Attendees

• Brent Zundel, co-chair
• Dakota Gruener
• Daniel Bachenheimer, co-chair
• Drummond Reed
• Kaliya Young
• Nuttawut Kongsuwan
• Riley Hughes
• Todd Gehrke
• Trev Harmon
• Wenjing Chu

Agenda Items

Recording - Link

Notes

• Review of the IP / antitrust requirements.
• Review of our group’s recommendation template: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1II9MPHqntT97iA5FuRQ7q2E5ZUxDviY86DxyuCY_S8Q/
• We need to have this document filled out, and will be looking for people to pick up sections.
• Review the KIQ questions.
• Clarification was provided regarding how to handle the “how it works today” section. This would include both paper and pre-pandemic digital formats.
• This is going to likely be a staged approach.
• Discussion about the need for ZKPs and selective disclosure.
• We need to make sure that we’re discussing the use of x.509 certificate-based solutions.
• There are some concerns regarding the time required to perform DIDCOM.
• Had a discussion on the consent and the ceremony around it, especially in terms of performance.
• Internet access isn’t available at border crossing for either the Holder or the Verifier.
• Per a meeting earlier in the day, it appears that revocation may not be in scope. Drummond suggested that we check with the other groups for their input. Riley brought up some potential use cases where it may still be useful.
• It is recommended that passes have an expiration date.
• The data schema will be the union of the needs from a number of different drafting groups.
• Had a brief discussion on testing approaches. Some of this relies on answers to other sections.
• We really do need to move forward with getting pen on paper for the recommendations. It’s better to have too much text, than not enough.
• Clarification was made that the time scales are 30-days, 90-days, 6-months.
• Discussed the time for the next meeting:
• April 14, Wednesday — 23:00 UTC
• April 16, Friday — 14:00 UTC
• Nuttawut brought up a conversation point on where privacy fits in the 30-day time period vs the 90-day time period.
• Kaliya asked what we mean by “requirement” in our context. We should let the group work on the document, and then after the thoughts are on paper we can evaluate.

Chat Log

00:06:23	Brent Zundel:	https://wiki.trustoverip.org/pages/resumedraft.action?draftId=74966&draftShareId=951cd26f-9f7b-4f2a-862b-d162f27fb9ed&
00:10:12	Daniel Bachenheimer:	and we are being recorded...
00:10:36	Brent Zundel:	https://docs.google.com/document/d/1II9MPHqntT97iA5FuRQ7q2E5ZUxDviY86DxyuCY_S8Q/edit?pli=1
00:20:44	Drummond Reed:	Am listening but walking to get my SECOND SHOT! So will largely be on mute.
00:30:29	Drummond Reed:	Kaliya has all the answers!! 😁
00:43:40	Dakota Gruener:	I don’t know that we can anticipate that without public health folks involved
00:44:07	Daniel Bachenheimer:	yeah - Jim seems plugged in there
00:44:57	Daniel Bachenheimer:	re-issuance
00:44:59	Nuttawut Kongsuwan:	Could that also be addressed in Rule Engine?
00:45:00	Daniel Bachenheimer:	yes!!!
00:54:02	Nuttawut Kongsuwan:	Yes!
00:54:11	Riley Hughes:	Yes
00:54:47	Nuttawut Kongsuwan:	I don’t mind repeating the same schedule.
00:56:03	Todd Gehrke:	Works fo me
01:03:05	Nuttawut Kongsuwan:	Thanks :)

Action Items

1. Need to coordinate with the Trust Registry team regarding x.509 certificate interaction.
2. We need to define what data elements in the schema will be used to determine a “revoked” state, and provide it to the Data Schema drafting group.
3. Everyone needs to add their requirement to the document this week.
4. Everyone needs to review the document and replace any “text” sections and provide input where they feel appropriate.