/
2021-09-09 TRTF Meeting Notes

2021-09-09 TRTF Meeting Notes

Owned by Drummond Reed
Last updated: Sept 13, 2021

Meeting Date

  •  

Zoom Meeting Link / Recording

Attendees

Main Goal of this Meeting

Complete Working Draft 01 of the ToIP Trust Registry Protocol V1 Specification and advance it to Community Review Draft status.

Agenda Items and Notes (including all relevant links)

TimeAgenda ItemLeadNotes
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 minReview of previous action itemsChairs
  • REQUIREMENTS
    • ACTION: sankarshan will apply his suggested reorganization of the Requirements section.
  • SCOPE
    • ACTION: Darrell O'Donnell and Drummond Reed to capture our scope decisions in this section, including that TR metadata is out of scope for this version of the specification but is planned for a future version.
    • ACTION: Jim StClair will draft some text for the Scope section about rules processing as a future feature.
  • DATA MODEL
    • ACTION: Darrell O'Donnell to propose a textual description of the data model that refers to Appendix A for the normative requirements.
  • PROTOCOL
  • APPENDIX A: OpenAPI Specification
    • ACTION: Darrell O'Donnell to complete any other edits to the OpenAPI specification and then add the authoritative links to Appendix A for the Implementer's Draft.
  • ACTION: John Walker to review the API and post feedback to our Slack channel.
  • John did review the API and the three calls.
30 minsReview of work on the Working Draft and closing open issuesAll
  • See the ToIP Trust Registry Protocol V1 Working Draft
  • DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
    • sankarshan added a table that organized the requirements into three sections.
    • We discussed his remaining questions, particularly whether the Information Security should be a SHOULDs or MUSTs
    • Antti Kettunen suggested that it should point to industry best practices as a SHOULD
    • Jim StClair agreed that a SHOULD statement pointing to the 
    • ACTION: Drummond Reed to add to the Design Requirements section a reference to the ToIP Governance Metamodel and its Information Trust related sections.
    • ACTION: Drummond Reed to move any remaining non-requirements left in the Design Requirements section to another Google doc.
  • SCOPE
  •  PROTOCOL
    • We discussed the service block question
    • We discussed the EGF vs. TR identifiers question
      • The issue is the one or two
      • John Walker was in favor of returning both.
      • ACTION: Darrell O'Donnell and Drummond Reed to think through a recommendation about EGF identifiers and TR identifiers, i.e., do we need both, and if so, should we return both?
5 minsTerminology & GlossaryDrummond Reed
  • We need to prepare our terminology for this spec
  • ACTION: Drummond Reed to make a proposal for terminology for this specification based on the work of the Concepts and Terminology WG.
10 minsNext steps in Community ReviewChairs
  • We did not get to this topic because we are still not quite done with the V1 spec.
5 mins
  • Review decisions/action items
  • Planning for next meeting 
Chairs
  • We REALLY want to be finished with the V1 spec by the next meeting.

Decisions

  • None

Action Items

  • ACTION: Darrell O'Donnell to propose a textual description of the data model that refers to Appendix A for the normative requirements.
  • ACTION: Drummond Reed to add to the Design Requirements section a reference to the ToIP Governance Metamodel and its Information Trust related sections.
  • ACTION: Drummond Reed to move any remaining non-requirements left in the Design Requirements section to another Google doc.
  • ACTION: Drummond Reed and Darrell O'Donnell to propose a ToIP-domain based URI for identifying TR endpoints
  • ACTION: Drummond Reed edit to specify that the serviceEndpoint value MUST be a single URI.
  • ACTION: Darrell O'Donnell and Drummond Reed to think through a recommendation about EGF identifiers and TR identifiers, i.e., do we need both, and if so, should we return both?
  • ACTION: Drummond Reed to make a proposal for terminology for this specification based on the work of the Concepts and Terminology WG.