Time

Agenda Item

Lead

Notes

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:

2 min

Review of previous action items

Chairs

10 mins

Term for VID-to-VID directed graph edge

@Drummond Reed 

See this GitHub discussion and also diagram #1 below.

This resulted in a long discussion on the NA/EU call, much of which was subsequently captured in posts to the GitHub discussion thread.

On the APAC call, the final conclusion was reflected in diagram #2 below and in this decision, proposed by @Ed Eykholt:

DECISION: At least through the Implementers Draft, in the TSP spec, we will continue to use the term "relationship" or "VID relationship" when referring to the VID-to-VID graph edge (in a graph theory sense). We will continue to test that terminology to see if any adjustment or additional terms (such as those related to the concept "sessions") are needed.

ACTION: @Drummond Reed to draft a callout paragraph for the spec that explains why we are using the term "relationship" and not "connection" or "channel".

10 mins

Diagram of TSP Routed Encrypted Message Through Intermediaries

@Ed Eykholt 

See this diagram (also copied as screenshot #3 below) that Ed created to help him understand the section of the Working Draft titled TSP Routed Encrypted Message Through Intermediaries.

On both the NA/EU and APAC calls, we had an extensive discussion about this diagram and the "routing" concepts it represents. Everyone agreed that it helped deepen our understanding of how "routing" worked. @Wenjing Chu noted that the term "routing" is almost misleading because the concept of routing in TSP is very different than it is in Internet routing.

@Drummond Reed suggested that this might mean we should put another callout in the spec

On the APAC call, @Tahoe Blue asked how routes are discovered. @Wenjing Chu gave a basic explanation but Jeff was not satisfied.

ACTION: @Tahoe Blue to review the Working Draft to determine if his question is answered by the routing section. If not, he will either: a) start a Github discussion thread about his question, and/or b) bring it to the agenda of next week's meeting.

30 mins

Working Draft Feedback Review

@Wenjing Chu 
@Sam Smith 

Continue review of feedback on the Working Draft.

NA/EU: We were able to review comments between sections 3 and 6.

APAC: We ran out of time to do any spec comment review.

5 mins

• Review decisions/action items

• Planning for next meeting 

Chairs

IMPORTANT: The TSPTF, Trust Registry TF, and X.509 VID TF all need to coordinate on which agenda we will use for the combined APAC meetings on Wednesdays 18:00-19:00 PT / Thursday 02:00-03:00 UTC.

APAC CONSOLIDATED MEETING NOTES

5 mins

Trust Registry Task Force

@Darrell O'Donnell 

Major work conducted on moving specification over to spec-up :

• github repository: https://github.com/trustoverip/tswg-trust-registry-protocol

• github.io Pages - rendered specification (github Actions build this): https://trustoverip.github.io/tswg-trust-registry-protocol/

• QUICK spec-up primer - Live Demo/Discussion

  • MAIN LINK to learn spec-up: https://identity.foundation/spec-up/ 

WORK/ASSISTANCE:

• Definitions

• Requirements

• Readability/Editing

• Swagger