Meeting Date & Time

05 Feb 2025 This Task Force meets every other Wednesday. There is a single meeting for the NA/EU. (Updates for the APAC time zone will be at the monthly TSWG APAC meeting the first Tuesday of every month.)

NA/EU meeting: 08:00-09:00 PT / 16:00-17:00 UTC

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

Zoom Meeting Recording

https://zoom.us/rec/share/g5kHPVQBZAseCLNfBLKjLoSZ1zLu7NdctvYXPVtNLVZm8ySm-aBbId1IoTqO0xrf.AND3nHiWZ5SqrdvA

Attendees

Agenda Items and Notes (including all relevant links)

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. NOTICE: In addition to the licensing terms of this Working Group’s JDF charter, this Working Group operates under the official policy that any Working Group Participant who makes a contribution to a Draft Deliverable shall have a maximum of 45 days from the date of that contribution to exclude any Essential Claims pertaining to that contribution. New Members:
2 min	Review of previous action items	Chairs	ACTION: Wenjing Chu and Sam Smith to discuss and try to resolve: 1) issue #42: creating the table of message types and assign CESR message type codes; 2) issue #43: adding an option for intermediaries to not need to know the full path of a multi-hop message transmission. ACTION: Drummond Reed to put collaboration with DIF DIDComm WG on the agenda of the next meeting.
10 mins	Summary of meeting with DIF DIDComm WG	Wenjing Chu Drummond Reed	Wenjing reported on last Monday's meeting with the DIF DIDComm WG. Key points that Wenjing made in his presentation: Clean layering — minimizing Layer 2 and pushing any unessential trust task to Layer 3. Strong security. Metadata privacy. We didn't have a lot of time for discussion, but we did discuss the potential for layering DIDComm "co-protocols" over TSP. That looks like a good starting point for the discussions. Rob Aaron, who is a member of that WG, said that there have been ongoing discussions about how TSP and DIDComm will relate, and so it is still a question about whether "the lanes will merge" or will there still be two separate lanes.
5 min	Timetable	Wenjing Chu	Wenjing proposed this timetable: Spending this month (February) would be spent working open issues in the issues list. Then implementing the changes in March.
15 mins	Issue #44	Wenjing Chu Sam Smith	Sam explained that he's raised a new issue #44. See screenshot #1. This is a proposal for a single wrapper for the overall payloads. This allows load balancers to have the minimal amount of complexity in order to avoid DDOS attacks. The parser only needs to get the VID, check the signature, check a whitelist, and decide to proceed or not. This is discussed in the KERI spec repo in this issue: https://github.com/WebOfTrust/keripy/discussions/612 Wenjing asked what is the cost of allowing the top level payload to carry both encrypted and unencrypted data. Sam argued that the simpler the top-level payload, the simpler the overall protocol, and the easier it will be for load balancers and perimeter software to handle TSP messages and move them into the interior. Wenjing agreed that if the payload is simpler, it will make it more efficient. Wenjing suggested that we need to think about whether there is any case for keeping the two part option for the top payload. Sam encouraged us to come to a decision soon on this since some implementers are currently building their implementation. Wenjing encouraged Sam to review the current OWF implementation; Wenjing invited Sam to make an introduction. ACTION: Sam Smith to add a pointer in issue #44 to the precise places in the reference KERI spec.
15 mins	Issue #42 and #43	Sam Smith	See the action item above. Sam and Wenjing discussed the CESR codes that will be needed. See screenshot #2. ACTION: Sam Smith to review the current spec to suggest what CESR codes are needed in the relationship formation portion of the protocol.
5 mins	Other open Issues	Chairs	See the issues list. Per his suggested timeline above, Wenjing proposed that we get all the issues "on the table" this month, and then begin the process of closing them, implementing as needed to test the solutions, with the overall goal of arriving at the second Implementers Draft by mid-year. ACTION: ALL TF MEMBERS review and comment on existing issues or add new issues as needed.
5 mins	Review decisions/action items Planning for next meeting	Chairs

Screenshots/Diagrams (numbered for reference in notes above)

#1

#2

Decisions

None

Action Items

ACTION: Sam Smith to add a pointer in issue #44 to the precise places in the reference KERI spec.
ACTION: Sam Smith to review the current spec to suggest what CESR codes are needed in the relationship formation portion of the protocol.
ACTION: ALL TF MEMBERS review and comment on existing issues or add new issues as needed.

Home

2025-02-05 TSPTF Meeting Notes