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

The action items from the 2022-12-23 meeting all appeared to be agenda items for this meeting.

5 min

Heads up on W3C Credentials Community Group work item

Chairs

As an FYI, the W3C Credentials Community Group (CCG) has adopted a work item on "Verifiable Issuers and Verifiers" based on this 2022 Rebooting the Web of Trust paper: https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot11-the-hague/blob/master/final-documents/verifiable-issuers-and-verifiers.pdf

--- NA

@Drummond Reed : 

• Are revocation registries part of the TR family?

• Work item bought from CCG is linked to : https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot11-the-hague/blob/master/final-documents/verifiable-issuers-and-verifiers.pdf

• Should pay attention to European identity requirements to inform the Trust Registry spec. 

@Savita Farooqui : TRAIN (using DNS-based trust) is another input

• @mathieu : Projects referenced in the paper that I’m assuming all need good understanding/alignment: EBSI Trusted Issuer Registry, ETSI TS 119 612, eSSIF-Lab TRAIN, the Trust over IP Foundation Trust Registry Protocol

  • DNS being brought up frequently. 

• @Neil Thomson : Projects referenced in the paper that I’m assuming all need good understanding/alignment: EBSI Trusted Issuer Registry, ETSI TS 119 612, eSSIF-Lab TRAIN, the Trust over IP Foundation Trust Registry Protocol

• @Drummond Reed interesting to consider how DNS will inform TR work. 

• @Savita Farooqui : All registries and the overlap with TR are to consider. 

• @Drummond Reed : AIDs (Autonomous Identifiers ): You can discover an AID anywhere and independently verify it. 

• @Savita Farooqui : What provides trust. 

• @Tim Bouma : Experimenting with blind signatures. Trust is context. 

----- APAC

• @Darrell O'Donnell very similar to v1

• @Drummond Reed Useful to look at the content of that paper as source of reqs. 

• EU Identity Wallet Framework: Trust List vs. Trust Registries.  

• GCCN and WHO are one of the earliest stakeholders coming out of the 1.0 work we did.

• @Darrell O'Donnell : TRAIN, Machine Readable Governance (DIF TE), DNSSec and CIRA

20 mins

Alignment on a way forward

Chairs

Proposal of a way forward that people can align on. 

@Drummond Reed : 

• What is the deliverable? 

• And how does it fit into the Technology Architecture Task Force. 

@Jo Spencer :

• Has to align with the Tech Arch framework.

• Worth defining the features of capabilities

• Framework of understanding the context of trust registries.

@Darrell O'Donnell :  Having something concrete to talk to helps answering the questions. 

@Drummond Reed : EU using OpenID for VC. In a year long period, being referenced. Also WHO.

•  Proposal: Move v1 spec into subfolder. v2 spec work starts. 
  
  

  • https://github.com/trustoverip/tswg-trust-registry-tf/pull/46

  • Move first. Clean up after. 

• Proposal: Work off Github issues and discussions or continue to work on google docs
      * Propose options to the group. Let's settle this soon? 

  • @Drummond Reed concerned about async and dominant work.

    • +1 

    • Darrell: OK but be careful about things that are "churning and burning"

    • @Drummond Reed Trust decision and modeling a good start. 

• Github Discussions

• Goals of the Task Force? 
          * What are the ambitions of the task force. 
      * Audience?
          * To be discussed. See the deliverable doc.
      * Scope: 
          * Proposal: Scope of this task force is to build a model that supports $c_{\text{trust services}}$ and allows additional $c$ to be incorporated in the data models.
      * Adoption
          * How will the work we do become adopted? What are the challenges? Make this into an discussion we can iterate over. 
      * Deliverables

15 mins

Primary models

@Andor 

Primary models and basic evolution approach for future versions

@Tim Bouma :Transfer function: Time and utility preference. ( Trust decision framework mapping )

@Drummond Reed  v1 spec: 
    * Verifiable issuers vs. Verifiable verifiers. 
    * @Darrell: Context was required to authorize issuers vs. verifiers. RWOT: naive. Assurance framework not the whole picture.

@Tim Bouma : risk transfer vs. accountability transfer. Risk management function. 

* **Trust Action Model**: $h(g(f(C, x)))$ 
    * where: 
        * $f(C, x)$ is a trust embedding 
        * $g(f(C, x))$ is a trust decision
        * $h(g(f(C, x))) = z$ represents an action (or effect) based upon a trust decision. It chooses $z_i \in \mathbb{Z}$ where $\mathbb{Z}$ represents a set of possible effects from a trust decision. 
        * $C$ is the decision context
        * $x$ is the set of claims
    * Scope: This task force is focused on supporting system around $c_{\text{trust services}}$ and the data models in $x$, which represent claims. While recommendations may be provided on the other functions, anything outside of $c_{\text{trust services}}$ and $x$ is considered non-normative and out of scope. Some ways this translates within the deliverable:
        * Specification Deliverable
            * Service Discovery
            * Containers
            * Data Models
            * APIs 
        * Companion Guide:
            * Recommendations and best practices
* $\{c_i, c_j\} \in C$ where C is the decision context and $c_i, c_j$, are different data contexts. 
* $x$ represents claim data

rendered here: https://hackmd.io/7FGDfgIfTBWrd1wQ7RngSQ

@John Phillips

• Uses past experiences in context

• Recursive quality around this. 

5 mins

Collaboration tools

All

• Agreement about how to move forward on collaboration. Google docs or Github

• Darrell: to send out a doodle poll

• @Darrell O'Donnell  : we need to be involved in the schemas. Get alignment so we aren't antagonistic. 

• @Drummond Reed : need to align interests. 

https://trustoverip.org/blog/2023/01/05/the-toip-trust-spanning-protocol/

5 mins

• Review decisions/action items

• Planning for next meeting 

Chairs