• Start recording
• Welcome & antitrust notice
• New member introductions
• Agenda review

• 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:

• ACTION: All TSPTF MEMBERS: Consider your suggestions for the best way to proceed with the consolidation phase and then to post your suggestion(s) to the relevant Github discussion thread (or start a new one if needed).

Darrell O'Donnell: It's very important what those choices are in the poll. It's not "either/or" in terms of "go fast or get everything right".

Oskar van Deventer: "As for timelines: who are the prospect implementors and users? I'd like to see TSP used by the large European identity (eIDAS, EUDI wallet, LSP) programs." In the European Digital Identity Wallets Architecture Reference Framework (ARF), there is no good references to ToIP.

Sam Curren: It can be challenging to figure out how to accurately predict timelines.

Antti Kettunen: Regarding eIDAS 2.0 and the Large Scale Pilots, there is some work going on to map the ToIP model to the EUDIW ARF. The EU is definitely very interested in the ToIP model. The LSPs can also try to align with the ToIP model, and then align with a migration path.

Neil Thomson: Assuming incremental develop with useful releases at a useful cadence. there are some key decisions, one of which is: To get a "right answer" long term, realistically, breaking changes need to be acceptable. The other is to spend time to build bridging solutions for 'existing' solutions to new versions.

Savita Farooqui: I agree with Neil, that approaching it in an agile manner is useful - with urgency, understanding that refactoring may be needed. We can learn from/about the other efforts to seek alignment, but independent approach is also useful - if we bring a different perspective.

ACTION: Sam Curren to create a Github Discussion to figure out the wording of the choices in the poll, and then to hold the poll.

APAC:

Jo Spencer: There is a dychotomy between those who have solutions to sell and those who have requirements to meet. So there is a natural tension. So what are we trying to achieve with the TSP in terms of what we hope will happen with other existing protocols, i.e., think about what adoption paths really look like.

For example, if we were drawing a roadmap, what we're after is establishing a common path that implementers can align to, so each of them can then map out their own path. Demand should drive the adoption and migration to the TSP target state. That's why projects like the EUDIW project are the kinds of projects we need to effect.

Drummond Reed pointed out that this was what Wenjing Chu highlighted in his last presentation (March 22). He made the comparison to the adoption of TCP/IP against some other solutions that had a much bigger headstart.

Daniel Bachenheimer: the EUDIW doesn't really talk about "trust" outside of trust lists. But interoperability between those trust communities (e.g., member states). So work we are doing here (and in the Trust Registry TF) is highly relevant.

Jo Spencer Yes, the EUDIW needs a solution for what they need right now, which is identification of citizens. Daniel Bachenheimer agreed that they are focusing on mDOCs and OIDC4VC because that's the most mature solution that will meet their immediate requirements.

Dima Postnikov The good news is that EU is not re-creating standards, they are looking at available options now. Plus governments have to make sure it works with their current systems and vendors. And governments do the voting.

Jo Spencer If we don't agree on the important things that need to be included for this protocol, then we miss the opportunity to move the market in the right direction. "We don't start with a greenfield — it's actually very muddy."

Dima Postnikov If there is any opportunity to influence them, it is best to get them focused on principles and requirements.

We then need to decide the best topic(s) to discuss in the remaining 90 minutes.

Also, we have also scheduled a second TSP Workshop for the same time on Thursday April 13th provided we are ready for it.

Daniel Hardman: The biggest area where we need to hammer out alignment is whether we need to be descriptive or prescriptive. Does the TSP need to say what must be done to achieve certain levels of trust, or do we need to provide a mechanism for agreeing on trust and let the participants decide the level of trust they are trying to achieve. This is fundamental to many of the architectural decisions we will need to make in the consolidation stage. He used the example of discussions about having a summit on climate change: what are the goals.

Daniel volunteered to frame up this question at the start of the discussion period in tomorrow's TSP Workshop.

Neil Thomson: It needs to be requirements-driven. A lot of the trust tasks at Layer 3 are asking specific questions and requesting certain type of proofs to proceed.

APAC:

Jo Spencer Accreditation is a factor: what you create controls how it is used.

Daniel Bachenheimer gave the example of ID2020 creating a set of requirements that prospective candidates can then get certified for interoperability profiles.

Jo Spencer There are also different levels of interoperability — technical, governance, UI, etc.

See this Google Slides deck where we are accepting proposals. Note that several very new ideas have already been submitted proposing some very interesting new perspectives on how to communicate the key ideas of the ToIP stack, including the relationship of the Governance Stack to the Technology Stack.

ACTION: ALL TSPTF MEMBERS to review the Google Slides deck where we are accepting proposals for the 3rd generation ToIP stack diagram and submit any ideas, suggestions, or comments you have.

• Review decisions/action items
• Planning for next meeting