Time

Agenda Item

Lead

Notes

2 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: none

1 min

Announcements

All

We will no longer be doing general announcements at Task Force meetings — those will be reserved for the plenary TSWG bi-weekly meeting. This will give us more time to do the work of the TF.

DECISION: At Task Force meetings, we will skip doing general announcements at the start of the meeting and instead encourage them to be shared either: 1) at the bi-weeklyTechnology Stack Working Group meeting, OR 2) at the end of the meeting if there is time.

2 min

Review of previous action items

Chairs

10 mins

Tech Architecture Task Force Work Review

@Drummond Reed and/or @Wenjing Chu 

Review work items on the ToIP Technology Architecture V1.0 Specification (TAS) that require group participation

• open items 

• close items as feasible

• new work?

NA/EU Discussion:

• Allan asked about what is our track to interoperability. Should we look at the list of component specs that actually need interoperability?

• Darrell explained that we were proposing to share this time slot simply because there is intense interest in trust registry work and we started it here at ToIP.

• @Michael Palage shared that he joined the group because he feels that trust registry work is critical to interoperability work. 

• @Neil Thomson felt that the biggest issue is lack of alignment by non-tech (governance) players on committing to interop, which causes a problem tech can't solve.

• @Drummond Reed noted that there is also the question of whether ToIP is going to start a separate Interoperability WG.

• @Wenjing Chu wondered if having separate meetings or alternating meetings might be more effective.

• Secondly, Wenjing thinks the question of whether the use of a trust registry is necessary or the best way to handle the question.

• @Tim Bouma said, "Mission accomplished on the issuer/holder/verifier model with digital credentials. The piece that is missing is the trust registry component. We need to equip policy makers to understand this new piece."

• @Antti Kettunen agreed with Tim. The trust registry piece — and govenance in general — needs attention.

10 mins

Trust Registry Task Force Work Review

@Darrell O'Donnell and/or @Antti Kettunen 

Review work items that require group participation

First, we had a call for volunteers to join @Darrell O'Donnell in leading the Trust Registry TF. @Antti Kettunen had already volunteered in a previous meeting.

• @Andor volunteered to be a third lead.

DECISION: The leads of the Trust Registry TF will be @Darrell O'Donnell, @Antti Kettunen, and @Andor.

We then went into a discussion about starting up the work of the Trust Registry Task Force.

• @Jacques Latour (Deactivated) I could do a brief presentation at next meeting on our progress so far on Trust Registry terminology definition with DIACC, I'm leading the TR WG and we kind of agreed on top down on the scope of a TR and TR ecosystem (need DIACC approval)
  * what registration and scope

  • Requirement: Global interoperability & unique identifiers

• @Andor spin up a repo and start a discussion : "the definition of trust"

• @thomsona said that we needed to start out by reaching agreement on high level requirements 
  
  

  • how are requirements manifested

  • Trust Registry: 

    • major security considerations

    • identity mindset, not security mindset

    • how will you use the technology in a secure ecosystem. 

• @Antti Kettunen 

  1. Terminology is critical (RE: Jacques point above)

  2. How trust registries are the Interfaces at layer 4. Determining where and when we are interfacing with trust registries is critical. So we need to understand where our boundaries might be. 

  3. Trust registries are the actual glue between Tech & Governance stack & different ecosystems, like industry-ecosystems, eIDAS, etc. I personally believes this is going to be a bigger topic than just "let's have trust registries". TR's are the glue also to policy.

• @Darrell O'Donnell 

  • Requirements to TAS: A new lens for Trust Registries

  • What are interactions between members between trust networks. 

  • Trust registries / Chains of trust 

  • Credential registries : generalization of trust registries | BC 4 years ago

  • https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TU1jXzwCG4B0dA0f8KxIW0aJSYKc8tlYaMYh9dljnsg/edit#heading=h.yh6b52esd20m

• @Tim Bouma 

  • First principles

    • Prefers to use Public Registrar instead of TR

    • Currently this is Tim's main concern

• @Drummond Reed 

  • +1 to Allan's point about taking a security mindset as much as an identity mindset

  • We need to look at trust registry topics now through the lens of the TAS. It will make it much clearer where trust registries sit and what interfaces they need to expose to whom, both within and across digital trust ecosystems.

• @thomsona 

  • We must recognize that our solutions MUST integrate with the security models already in place today

• @Andor

  • Trust is a very maleable concept. It is not necessarily binary. He is interested in dynamic trust decisionmaking, that takes into account multiple inputs.

  • Use case: rural village with a local trust network. and no internet. 

• @Antti Kettunen

  • Trust can also be a community concept, where digital trust ecosystems function as communities where you can get multiple trust inputs. However that mechanism is hard to recognize in many policies today, except for cases like voting. So we need to figure out if community-trust is a use case within Credential ecosystem, or a TR function.

• @Andor

  • "FWIW:  DIF has been working on the semantics and technicals https://identity.foundation/trust-establishment/ for those that want to learn more about it".

• @Judith Fleenor (Deactivated) about the collaboration with DIF:

  • LICENSE is the same

  • MOU is in process now but should be done within a week.

  • We need to work out how we want to work together. 

• @Darrell O'Donnell had concerns about DIF viewpoint on being narrower as compared with ToIP TR. 

25 mins

Decisions regarding the two TFs going forward

All

DECISION: We will establish separate meetings — either at different times, or alternating bi-weekly meetings — for the Technology Architecture TF and the Trust Registry TF.

ACTION: @Darrell O'Donnell to send out a Doodle poll for ad hoc working sessions for the Trust Registry TF (at both NA/EU and APAC-friendly times) for the next couple weeks.

ACTION: @Andor to coordinate with DIF and TOIP to figure out the process to collaborate and send some proposals. 

ACTION: @Drummond Reed sets up a Slack DM with the the leads of both the Technology Architecture TF and the Trust Registry TF to figure out how the TRTF time slot is chosen & other things.

5 mins

• Review decisions/action items

• Planning for next meeting 

Chairs