Zoom Logo

Secure Data Storage - scoping #1 - (Superfriends) - Shared screen with speaker view
Balazs Nemethi
13:50
We could write notes here:
Balazs Nemethi
13:50
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XoxjE0GQnvP6Ypa5kAcYMEDTMitl_3n5bGWDCk_fjmA/edit?usp=sharing
Orie Steele (Transmute)
14:01
scribe+
Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar)
14:26
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lYEWdDOm1iyCN9q_AkHE3bQ_SDjhwHDYWp73a73F4M8/edit#
jonnycrunch
14:45
q+ While we are waiting can we just level set as far as who we have agreed to jointly collab and a brief intro to the agreement
Dan Burnett
14:52
q is jonnycrunch
Daniel Buchner
15:31
Mostly Rouven, but I will be brief after him
Balazs Nemethi
15:42
FYI: This is not IPR protected call
Daniel Buchner
15:55
Yep, that's what I think Rouven will touch on
Michael Shea
19:24
q+ is this working group working under the same rules as the W3C WG where you have to be a member to make additions/suggestions (as compared to observers)?
Dan Burnett
19:40
q is jonnycrunch, Michael_Shea
Dan Burnett
23:29
q is Michael_Shea
Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar)
24:45
q+
Dan Burnett
24:49
q is Manu
Dan Burnett
25:12
q is <empty>
Rouven Heck
25:55
q Rouven
Dan Burnett
26:00
q is Rouven
Dan Burnett
26:10
q is <empty>
leonardr
28:26
q+
Dan Burnett
28:32
q is leonardr
Joe
30:20
q+
Dan Burnett
30:27
q is leonardr, Joe
Kim Hamilton Duffy
30:56
q+
Dan Burnett
31:05
q is leonardr, Joe, KimHD
Dan Burnett
31:35
q is Joe, KimHD
Daniel Buchner
32:10
It is the W3C IPR terms
katrynadow
32:26
q What if you already hold a Patent?
Dan Burnett
32:34
q is Joe, KimHD, katrynadow
Daniel Buchner
32:43
DIF operates under W3C IPR policy/mode
Daniel Buchner
32:51
for all its WGs
Dan Burnett
33:12
q is KimHD, katrynadow
Dan Burnett
34:19
q is katrynadow
Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar)
34:21
q+ to respond to Joe -- non-standards track --
Dan Burnett
34:32
q is katrynadow, manu
Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar)
34:36
q+ to CCG work item KimHD
Dan Burnett
34:50
q is manu
Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar)
35:05
q+ to patent injection -existing patent
Dan Burnett
35:30
q is <empty>
leonardr
36:35
q+
Dan Burnett
36:40
q is leonardr
leonardr
36:49
Why do we need the CCG instead of going right to W3C WG?
Kim Hamilton Duffy
36:59
Sounds good Manu
Daniel Buchner
37:08
@leonardr it would go to a full WG after
Daniel Buchner
37:12
We just deliver it together
leonardr
37:27
Understood, but that’s not required by W3C process...
Daniel Buchner
38:44
@leonardr I suppose that's the There Can Only Be One Highlander perspective, but we're trying to unite various groups, some of which are outside of W3C and have been doing this work for years.
Rouven Heck
39:13
q+
Dan Burnett
39:18
q is leonardr, Rouven
Dan Burnett
40:24
q is Rouven
Daniel Buchner
40:39
We're not
Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar)
40:44
yes,we are
Daniel Buchner
40:46
We're going directly to a WG
jonnycrunch
40:48
q+ and how do maintain transparency?
Dan Burnett
40:54
q is Rouven, jonnycrunch
Daniel Buchner
40:59
q+
Joe
41:08
q+
Dan Burnett
41:24
q is Rouven, jonnycrunch, DanielBuchner, Joe
Dan Burnett
41:46
q is jonnycrunch, DanielBuchner, Joe
Xiao Zhang
42:32
Hi, I am trying to understand the discussion. So basically we need to make sure the outcome of this group will not violate any existing patents?
Dan Burnett
42:44
q is DanielBuchner, Joe
Daniel Buchner
42:58
Xiao: just don't talk about specific technical solution ideas and strategies on this call
Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar)
43:10
Xiao Zhang - yes, that's the goal - patent and royalty free standard.
Daniel Buchner
43:11
That's the IPR guidance until we have the docs signed
Xiao Zhang
43:23
Understood. Thank you.
Dan Burnett
43:30
q is Joe
jonnycrunch
44:07
q+
Dan Burnett
44:12
q is Joe, jonnycrunch
Kim Hamilton Duffy
44:19
People might need explanation of working group vs work item, etc
Dan Burnett
44:26
q is jonnycrunch
Rouven Heck
44:58
+1 to Dan and Joe’s comment
Dan Burnett
45:08
q is <empty>
Rouven Heck
45:37
let’s issue some VCs on each comment ;)
Kaliya Identity Woman
46:16
Lol
Dave Longley
46:53
I'm happy to have as little process as possible ... instead focusing on getting the work done :)
Rouven Heck
48:12
I think there is a difference between the formal/legal steps vs. the content / further incubation
Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar)
48:20
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lYEWdDOm1iyCN9q_AkHE3bQ_SDjhwHDYWp73a73F4M8/edit#
Dan Burnett
48:25
q is <empty>
Balazs Nemethi
51:01
q
Daniel Buchner
51:04
Yaaaaasss
Dan Burnett
51:05
q is Balazs
Daniel Buchner
51:12
great success!
jonnycrunch
51:24
s/Secure/Personal would be better
Oliver Terbu
51:34
+1 screen share
Dan Burnett
51:36
q is <empty>
Dave Longley
51:56
it's not necessarily "personal" data, so +1 to existing name
Kim Hamilton Duffy
52:04
I was hoping to be a superfriend but I can let that slide :(
Daniel Buchner
52:14
Only issue with "Personal" is that this will likely be run by large companies for their own identities
Daniel Buchner
52:36
like a company having its own ID and ID datastore instance
jonnycrunch
52:52
object
Oliver Terbu
52:55
q+
Dan Burnett
53:00
q is Oliver
Dan Burnett
53:07
q is <empty>
leonardr
53:20
q+ Do we have to do ALL of them or just SOME?
Dan Burnett
53:26
q is leonardr
Kim Hamilton Duffy
53:35
Can Oliver write this as a comment so we can track?
Oliver Terbu
53:42
yes
Kim Hamilton Duffy
53:57
q+ for process point
Dan Burnett
54:01
q is leonardr, KimHD
Dan Burnett
54:05
q is KimHD
Daniel Buchner
54:11
That is the intent
Kaliya Identity Woman
54:15
it does say “at minimum”
Dan Burnett
54:28
q is <empty>
leonardr
54:33
Object for *all* - OK for *some*
leonardr
55:16
q+
Dan Burnett
55:20
q is leonardr
Dan Burnett
55:29
q is <empty>
Kim Hamilton Duffy
56:01
Let’s call it “conditional objection”
leonardr
56:11
Please add URLs to those document so that they can be reviewed before agreement
Kim Hamilton Duffy
56:18
== need more info (put in comment to request details)
leonardr
57:56
q+
Dan Burnett
58:00
q is leonardr
Daniel Buchner
58:00
q+
Dan Burnett
58:09
q is leonardr, Daniel_Buchner
Dan Burnett
58:25
q is Daniel_Buchner
Daniel Buchner
59:00
q-
Dan Burnett
59:14
q is <empty>
Rouven Heck
01:01:01
Object
Chris Lee
01:01:14
object
Chris Lee
01:01:34
portability > replication
Dan Burnett
01:01:37
/me discussion . . .
leonardr
01:01:46
/me discussion also
leonardr
01:02:02
q+
Dan Burnett
01:02:02
/me was saying that we have degenerated into discussion :)
Dan Burnett
01:02:10
q is leonardr
leonardr
01:02:16
q-
jonnycrunch
01:02:17
q+
Rouven Heck
01:02:25
Dan, I think portability > replication
Dan Burnett
01:02:33
q is jonnycrunch
Kim Hamilton Duffy
01:02:38
Our DanBot is being flaky
Kim Hamilton Duffy
01:02:46
K, seems better now
Daniel Buchner
01:02:50
Rouven: replication is a far more aggressive form of portability
Dave Longley
01:02:53
would "portability and/or replication" remove objections?
Dan Burnett
01:03:00
/me DanBot is just slow. Simultaneous overrides are problematic
Dave Longley
01:03:07
so we can cover the full scope.
Daniel Buchner
01:03:10
portability is a weak term, and more likely to be abused
Dan Burnett
01:03:12
q is <empty>
Kim Hamilton Duffy
01:03:17
/me I just bounced the process
Daniel Buchner
01:03:34
would "replication and portability" remove objections? <-- yes
Rouven Heck
01:03:48
DanBot is great - you are hired :)
Daniel Buchner
01:03:48
because replication is a superset of portability
Dan Burnett
01:04:11
q is <empty>
Rouven Heck
01:04:12
+ 1 to just HTTP
Dave Longley
01:04:15
just HTTP
Kim Hamilton Duffy
01:04:16
+1
Xiao Zhang
01:04:19
+1
leonardr
01:04:20
HTTP
Daniel Buchner
01:04:22
HTTP all inclusively
Daniel Buchner
01:04:24
+1
Kim Hamilton Duffy
01:04:30
We are +1 to http
Xiao Zhang
01:04:33
just HTTP is fine
Dave Longley
01:04:35
i object to "HTTP 2"
Yuriy Dybskiy
01:04:38
Maybe “HTTP (/2)”?
Tony
01:04:39
Object
Dan Burnett
01:04:59
q is <empty>
leonardr
01:05:16
q+
Dan Burnett
01:05:20
q is leonardr
Tony
01:05:21
http 2.0
Dan Burnett
01:05:44
q is <empty>
Rouven Heck
01:06:52
Well managed Manu (and DanBot) ! :)
Troy Ronda
01:06:57
I heard a question about encrypted index earlier. Was it resolved?
Oliver Terbu
01:07:03
no
Daniel Buchner
01:07:11
Can we just agree to add both the replication and portability words, if that makes Rouven OK with it?
jonnycrunch
01:07:13
object
Daniel Buchner
01:07:24
Objects
Dan Burnett
01:08:48
q is <empty>
Dave Longley
01:09:09
"Invention of new cryptographic..."
Rouven Heck
01:09:16
@Dan - if it’s OR, than we might just implement replication instead of more
Dave Longley
01:09:18
q+
Dan Burnett
01:09:24
q is longley
Dan Burnett
01:09:45
q is <empty>
Kim Hamilton Duffy
01:10:00
+1 to dlongley
Daniel Buchner
01:10:34
Rouven: replication is portability - for example: say I have one instance on one provider, and add a new endpoint for another instance that resides at my house. The two should automatically sync, which is literally porting to the added instance
Daniel Buchner
01:10:43
replication is the act of active portability
Rouven Heck
01:11:04
@Dan - portability with minimal allow replication?
Manu Sporny (Digital Bazaar)
01:11:10
q+ to close call
Dan Burnett
01:11:14
q is manu
Kim Hamilton Duffy
01:11:21
Can dlongley’s language be used consistently there?
Daniel Buchner
01:11:24
portability is a weaker, less aggressive term that adds wiggle room to be naughty in interpretation
Oliver Terbu
01:11:25
+1 Orie
Kim Hamilton Duffy
01:11:27
I think Orie was recommending similar
Balazs Nemethi
01:11:42
q
Tony
01:11:46
•ᴗ•
Kaliya Identity Woman
01:11:50
great call everyone :)
Dan Burnett
01:11:52
q is Balazs
Daniel Buchner
01:12:03
Thank you everyone!
Rouven Heck
01:12:07
Dan - let’s discuss offline, I’m sure we find a good wording :)
Dave Longley
01:12:07
zcaps arent' "new" they just aren't standard yet :)
Chris Lee
01:12:13
Thank you
Dan Burnett
01:12:14
q is <empty>
Joe
01:12:28
Cheers! Stay healthy, folks!
Oliver Terbu
01:12:36
“Strive to utilize existing standards when possible”
Rouven Heck
01:12:42
I think nothing we can solve on the call today
Tony
01:12:43
Ok with me
Dan Burnett
01:12:45
DanBot signs off
Yuriy Dybskiy
01:12:50
Can I make a quick note about our project Puma Browser and if we can be helpful in the implementation part?
Xiao Zhang
01:12:53
Sry but object