Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 3 Next »

Info

See ToIP calendar for cancellations, etc.

did:webs Task Force
10:00 – 11:00am ET
Weekly on Friday, until Dec 22, 2024

Location:

https://zoom.us/j/92492310278?pwd=Um1uSWljTkRoQjdwaG52WHlsZmNXZz09

Meeting Recording Link

Posted after the meeting:

Video Recording

Audio recording

Attendees

Lance Byrd 

Ed Eykholt 

Agenda Items and Notes (including all relevant links)

TimeAgenda ItemLeadNotes
5 min
  • Start recording
  • Welcome & antitrust notice
  • Introduction of new members
  • Agenda review
Chairs
5 minsReview of action items from previous meetingChairs
5 minsAnnouncementsTF Leads
5 mins

Reports

Open
  • Charles Lanahan is walking through the CESR spec and has been providing PRs/Issues for the spec as he implements a CESR parser.
25 minsDiscussionOpen

Catchup on final changes status:

  • Diagraming in ToIP
    • An index of diagrams would help
      • a markdown table that provides metadata/context that allows for the community to determine the usefulness/reputation of the diagram.
      • Lets start with KERISSE (at least for KERI related diagrams?). Perhaps this will expand to the wider ToIP ecosystem.
        • Broken links checker is automated and will help us maintain.
        • Medium articles can be scraped as well.
    • Diagrams should be close to their origin (ie. in the repo it applies to) but linking can lead to drill-down, discovery, and more
      • Discussions on the diagram occur within the repo. It may prompt discussion at a higher level (repo), etc.
    • Needs to be very dynamic, PRs etc. will result in updates, removal, etc.
    • Some are informational, some map a spec, some are future ideas, etc.
    • A decentralized model is necessary in order to maintain what diagrams are important, useful, out-of-date
  • Henk reference impl article discussion:
    • Goal: drive the interest of doing a did:webs implementation
    • Target: people who want the discoverability of did:web but additional security features to mitigate the common security problems of web-based technology. Organizational identity requires nuance, resilience, and trust this is an easy target group who requires maximal security. The target group need identity that is even more decentralized than public/private ledgers.
    • The LEI naturally extends to the needs for the vLEI and for did methods like did:webs. Banking, supply chain, regulatory reporting (for instance EBA pilot).
    • USP: separation of authorisation of your identifier and domain control. No longer dependent on domains.
  • Implementors draft, to get multiple implementations to verify the steps
    • Quality check on the spec
    • Should be able to show interop between implementations
    • This allows us to enter 'final' public review
    • This should be socialized that more implementations are needed as a next step that we would like to help support
  • Separating the admin control from did:web, to provide separate signing control is a big step.
    • Wording this in a way that helps those outside our community to understand/appreciate that step is extremely valuable.
  • What needs to be completed to enter the public review process?
5 minsAny other businessOpen


5 mins
  • Review decisions/action items
  • Planning for next meeting 
Chairs


  • Lance Byrd will update the IANA Considerations to include the CESR IANA provisional registration link.


  • No labels