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

• John did review the API and the three calls.

30 mins

Review of work on the Working Draft and closing open issues

All

• 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

  • ACTION: @Drummond Reed to add a scope statement about DIDComm.

•  PROTOCOL

  • We discussed the service block question

    • 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.

  • 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 mins

Terminology & Glossary

@Drummond 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 mins

Next steps in Community Review

Chairs

• 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.