • AWS : 7 years to delete multiple objects

Notes:

  • Drummond Reed : Step too far. Allowing each TR in the graph in the graph to answer in the graph

    • Describing you know another node.

  • Building own graph of trust.

  • Scott Perry :

    • Standard fields needed.

    • Transactions in the protocol

    • Payload of those protocols.

  • MUST know the state of the network to answer the question.

  • Need to point out the considerations for a trust network.

  • Query protocol : What are the data fields to be on the trust registry to be on the transactions to work properly.

    • Minimum records of the trust registry

  • We must keep it simple fro now, else nothing will be delivered

    • The main topic is: Does Entity X have Authorization Y, in the context of Ecosystem Governance Framework Z?

  • Do not add any context based authorization

  • Let’s not

  • Need to

  • Believe were blurring : who is querying vs. answer to the question.

Notes:

Screenshots/Diagrams (numbered for reference in notes above)

...