You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.
Compare with Current
View Page History
« Previous
Version 2
Next »
Meeting Link / Recording
Attendees
This is a future meeting
Agenda Items and Notes (including all relevant links)
| Time | Agenda Item | Lead | Notes |
| 5 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:
Current work - Spec repo will be donated to ToIP if WG/TF is approved
- Previous reference impl was started here, See below for future Hyperledger Labs
|
| 5 mins | Review of action items from previous meeting | Chairs | - Stephen Curran is pursuing a Hyperledger Labs repo for the resolver reference implementation
- Markus Sabadello will make his did:webs and did:keri comparison available so that the sub-community interested in did:keri can collaborate.
- Lance Byrd will start an ACDC PR to the spec that describes signing
- Lance Byrd will provide an outline of how to use a TEL to verify the signature document
- Daniel Hardman will donate his dh1128 repo if ToIP will allow.... all commits are signed
|
| 5 mins | Announcements | TF Leads | News or events of interest to members: - ToIP has approved the Open Web Foundation (OWF) IPR license
- This is a provisional WG/TF and we hope to be officially under ToIP in a month, or so
- IIW October 2023
- We aim to be registered did method and have an implementation in the Universal resolver
- did:plc and Dimiti's did:web 2.0 (next gen) proposals discussion.
|
| 5 mins | Reports | Open | - Upcoming milestones
- IIW Fall 2023
- There are several potential opportunities, Daniel Hardman will report soon.
- DIF identifiers discovery "lifecycle of did:web identifiers"
|
| 25 mins | Discussion | Open | - Is a secure did:web spec adoptable, without additional features? Or do we require NEW features like whois, signed files.... if so, can we agree on what else is required?
- The default should be secure?
- Verbose solution, Appraisable Security Level API: The spec swells in order to detail multiple 'levels' of security in order to accomodate both familiar and secure mechanisms.
- Bare JWS provides file integrity, but not authenticity
- Best-available-data RUN is only acceptable for discovery information, file integrity and monotonically increasing (date)
- KEL anchors for integrity and authenticity
- https://github.com/dhh1128/did-method-webs/pull/26
- Hybrid solution: You can't publish the JWS without anchoring in a KEL first?
- Or perhaps, anything not secured by KERI is not did:webs, it is did:web?
- whois and JWS could be a PR to did:web and the ACDC anchored signature is did:webs?
- Note: discovery information (less security needed, Best-available-data )... a level of replay attack information, but can be DDOS attacked.
- Daniel Hardman suggested last week that we explore the 'notion that did:web can borrow the view of did:webs" during our discussion about using JWS vs. ACDC.
- Bright line rule: Should the core of did:webs be the more familiar but less secure options, like JWS? Or should those be extensions to the did:webs spec?
- https://github.com/dhh1128/did-method-webs/issues
- Activity this past week
- Stephen Curran reviewed the newly added did doc section information
- alsoKnownAs vs equivalentId
- whois
- weighted threshold multi-sig
- SSL/TLS common name
- https://github.com/dhh1128/did-method-webs/pulls
- Activity this past week
- Signed Files
- Whois
- VCs + JWS vs. Service Endpoint
|
| 5 mins | Any other business | Open | |
| 5 mins | - Review decisions/action items
- Planning for next meeting
| Chairs |
|
