2024-03-06 TSPTF Meeting Notes

Meeting Date & Time

This Task Force meets every Wednesday. There are two meetings to serve different time zones:

  • NA/EU meeting: 08:00-09:00 PT / 16:00-17:00 UTC
  • APAC meeting: 18:00-19:00 PT / 02:00-03:00 UTC

See the Calendar of ToIP Meetings for exact meeting dates, times and Zoom links.

Zoom Meeting Recordings

NA/EU:

APAC:

Agenda Items and Notes (including all relevant links)

TimeAgenda ItemLeadNotes
3 min
  • Start recording
  • Welcome & antitrust notice
  • New member introductions
  • 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:
    • Kalin has been in CBDC for years, a longtime member of ToIP, but now mostly advising governments about decentralized identity and credentials—with a focus on interoperability.


2 minReview of previous action itemsChairsNone from the last meeting.
15 minsDiagram & terminologyWenjing Chu 

Wenjing started by showing screenshot #1 below to get feedback on the terminology it uses.

Feedback was that the diagram could also included the term "message" at the bottom to clarify that a TSP message consists of the envelope + payload + signature.

The other feedback is that the diagram is so helpful in terms of a visual overview of what the spec covers that it would be very helpful to have it included in the spec.

Ed Eykholt had questions about how all of the following would be handled:

  • broadcast (multiple receivers?)
  • routing
  • attachments  (multiple signatures)
  • tunneling  (message composition), perhaps recursion

Wenjing clarified that the diagram is a "test vector" diagram that shows one way that the protocol can be used. He said all of Ed's questions/examples could be covered by other test vectors that could all be included in an appendix.

Drummond Reed suggested that Ed start one or more GitHub discussions that discuss questions about each test vector.

10 minsVID discussion

We discussed VID encoding. We had agreed to have a VID type, which means we need a VID type code table. If we have a four character type code, then the first character indicates that it is a type code, and the next 3 characters are the code. That gives us a code space of 18 bits (2 to the 18th), which should easily be large enough.

Sam Smith proposes that a null type code would mean the VID is a URN.

We discussed the pluses and minuses of having a type code table. We agreed that we will need to have a governance mechanism.

APAC:

Wenjing explained that our concept of VIDs allows for some flexibility BUT wants to avoid the explosion of options that has happened with DID method. The solution is by creating a CESR code table for VIDs. That is how we can define a set of policies that a VID type must meet in order to be registered for that code table. We can also allocate a portion of that code table bit space to "experimental" codes to allow for market-driven innovation.

5 minsPrep for the Implementers DraftWenjing Chu 

Our goal is still to publish the Implementers Draft this month. Wenjing is working on the conversation to Spec-Up.

Drummond reported that the Concepts and Terminology WG is almost done with new Spec-Up code that will support external references to other glossaries—and that the ToIP Glossary will be published as a Spec-Up document to support that functionality.


X.509 VID TF ReportEric Scouten 

APAC: Eric reported that he has converted the original did:x509 method spec into Spec-Up format and will show it tomorrow. That original spec is no longer being worked on by Microsoft, so they are fine with us moving forward.

We discussed the Spec-Up editing process and how the GitHub Actions that automatically publish to GitHub Pages. Eric very much appreciated the Loom video that Darrell published last month.


ACDC TF Spec public reviewAll

APAC: We reviewed the first draft blog post proposed by the ACDC TF for public review of their suite of specifications. There was a discussion about the dependencies between these three specifications. Darrell O'Donnell drew the following diagram suggesting the relationships. 

Drummond Reed and Darrell O'Donnell volunteered have a discussion with the ACDC leadership about the length of the public review and the depth of the announcement blog post.


Trust Registry TF Report

APAC: Darrell and Eric reported on presentations they had done, along with Mathieu Glaude, this morning to ICANN.  Here is a recording of the meeting. The basic message were about trust on the Internet. They were well received and swamped with questions. 

Eric said that a substantial part of the questions were around trust hierarchies and how they relate.

Since all four of them met at ToIP and reported on work going on at ToIP, they felt it was good exposure for the ToIP Foundation as a whole.

5 mins
  • Review decisions/action items
  • Planning for next meeting 
Chairs

Screenshots/Diagrams (numbered for reference in notes above)

#1


Decisions

  • None

Action Items

  • None