Time

Agenda Item

Lead

Notes

3 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:

  • Mathieu Glaude is the CEO of Northern Block; former co-chair of the Utility Foundry Working Group; now getting more involved with some other WGs.

  • Viky Manaila  is Trust Services Director within the Intesi Group and President of the Cloud Signature Consortium. She is currently very involved with eIDAS 2.0, working with policymakers with the very active evolution of the new regulation. This week she is working on Article 24, Identity and Verification, which will allow the Level of Assurance Medium instead of requiring Level of Assurance Substantial. She is trying to reinstate the Level of Assurance Substantial so that the wallet has more utility. 

5 min

General announcements

All

See the Internet Identity Workshop agenda item below.

2 min

Review of Action Items from the previous meeting

Chairs

10 min

Internet Identity Workshop #35 highlights

All

• Largest in-person IIW ever — ~320 attendees

• @Darrell O'Donnell shared that IIWs five years ago was about new possibilities for the whole space and new inventions, whereas now there was much more refinement rather than invention.

• @Drummond Reed agreed with Darrell that what he saw was an industry maturing.

• @Judith Fleenor (Deactivated) saw a lot more collaboration and not as much contention.

• @mathieu saw a lot more discussion of governance, which is another sign of the industry maturing.

• @Daniel Bachenheimer saw a lot more in-depth discussion and knowledge of a smaller set of specific approaches and technologies, so it is getting more focused but still with multiple choices.

• @Steve McCown pointed out the intensive discussion of interoperability and how to get deployments working successfully. 

• @Darrell O'Donnell: "Deployments will lead to de facto standards being set."

• Darrell also observed that there was a lot of interest in Timothy Ruff's session about moving away from "SSI" and instead calling it "Web5".

  • Judith said that the point of the session is that the term Web5 helps with better marketing of the space.

  • Darrell understood that, if that's what IIW discussions are focused on, that is not what will actually move the market as much as the technology actually solves real business problems.

  • Steve said that his firm tends to use the term "decentralized identity" in order to avoid any issues around the term "SSI". He said Timothy also avoids the the use of "blockchain" and "distributed ledger".

  • Michael thought this was a good conversation because he liked Stephen Wilson's talk at Identiverse last year. He said the concept of "self-sovereign" is problematic within the DNS world, so he talks about "Trusted Ecosystems & Verified Data".

15 min

Task Force Reports

TF Leads

Technology Architecture TF — @Drummond Reed @Wenjing Chu 

• The first public review draft of the ToIP Technology Architecture Specification V1.0 was published on November 14 — see this blog post and two new wiki pages:

  • ToIP Technology Architecture

  • Evolution of the ToIP Stack

• Reception at IIW was very positive, however it was hard to get much focus due to the sheer volume of IIW topics

• Mathieu Glaude of Northern Block published this blog post about it

  • He read it before IIW and again after the second day.

  • For him, the initial dual stack model was very helpful, but now this spec helps him go deeper.

  • The hourglass model was quite helpful for seeing where different protocols fit in because it "takes the use cases out of it". It makes it easier to see where the trust spanning protocol fits.

  • He feels it might be a good transition to talking about how the hourglass model can push more info.

• Darrell said our learning from IIW is that our launch immediately preceding IIW is too close to the event. We had two releases (TAS and SSI Harms) and the attendees were unable to digest things ahead of time. If we want to use IIW as a deep feedback type of event we need to plan for releasing far enough ahead to benefit from IIW. 

• Judith suggested that we do some directed requests to read.

• @Drummond Reed said that he and @Wenjing Chu had a meeting with @Daniel Hardman and @Sam Smith as key architects of "candidates" for the ToIP trust spanning protocol. They are interested in collaborating on that work item.

• Now work begins on the second public review draft — that will be the focus going forward in addition to processing comments on the first public review draft.

Trust Registry TF — @Darrell O'Donnell

• Turkey Day efforts started - we are definitely in the expanding scope model.

• @mathieu shared: "Read this last night (re: Trust Registries). It was presented during IIW as well".

• @Sandy Aggarwal asked: "Quick suggestion - can we also have a separate discussion on the latest alignments between DIF, ToiP, Hyperledger etc? I was also speaking to Vipin (@Hyperleger) on this and we believe that there are multiple groups with a bit of confusion."

  • Darrell replied: "HL Identity is all on its own so add HL-Identity and then the (aligned) HL-Indy/HL-Aries. I've had discussions in the past with Vipin about the HL-Identity group doing its own thing. Sandy - I suggest that you can look at that and report back to this group (TSWG)."

  • Sandy replied: "And of course W3C (with DIDs and VCs)... Perhaps we can come up with an ecosystem chart that shows who's working on what. This will also help newcomers PLUS to Darrel's point, we can have a clear understanding as to which group/meeting is for socializing and info dissemination and which one is for actual work."

ACDC TF — @Sam Smith @Philip Feairheller 

• A host of different sessions related to ACDC and KERI were held at IIW, including a called CESR for First Year Wizards, whose attendees were blown away by the power of CESR.

AI & Metaverse (AIM) Technology TF — @Wenjing Chu @Vikas Malhotra 

• No one from AIMTF was able to attend the meeting.

10 min

Next steps for the Technology Architecture Task Force

@Drummond Reed @Wenjing Chu 

• @mathieu suggested that we should have one or more webinars on the spec to drive interest and feedback.

  • Darrell suggested that we need more than one webinar — one on technology and one on policy.

  • @Daniel Bachenheimer said that we could use these webinars to prep the message for upcoming conferences such as Identity Week.

• Judith pointed out that we now need to redesign the conceptual diagram.

ACTION: @Drummond Reed to add to the Technology Architecture Task Force agenda on Thursday the topic of revising the conceptual diagram of the ToIP stack to reflect the work in the ToIP Technology Architecture Specification V1.

10 min

Next steps for the Trust Registry Task Force

@Darrell O'Donnell
@Judith Fleenor (Deactivated) @Drummond Reed 

Darrell will report on a planned collaboration with the Decentralized Identity Foundation.

• + structure of TF meetings - TRTF will remove "what's going on" chat sessions.

  • @Drummond Reed, Judith, and Dan were fully supportive.

• Darrell reported that he and Sam Curren, who co-chairs the DIF DIDComm Working Group, have discussed collaboration between the ToIP Trust Registry Task Force and the DIF Claims and Credentials work item called Trust Establishment.

  • Judith reported that Jory Burson, LF VP Standards, has written a memo about the two groups can collaborate.

  • Judith sent out the proposed memo to the ToIP Steering Committee for a 7 day review to make sure there are no objections. Both EDs are ready to sign.

ACTION: @Judith Fleenor (Deactivated) to complete the process of approval of the ToIP/DIF collaboration memo to clear the way for joint meetings on the topic of Trust Registries and Trust Establishment.

• The next steps would be to start to set up joint meetings that will be present on both calendars.

• The plan is to sign the MOU and then agree on two meetings:

  • A bi-weekly or monthly joint meeting where we can discuss specific synergies.

  • Continuing our regular Technology Architecture TF / Trust Registry TF meetings on Thursdays.

5 min

• Review decisions/action items

• Planning for next meeting 

Chairs

Proposed holiday meeting schedule: final 2022 meeting Monday Dec 12, first 2023 meeting Monday Jan 9.

ACTION: @Drummond Reed to ask @Elisa Trevino to remove the Dec 26 meeting from the ToIP Calendar.