Agenda Items and Notes (including all relevant links)
Time
Agenda Item
Lead
Notes
3 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.
Viky Manaila was elected chair of Cloud Signature Consortium
Wenjing Chu reminded everyone that the AI and Metaverse Task Force kickoff meeting is in two hours.
Tim Bouma reported that the Expert Drafting Team for Digital Trust and Identity in Canada has completed a draft.
2 min
Review of previous decisions and action items
Chairs
DECISION: We will deliver a first Public Review Draft by Thursday 8 Sept 2022 in order to present it at the Hyperledger Global Forum in Dublin beginning Sept 12. We will also try to complete the majority of the work of having a complete draft by the end of July so we can work (possibly largely asynchronously) on issues in August.
DECISION: Starting next week, we will spend the majority of each weekly meeting on issue resolution AND we will be driving issues to be closed asynchronously both in the Google Doc and in Github. We will work minor issues in Google doc (and slowly wind those down) and major issues will be in GitHub.
ACTION:Allan ThomsonandDrummond Reedto draft an Audience and Scope section that clarifies that the ToIP Technology Architecture Specification is a higher-level architecture spec that is not intended to be detailed enough to write implementation test suites against.
30 mins
Revised sections 2, 3, and 4 in the ToIP Technology Architecture Spec
Per the action item above, we review the changes to sections 2, 3, and the new section 4 in Working Draft #2 of theToIP Technical Architecture Spec. Note that section numbers have now been updated throughout the spec to reflect that one new section was added.
Specific comments on the revisions in sections 2, 3, and 4 were recorded as comments in the Google doc.
Vladimir Simjanoski felt these sections were definitely an improvement over the previous text.
We agreed to add references to the two other deliverables to which this TF has committed.
Neil Thomson suggested that we need a "guide to readers" that lists all the related set documentation vs. trying to shoe-horn that information in each document.
DECISION: We will mark each main section of the spec as informative or normative (as is done with specs from W3C and others).
There was a general consensus that the revised Motivations section incorporated previous comments.
There was some discussion about the name of this section. Drummond Reed explained that "Motivations" was frequently used with IETF RFCs.
ACTION: Wenjing Chu will add an additional bullet point to the Motivations section regarding "minimal design", "simplicity", or "spanning layers".
We discussed the new separate Use Cases section (section 5). Comments have been added to the Google doc. In addition:
Daniel Bachenheimer suggested that it would be good to have more nuanced examples... not just a driving license but what other authorizations? commercial? organ donor? similar for financial - KYC may be multiple factors; some of which can be re-used - some not
Vlad Zubenko suggested including a use case about educational credentials - score reports, job skills etc.
ACTION: Vlad Zubenko to add a use case about educational credentials to the table in section 5.
ACTION: Darrell O'Donnell to revisit the use case table and propose a different set of use cases (Neil Thomson suggests a maximum of 12 that are as different as possible).
Neil Thomson suggested: "Time to spin up one or more docs on Use Cases of two types - Business (for policy makers/public) and (deep) Technical, then pull back "representative" sample Use Cases back to this spec."
We also discussed adding links for defined terms to their definitions in a ToIP glossary, which Drummond has already started to do.
ACTION: Neil Thomson asked contributors & reviewers to flag words/terms/concepts that need a definition in the terms wiki with a comment "needs term defn".
APAC:
We discussed the structure of the remaining sections and came to consensus that it would be easier to write and read if .
DECISION: We will not separate out requirements into separate sections organized by layer, rather we will restructure sections 6 and higher to incorporate requirements "inline".
ACTION: Drummond Reed to implement the editorial revisions and restructuring reflected in the decisions above.
Wenjing asked everyone who does not yet have a GitHub account to open one so that we can start moving discussion of issues to our GitHub repo for the spec. Our weekly meetings going forward will focus heavily on closing open issues in GitHub.
5 mins
Review decisions/action items
Planning for next meeting
Chairs
Our next call will repeat the pattern of reviewing revisions and closing issues (focusing more on GitHub issues).
Decisions
DECISION: We will mark each main section of the spec as informative or normative (as is done with specs from W3C and others).
DECISION: We will not separate out requirements into separate sections organized by layer, rather we will restructure sections 6 and higher to incorporate requirements "inline".
Action Items
ACTION: Drummond Reed to implement the editorial revisions and restructuring reflected in the decisions above.
ACTION: Wenjing Chu will add an additional bullet point to the Motivations section regarding "minimal design", "simplicity", or "spanning layers".
ACTION: Vlad Zubenko to add a use case about educational credentials to the table in section 5.
ACTION: Darrell O'Donnell to revisit the use case table and propose a different set of use cases (Neil Thomson suggests a maximum of 12 that are as different as possible).
