•  ACTION: If you have any feedback on issues #40, #46 & #49 — roles, pull requests (PRs) and the version publication process — please go in and comment. If you have any questions, ask them in the #tswg-tech-arch-tf Slack channel.
•  ACTION: ALL TATF members need to read the EasyCLA process document and decide on the CLA manager assignment for your organization in order to continue to make contributions to the TAS. You can also set it up to provide wildcard support for all representatives of your org (based on your email domain). See Elisa Trevino for access/help.
•  ACTION: Darrell O'Donnell to propose another variant of Figure 4 as a candidate for the "full stack" diagram discussed in issue #31. DONE.
•  ACTION: thomsona to propose a simpler diagram to replace the current Figure 4 in section 6.2 as discussed in issue #31.
•  ACTION: Jo Spencer to noodle on some diagrams that more clearly define the borders of the "sphere of influence" of the ToIP stack.
•  ACTION: Drummond Reed to begin a draft of a blog post announcing release of the Public Review Draft of the TAS.

Antti's PR is stuck on a DCO problem. 

Antti said the PR is now #52. The DCO issue is an attestation from the developer. Antti has made an issue assigned to Elisa.

We then discussed the actual license that we need to attach. For copyright, it is Text is CC-BY-SA-4.0.

This is all in our WG charter; we can just copy it from there. The other source would be the Good Health Pass.

Judith: "Once EasyCLA is fully implemented you can most likely turn off DCO.  DCO was turned on because we didn't have EasyCLA in place yet."

ACTION: Drummond Reed will close on this with Scott Nicholas issue #44 by checking with LF counsel Scott Nicholas as to what license should be stated in the LICENSE.MD file.

Andor Antti Kettunen 

thomsona Drummond Reed Darrell O'Donnell Jo Spencer 

Review Allan's proposed new version of Figure 4.

See this evolution of the previous version.

Allan presented a new diagram (see screenshot #1 below) as a model diagram to convey the key concepts of what is in and out of scope for ToIP. He also showed Jo Spencer 's diagram that conveys many of the same concepts.

Darrell liked Allan's diagram for how it communicates the big picture.

Wenjing Chu likes Allan's diagram but said that Figure 4 is the scope of just a single Endpoint System.

Jacques Latour likes the diagram but feels it is still too high-level for his own purposes, which need to get into lower-level systems such as DNS. Allan agreed that the model diagram could be more detailed and specific, with a more detailed diagram.

Comments:

• Darrell: yup - kind of a "why are we here" and "how do we fit into the world" - very crucial for those that haven't mixed and drank the koolaid.
• Judith: Or use the HourGlass, and then have the other one in an appendix, for more information.
• Tim Bouma : I am always on the lookout for a simple unifying theme for the ToIP model: So far (stealing Drummond's words), this model enables "Trust at a Distance" (TaaD)
• Darrell: These diagrams can fit in to the TAS as well as be used in blogs and other marketing/communication material that we use for very pointed purposes.
• Andor: I think the abstractions are super helpful, but also would be helpful I think to ground the abstraction in an actual example. I think that could be helpful for people to understand.
• Darrell: I suggest Drummond takes the action of assembling these diagrams (views) into a story and we move on.
• Neil: +1 to Allan's comment - these are diagrams for the architects, not policy makers.
• Wenjing: the main point is the hourglass shape.
• Andor: it would be helpful to take an example use case and run all the way through it.

ACTION: Drummond Reed to propose a structure storyline for a storyline that provides that storylineconcluding section (or Appendix) that can incorporate all of the proposed diagrams in way that communicates the overall picture of the ToIP architecture from several views.

Neil Thomson 
Drummond Reed 

Neil will update us on his work on this issue — see this Google doc.

Neil explained that there are different definitions of these terms, and they are usually specific to particular contexts. He has also been talking to Henk van Cann about the same issues with related to KERI and ACDC.

Drummond had a long talk with Sam Smith and wrote up the following:

Darrell O'Donnell 

Key efforts beginning on the Trust Registry Protocol Specification v2.0. See screenshot #2 below for his opening slide. Darrell also share this link to the webinar that he and Christine Martin gave last month: https://www.continuumloop.com/trust-registries-beyond-the-basics/.

• Key items for consideration:
  • Trust Registry metadata (avoiding standard "devops" things.
  • Credential Types (we reference the idea in v1.0 but don't discuss it further).
  • Presentation (Proof) Request Types.
  • Verifier and Issuer "types".
  • DID Method support (i.e. which ones are / are not supported).
  • Interop Profiles that are required/optional.
  • What Wallets are supported.
  • Role of DNS/DNSSEC as anchor point.
  • Machine Readable Governance.

• ACTION: Darrell O'Donnell to create a document (Google doc or Google Slides) to begin collaboration ( in the ToIP Google Drive )to begin collaboration on the Trust Registry Task Force 2.0.

ACTION: Drummond Reed to ask Elisa Trevino to cancel the TATF meetings on Thursday Nov 17 due to Internet Identity Workshop.