Versions Compared

Old Version 10

changes.mady.by.user Drummond Reed

Saved on

compared with

New Version 11

changes.mady.by.user Amar Tumballi

Saved on

Key

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

...

Steve McCown

Luca Boldrin


APAC 2020-11-XX12-02

David Luchuk

Vinod Panicker

Amar Tumballi

Eric Drury




Recording (North America / Europe)

...

  •  Review previous suggestion and discuss TF set-up
    •  Sam Smith was not able to attend, so we did not discuss this proposed TF further
    •  Drummond noted that this thread was ongoing in the GitHub for the W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model 1.0 spec, and that it was highly relevant to this proposed TF

Layer 1 Interop Spec

Phil Feairheller explained the open questions about this spec:

  1. Should we have separate specs/APIs for DID resolution (reads) and DID registration (writes).
    1. Stephen Curran suggested that yes, it would be best to separate reading, which may often be across DID methods, and writing, which is likely to be specific to writing to a "home network".
  2. Should we have a separate spec for DID network discovery?
    1. Stephen Curran also felt this would be helpful because decentralized discovery is already a topic on the Indy DID Method Spec WG.
    2. Phil Feairheller agreed that could be very helpful to be able to do "trusted discovery".
  3. Do we need separate specs/APIs for schema discovery?
    1. Stephen Curran felt that this could be more complicated. The goal of the Indy DID method spec is to make access to all these ledger objects based on DID resolution. So to retrieve the object, you would simply resolve the DID. 
    2. Phil Feairheller asked whether this would also apply to revocation registries.
    3. Stephen Curran felt yes, that would also be the best way to access that info.
  4. Drummond Reed agreed with all the comments above and strongly endorsed using DID resolution and registration as the primary mechanism we should rely for abstraction of Layer 1.
  5. We then discussed what should be specified by DID method specifications and what should be specified by our ToIP Layer 1 specs.
    1. Drummond Reed spoke to the need for the ToIP Layer 1 specs to provide as much guidance as possible to DID method specification authors about interop
    2. This includes defining DID document type for common Layer 1 objects like schemas and revocation registries.
    3. Phil Feairheller agreed, and will take this into account in the specs

...