https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ksqVxeCAvqLjr67htWZ4JYaSnI8TUZIO7tDMF5npHTo/edit#slide=id.g138855cddd3_0_9

Thanks!

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ksqVxeCAvqLjr67htWZ4JYaSnI8TUZIO7tDMF5npHTo/edit#slide=id.g138855cddd3_0_9

Oh, thanks Brian

bit.ly link : Https://bit.ly/3BHxUCb

Why did he hate figs?

I’ve always loved that quote

Head nodding rigorously ;-)

LOL - I thought I was alone nodding to the screen. Bless your heart @Drummond

VCs are to just about people entitlements

They are for organizations and things

VCs are for anything that represents something concrete and true.

https://hyperonomy.com/2022/11/19/facts-opinions-and-folklore-a-preliminary-taxonomy/

yeah I'd like to hear more about ACDCs vs w3c VCs at some point

@nick The ACDC WG meets every other Tuesday at 10 am ET

Meeting details are on the ToIP Calendar: https://wiki.trustoverip.org/display/HOME/Calendar+of+ToIP+Meetings

@Nick: some discussion here: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/982#issuecomment-1357949724

thanks

https://trustoverip.org/blog/2023/01/05/the-toip-trust-spanning-protocol/

previous link - thanks to Drummond

Such a wonderful celebration of the communities, what a lovely way to kick off the year.

👍

+1

This is because of the LF/JDF relationship with ISO - not a special thing for ToIP - DIF also has this capability being under LF

👍

I really liked the characterization of the different orgs/communities, and what their respective achievements are.

+1

+1

+1

+1

+1

+1

👏

You might be interested it reading about the evolution of the ToIP Stack, if you want to understand better where we’ve come from, where we are now, and where we are going: https://trustoverip.org/our-work/evolution-of-the-toip-stack/

+1 for avoiding duplication

Hear hear to interdependence

+1 on interdependency

We have really solid puzzle pieces that can fit together quite nicely.

Interdependency appears more challenging from the human side than the technical side.

@Jacques - well said. It’s hard to get momentum behind the tech work when the business/governance (human) side isn’t aligned well.

+1

I like it — “as simple as possible but no simpler”

RE: We have really solid puzzle pieces that can fit together quite nicelyIf you know what the puzzle on the cover of the box is supposed to look like. Having pieces that fit "quite nicely" isn't enough

What puzzle picture are we putting together/working towards?

The ToIP Technology Architecture Specification has the full specs: https://trustoverip.org/our-work/technical-architecture/

https://trustoverip.org/blog/2023/01/05/the-toip-trust-spanning-protocol/

and this is the Trust Spanning Layer Blog Entry [great summary] that Drummond spear-headed: trustoverip.org/blog/2023/01/05/the-toip-trust-spanning-protocol/

I don’t know that any of this makes sense.

I agree

Clearly OPenIDV4 (or whatever it is being called) moves credentials around - they don’t use DIDComm and don’t need to

With constraints and limitations. it isn't a full solution outside their target uses.

OIDC4VC is a trust task protocol

I think our community is so focused on its “ideals” for “the perfect thing” we are loosing site of the need to actually solve real world problems for real customers who really need implementations

I think enforcing peer functionality at the protocol level is crucial from preventing bad actors! I believe that’s why protocols like I2P is more stable than Tor!

for example, it moves credentials around, and not other types of messages for other purposes.

+1 on the ambassadorship of OWF

Wow, you can really start to see how all the puzzle pieces can fit together.

You say that as if DIF is “one thing” and “decides” - its a bunch of working groups.

am I alone in thinking this is replay of the LF creation event, where OSDL and FSG came together, some 20ish years ago?

I have a good GUT feeling about this ;-)

it’s similar to the alignment in the geospatial space in the late 90s as well.

Looking around the room there are key people who are leaders in this industry who are NOT on this call.

+1

RE: OIDC4VC is a trust task protocol

+1 requirements by the real world will drive what the puzzle should look like when assembled. Though, I believe in applying 80/20, we’ll all be able to come up with an at least an 80% good enough picture, when we all collaborate and bring needs of the various projects together though common method(s). Dividing is the way to conquer…

Yes, Daniel recognized that this would be only the first of a series of these calls that would be needed

1+

I think the specifics proposed here are obviously going to be controversial, but the general idea of trying to reduce duplicated* work is an important concept to think deeply about in these types of meetings

Daniel has described the "what" but I think the "how" is just as important ...perhaps more challenging.

Because we

Because we

OIDC4VC has lots of implementation strategies that change the properties of the resulting VC exchange a lot. *IF* you put it on top of DIDComm (or whatever comes out of this), then you get properties like not having a phone hime problem.

The ToIP Trust Spanning Protocol Task Force is just starting next week. See the ToIP blog post for a full background: https://trustoverip.org/blog/2023/01/05/the-toip-trust-spanning-protocol/

+1 to Nick’s comment.

You all keep coming up with “More ideal” things to do/build but they feel pretty disconnected from the market.

Because we're running out of time, I'll throw out that this will have more success if there is an agreed upon overarching vision/mission. Each organization has just a bunch of parts currently IMHO.

I think one of the things that draws me to this space is the focus on ideals *over* market concerns... Building from a set of principles.. that's not to say that market concerns can't be included (or that different people/orgs care about different things!)

+1 Nick

Kaliya, there are some of us who rather strongly disagree with you that what Daniel is proposing is “disconnected from the market”. We are laying the ground for where the puck is going, not where it is now.

Suppose you have 3 football teams:Buffalo Bills NFL football teamMachester United UK football teamLocal high school football teamWhat does it mean to unify these 3 organizations? Is it possible? What would it take to unify these 3 organizations?

I’m very interested in Daniel’s idea of a “GUT” Alliance and how it would work.

Controversial? yes! But I think these proposals are workable. They require our human ingenuity.

+1 on Nick’s suggestion for shared principles and guiding rules

footbal - send in Ted Lasso

Season 3 is coming in March!

GUT requires deflating egos and growing cooperation and interdependence (and reliance) on each other

+1 to deflating egos :)

+++1

I'm forging ahead with an overarching vision for an ecosystem called Web 7.0

https://hyperonomy.com/2022/12/12/welcome-to-web-7-0/

I'm presenting Part 2 in this timeslot next Monday.

Table a GUT (or list of tech/probs/issues that a GUT has to address) then do Gap/Overlap identification

The Quarterly Meeting should really be called The Gut Check.

+1 on the quarterly touch point

Love it

someone needs to bring gut milk

GUT check! you got, it Sam Curren.

I must leave to run another meeting, but I’m on board with the next steps for GUT

We’ve aligned on ToIP and DIF on the trust registry/establishment work. Getting cross org collaboration on key items is totally feasible. Maybe that’s a model for how we look about other items.

Peer DIDs have been a work item in DIF's Identifiers&Discovery WG: https://github.com/decentralized-identity/identifiers-discovery/#work-items

companies can ship real-world products while things are getting aligned…

A lot of "alignment" was proposed ...representing new work

+1 Darrell

overlap & often conflict (unintentionally for the most part)

Working example of this type of cross-work already happeningThe DIF Data Agreements WG has already essentially pulled people involved in ToIP, MyData, DIF and ISO together....

even the specifics of what orgs are included here are going to be controversial. more important to just let as many communities/people as possible know about this work and see if they're interested

We have to start somewhere for collaboration. If these groups can, then we can invite others as appropriate.

A more "pair-wise" "working together" is more likely to succeed than a GUT.

this is about so much more than moving credentials around.

Hi all from Switzerland. I’m from DIDAS, a non-profit that has been pushing SSI principles as a foundation for the upcoming E-ID Law. We've been very successful so far and the draft of the law is based on a lot of SSI ideas and values ecosystems' approach. However, this is being increasingly challenged due to a lack of convergence (or vision of) around tech stack/standards or perceived competitiveness in the ecosystem. There are many “pragmatic" voices that suggest that a much simpler, ID only solution should be adopted instead. So I would definitely encourage the direction being discussed here. Hopefully we can see progress here sooner rather than later 🙂

everyone has mission objectives

timely input from the market, thank you @Vasily

We are already working the ODIC etc. in other places, this is not what this call for collocation is about.

FWIW, I've never had a CHAPI rep communicate with me in any way.

+1 on @Vasily’s comment from switzerland

“collaboration” starts in a small subset is good.

OK - well maybe call up Manu and say you are interested in how CHAPI can include DIDComm as part of their next work.

maybe have manu call me up. why is the work all my job?

They are aligning with OpenID to really tackle the wallet choice locking problem.

I will ask Manu where he has put forward the idea and encourage him to be in touch.

Thanks for the presentation Daniel. Good thought ehre.

There are two hand up…

THANK YOU Daniel!

Thanks Daniel

thanks Daniel... very helpful!

Thanks Dan!

Yes thanks Daniel, this is great inspiration.

Thanks, Daniel

Thanks!

Great GUT checking 👍

Thanks Daniel!

Thanks Daniel. Good inspiration. Let's divide and conquer with GUT guidance and let's add Darwin’s view on evolution to the equation: It's not the strongest but the most adaptable to change that will survive. :-)

Daniel - can you please share this slide deck? Thx

@sandy https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ksqVxeCAvqLjr67htWZ4JYaSnI8TUZIO7tDMF5npHTo/edit#slide=id.g1c1ea9f3ac3_0_144

Thanks Brian.

Thanks for the response, Daniel. The question is how these items are really going to solve today’s problem for most of the companies as the standards KERI, ACDC and DIDcomm has very small market share and traction. Doesn’t mean they are not important items to tackle in the long run.

Lucy, beware of the areas of the market you may not be in contact with. There is more traction than you may imagine.

👏Daniel thank you for taking the time to propose how to collect these incredible efforts into a united effort. We can all benefit from a Trust Spanning Layer. Lets make it happen together (Aires, ToIP, DIF, DIDComm users, KERI, and others)!

Well the inverse might also be true Sam.

Glad to know that @Sam. I am posing that as a question rather than I know the entire market. It would be helpful to shed some light on that part of the market so that we can help companies decide if this would be important to them.

+1 Sam

Thanks

You're a brave man Daniel....

Thanks @Daniel!

Thanks, Daniel!