Meeting Date

  • The TSWG holds a plenary meeting once every four weeks on Tuesdays. The 2024 meeting dates are: 23 Jan, 20 Feb, 19 Mar, 16 Apr, 14 May, 11 June, 9 July, 6 Aug, 3 Sept, 1 Oct, 29 Oct, and 26 Nov.
  • The meeting is at 08:00-09:00 PT / 15:00-16:00 UTC.
  • The TSWG holds an APAC meeting every Wednesday at 18:00-19:00 PT / 01:00-02:00 UTC. This meeting is a consolidated report-out and discussion across all TSWG Task Forces.
  • See the ToIP Calendar for all meeting dates, times and logistics, including Zoom links.

Zoom Meeting Recording

Attendees

Agenda Items and Notes (including all relevant links)

TimeAgenda ItemLeadNotes
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.
  • New Members:
10 minGeneral announcementsAllUpdates from TSWG members of general interest to the group.
20 minTask Force ReportsTF Leads

Technology Architecture TF — Wenjing Chu  Drummond Reed

  • Drummond Reed shared that he plans to dive into the conversion of the ToIP Technology Architecture Specification into Spec-Up and the addition of: 1) the 3rd generation ToIP stack diagram (ToIP Trust Canvas), 2) canonical use cases, 3) glossary, 4) consistency with the Trust Spanning Protocol, Trust Registry Protocol, and other newer ToIP specs.

Trust Registry TF — Andor Kesselman Antti Kettunen  Darrell O'Donnell

  • There continue to be some inputs/edits to the Implementers Draft.
  • The TRTF will be talking with Sam Curren about the DIF Trust Establishment specification to see how we get aligned on the data model (since DIF Trust Establishment does not use any API or protocol). First blush is that it could make sense, but the DIF Trust Establishment spec may only apply to credential exchange, whereas the TRP is much broader.
  • A joint meeting of TRTF and DIF Trust Establishment is proposed in the next few weeks.
  • The TRTF will also be looking into OpenID Federation. Dima Postnikov is involved with that work.
  • Putting the Trust Registry Protocol in front of an OpenID Federation should be quite simple.
  • We also discussed defining the Trust Registry Protocol as a trust task protocol based on TSP. Darrell O'Donnell said that he started with an API for simplicity.

Trust Spanning Protocol TF — Drummond Reed Wenjing Chu Samuel Smith 

  • We are openly inviting implementations and contributors to implementation projects.
    • Wenjing Chu said that his implementation project is underway and was demonstrated at IIW.
    • Samuel Smith said that his team was planning on a Python implementation.
    • We also talked about different language bindings and also transport protocol bindings.
    • We discussed that it would be ideal if both did:webs and did:tdw implementations could work with TSP.
  • We agreed to start a series of Github discussions comparing TSP with other trust-related protocols (or families of protocols).
  • We discussed conformance tests for TSP, which will naturally include test against the TSP codes in CESR. Wenjing Chu felt we do not need to check CESR conformance for codes outside of those use by TSP.

ACDC TF — Samuel Smith Phil Feairheller 

  • The key action item now on the 3 specs in review, is to add normative statements and conformance criteria. However, according to Sam Smith, it will not be hard to add RFC 2119 normative statements and conformance criteria.
  • We discussed the use of CESR code tables, and how the use of a particular code table or set of entries in one or more code tables can be used in the definition of a trust task.
  • Wenjing Chu clarified that the plan is that all of the TSP codes will be included in the CESR 2.0 specification. 
  • Control of a CESR code table space can give a trust task protocol authors an entire tree. For example, a 3 byte code (24 bytes) can be used as the namespace for a trust task protocol.
  • Jo Spencer asked about inheritance between codes. Wenjing said that, as long as both parties can understand the data being transferred, that should satisfy both parties.

AI & Metaverse (AIM) Technology TF — Wenjing Chu 

  • No meeting since last week.

Credential Exchange Protocols TF — Mathieu Glaude 

  • No report.

did:webs Task Force — Lance Byrd Phil Feairheller Markus Sabadello 

  • Almost done, moved to bi-weekly schedule.

X.509 VID Task Force — Eric Scouten Wenjing Chu

  • Meets tomorrow to discuss a new proposal for a spec. The basic idea is:
    • Standardize how to include the DID in the X.509 cert (as a URI in the Subject Alternative Name field).
    • Standardize how to include the X.509 cert in the DID document (so this does not have to be “method specific”).
    • Recommend best practices for both CAs and DID controllers in performing the two steps above (such as using SCID-based DID methods).

We briefly discussed the proposed did:tdw Task Force — the proposed new TF charter is here.

We also discussed the idea of a SCID spec that can be foundational for all SCID-based VID types together with a guide to how to secure SCID-based infrastructure. This idea was very favorably received, so we assigned the following action item:

ACTION: Drummond Reed to begin drafting a charter for a SCID Specification Task Force.

5 min
  • Review decisions/action items
  • Planning for next meeting 
ChairsThis group will now begin meeting every two weeks.

Decisions

  • None

Action Items

  • ACTION: Drummond Reed to begin drafting a charter for a SCID Specification Task Force.


  • No labels