Versions Compared

Old Version 15

changes.mady.by.user Daniel Bachenheimer

Saved on

compared with

New Version 16

changes.mady.by.user Drummond Reed

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Agenda Items and Notes (including all relevant links)

TimeAgenda ItemLeadNotes
5 min
  • Start recording
  • Welcome & antitrust notice
  • New member introductions
  • Agenda review
Leads
  • 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 minIntroductionsAllSince this is a first meeting, short introductions including one or two sentences about each participant's specific interest in this task force. See the record
5 minsReview of the TSPTF Charter and proposed leadershipLeads

See the Trust Spanning Protocol Task Force charter page.

The volunteers to lead this TF are Wenjing Chu, Daniel Hardman, and Drummond Reed.

Any others?

15 minsReview of the ToIP blog post announcing this TFLeadsThis Jan 5 ToIP blog post explains the background and rationale for this task force.
10 minsDiscuss our starting pointAllUnlike many other working groups or task forces who are "starting fresh" on a new topic, this particular task force has a very specific goal — a protocol definition — based on a very specific set of requirements — the 18 Layer 2 requirements in the ToIP Technology Architecture V1.0 Specification (see Appendix A for an aggregated list).
10 minsCollaboration with other groupsAll

Given the role of the trust spanning protocol, how do we want to collaborate with other groups that are also doing related work, e.g., DIF, KERI, Hyperledger Aries, OWF, W3C CCG, EUDIW?

See Daniel Hardman's talk 

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

Our proposed primary topic for next week's meeting is: how do we want to proceed with the job of drafting this specification? One option is to follow the general IETF path of "proposals -> merged straw man with outstanding issues -> resolved issues to become a draft". Or, in a little more detail:

  1. Put out a "call for proposals" using a simple GitHub submission process.
  2. Discuss each proposal on GitHub and then in at least one on our Wednesday meetings.
  3. See if we can merge the proposals into a straw man with a set of outstanding issues.
  4. Work on resolving the issues until we have consensus on a Working Draft.

Can we do this with the goal of taking a first Working Draft to Internet Identity Workshop #36 (April 18-20 in Mountain View, CA)?

...

  • Sample Decision Item

Action Items