Meeting Date & Time
This is a special 2-hour meeting of the ToIP Trust Spanning Protocol Task Force in order to have a deep-dive workshop to begin the consolidation stage of our work on the trust spanning protocol (TSP).
See the Calendar of ToIP Meetings for exact meeting dates, times and Zoom links.
Zoom Meeting Link / Recording
NOTE: This Zoom meeting link will be replaced by a link to the recording of the meetings once it is available.
Attendees
- Drummond Reed
- Daniel Hardman
- Wenjing Chu
- Samuel Smith
- Darrell O'Donnell
- Antti Kettunen
- Mathieu Glaude
- Neil Thomson
- Subhasis Ojha
- Willem de Kok
- Jo Spencer
- Mark Scott
- Vladimir Simjanoski
- Keerthi Thomas
- Dima Postnikov
Agenda Items and Notes (including all relevant links)
| Time | Agenda Item | Lead | Notes |
| 5 min |
| Leads |
|
| 5 mins | Urgency vs. Completeness Poll Results | Sam Curren | See the poll and results here. If you have not voted yet, please do. |
| 15 mins | Considerations raised by the Two-Layer Design Model Proposal | See this Github discussion for more about the Two-Layer Design Model Proposal. The purpose of this proposal was to see if we could achieve alignment by compartmentalizing which problems were solved where. Daniel Hardman kicked off discussion with some thoughts about points he has made in the discussion by sharing screenshots #1 through #7 below. See those slides for his points. Wenjing Chu understands Daniel's argument for a number of his proposed features but does not feel it needs to be in Layer 2. His test would be, "If a feature is not included in Layer 2, it would be hard to implement in a higher layer." Sometimes ambiguity is useful in language. Daniel Hardman felt very strongly that the properties he is talking about cannot be at any higher layers. Antti Kettunen is open to the possibility that there are n layers above the TSP layer, and believes that is where the abuse is likely to happen. He suggests we should focus on the features that are needed by those higher layer to achieve Daniel's properties. Samuel Smith raised questions in this context about different approaches to supporting composability. Darrell O'Donnell made some points about how TCP/IP required both TCP and IP to gain adoption. Jo Spencer spoke in favor of the "logical separation" of the proposal. Sam Curren suggested a specific set of five work items that could be a path forward. | |
| 90 mins | Open Discussion | All | |
| 5 mins |
| Leads |
Screenshots/Diagrams (numbered for reference in notes above)
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
If the message says nothing about the parent is involved in this conversation, it changes the accountability of the sender and the audience in that assertion.
That cannot be communicated via cryptography alone, as the messages to the child and to the parent will be cryptographically separate.
If the audience property is not included, then it cannot be consistently across trust tasks.
Decisions
- Sample Decision Item
Action Items
- Sample Action Item