• Start recording
• Welcome & antitrust notice
• New member introductions
• Agenda review

• 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:

Wenjing attended the announcement of LF Decentralized Trust in the opening day keynote of the LF EU summit. Of the new projects besides ToIP, there were two other new projects: 1) Hiero from Hedera, and 2) Lockness, which is about new cryptography and digital signature project.

The other interesting news was related to the OpenWallet Foundation. Paulo _____, the CTO for the European Digital Identity Wallets initiative, talked about collaboration. And the OWF just approved accepting the Hyperledger Aries family of digital wallet projects.

Wenjing said that there were good questions and discussions about TSP. He is attending another conference in Berlin on the Matrix protocol. Niko mentioned that his firm uses Matrix for internal comms. Wenjing said the key topic will be interoperability.

Judith mentioned the upcoming LFDT summit in the Bay Area. She said she talked with Karen from LFDT about getting a 30 min session on ToIP. Karen also asked if we could talk about decentralized identity and financial services. Karen also asked Judith to moderate that session. Wenjing said he could talk about MobilePay. Jeff Braswell also volunteered.

A proposal to simplify the how a VID type is specified in a message so that we don't need to have a VID type registry.

Sam shared screenshot #1 below. His proposal is posted here. He proposed that there be two VID modes: open and closed.

The open mode would use URNs to specify a VID type. In open mode, the URN would be in text, so CESR would be able to detect it was a text field. 

In closed mode, where parties want to use a specified set of VIDs whose types are known to all parties, then the URN is not necessary. The parties can use the VIDs that they have agreed upon.

Markus asked about whether Sam intended to use only the URN namespace. DIDs are not a registered URN type (although they could potentially become one).

Markus also asked about resolvability. We clarified that the URN format is only being used for syntax, but the URN must still meet the requirements in the TSP spec for a VID.

Judith Fleenor asked about the benefits of this proposal to use URNs. Sam clarified that the primary benefit is that it eliminates the need for a VID registry for "open" mode, and also allows private groups to use their own conventions.

Wenjing explained it this way: that there are two defined formats—URN or DID—and that if a party does not support that format, then you silently drop the message.

Sam clarified that it means that implementations and communities can now decide what VID types to support.

Drummond clarified that it simply moves the VID typing into the VID string itself (implicit) instead of requiring an explicit VID type field and therefore the burden of maintaining a namespace registry.

DECISION: We will eliminate an explicit VID type field and instead support implicit VID typing using either the DID or URN namespaces on VID strings.

ACTION: Wenjing Chu to update the TSP spec to remove an explicit VID type field and instead support implicit VID typing using either the DID or URN namespaces on VID strings.

Sam proposed to revise how payloads are specified in CESR. He believes that by better leveraging how a parser could parse CESR, we can use one packet format for all ESSR packets. All the variability will be in the payload. He believes this is not a big change as it just removes some options that can be handled at the CESR level rather than the TSP packet level.

Sam proposed that that the message type would state the type of the payload, not the type of the message envelope. This will move the semantics of the payload out of the semantics of a wrapper. This enables very efficient parsing of wrappers, and all the logic of payloads will be at the next stage of the parser. If you embed another wrapper, you can hand it to the wrapper parser.

Wenjing agreed that the logic makes sense, so he proposed that he and his team do a code-level analysis of the current method vs. this revision to see if there were any issues.

ACTION: Wenjing Chu will do a comparison of the current method and Sam's proposed revision in order to make a final determination about this proposed revision.

• Review decisions/action items
• Planning for next meeting