Can you reshare the agenda link please?

https://wiki.trustoverip.org/display/HOME/2023-01-18+TSPTF+Meeting+Notes

Thx Phil!

https://trustoverip.org/get-involved/membership/

Hi! No microphone here right now.Veikko Eeva, I'm a co-fonder in Lumoin. We're working in built environment related issues, such as deconstruction, renovation, construction and slowly and surely towards project financing in general. Also working on DID & VC library in .NET (public repo in GH a bit lagging, but should update soonish).

No, I’m Alex from Roots ID

https://wiki.trustoverip.org/display/HOME/Trust+Spanning+Protocol+Task+Force

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

https://trustoverip.org/our-work/evolution-of-the-toip-stack/

https://trustoverip.org/permalink/Design-Principles-for-the-ToIP-Stack-V1.0-2022-11-17.pdf

https://trustoverip.org/our-work/technical-architecture/

Good to see the 3-party Issuer-Holder-Verifier model take lesser role …"just one kind of trust path" :-)

Is DIDComm Layer 2 or Layer 3? ...me thinks Layer 2

Exactly Michael. This was a great collaborative realisation & decision while we worked on the Tech Architecture. We had 100+ slides pertaining viewpoints from multiple contributors.

DIDComm is layer 2.

Yes! :-)

Michael, I see you have your hand up, you’re next

It also totally lines up with Paster Hardman and the Great Unit Church movement as well ;-) :-)

...Great Unity Church

pls provide link to the '100+' slides

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/14YPhH66yfOetrSfuycuFOgQqxzGZ0b7H22EZDhilphU/edit#slide=id.p

Sorry, only 95, misspoke ;)

:-) thanks!

Again, the link to blog post is https://trustoverip.org/blog/2023/01/05/the-toip-trust-spanning-protocol/

so DWN layer 2 would be HTTPS?

the core “co-protocols” are Layer 2, Layer 3 would be the specialized - we have a diagram somewhere that starts to explain that too

@Michael you can create applications level protocols ex: https://gist.github.com/csuwildcat/2ac6ebf4c581c5df143c32fa4911850e

DWNs are directly from the Secure Data Storage box in Layer 1 ...DWNs are not Layer 2

Have to disagree that a DWN is only a “storage protocol.” The DWN spec includes a message-based protocol, semantic data discovery, etc.

@Michael - I suggest talking that discussion to the TAS GitHub

@Frank - agreed - there are multiple-layers to DWN. I think the 4-layer model helps split that out and tell a story about what is where.

it is permissioned crytpographic data... which is what all applications come down to not just a filesystem type of replication

Suggest: Trust Spanning - minimal layer that does not preclude support for a variety of higher level protocols that build on a common base, minimal layer

+1

RE: @Michael you can create applications level protocolsThe DWN storage protocol may be "application level" protocols that they are still storage level procotols. They are only for manipulating storage in DWNs.

...and for raising storage events

Restating...The DWN storage protocol may be used to create "application level" protocols that they are still storage level protocols - none the less. They are only for manipulating storage in DWNs ...and supporting storage-level events.

The whole thesis of a DWN ( according to the spec ) is a “data storage and message relay node”. The message layer is defined here: https://identity.foundation/decentralized-web-node/spec/#messages . I agree with Frank that it’s more than a storage protocol.

https://trustoverip.org/our-work/technical-architecture/

Maybe "storage centric protocol" is a better term for DWNs ...it can't and shouldn't be equated with being on the same level as DIDComm

If there is anyone else that you think should be in this Task Force. Please invite them to attend the meeting next week. We want all the voices heard and participating.

Does anyone have a link to the recording of Daniel’s talk from January 9th?

Thank you Mathieu

https://us02web.zoom.us/rec/play/LM4MOfsMsPly-6ObW3iMWiuAIBv9VfXPW10xO1sYQOi6jQHH62ie2oG3_wFGp0bMAF40B60An8-o4qhs.pJbo3ECAOAylzDht?continueMode=true&_x_zm_rtaid=cukn9LNKTEaY2slcGfXf8w.1673535685856.559fd03f01e2b81cb0fdd43ef2b2f617&_x_zm_rhtaid=14

Join the ToIP All Members Meeting in one hour where the HXWG will be discussing their white paper. Read about it in this BLOG - https://trustoverip.org/blog/2023/01/17/why-the-digital-identity-juggernaut-needs-safety-belts/

Michael, perhaps “storage synchronization protocol” would fit for DWN?

Yes, please do come to the All-Member Meeting

Here's my diagram

https://hyperonomy.com/2023/01/18/web-7-0-didcomm-arm-vs-tbd-web5-dwp-stack/

+1 to complementary efforts in ToIP, DIF, KERI, HL, etc. working together more closely.

👏

If you prefer video than reading the Technology Architecture, this is one of the talks I gave: https://youtu.be/PpIiYoe96qk

Perhaps, "storage centric" is the key ...your terminology supports that. Definitely Layer 1

Here's the narrative: https://youtu.be/1XnPWmpkGro?t=630s

If the Trust Spanning Protocol is a conduit from bottom and top layers, doesn't it make sense to map out those needs?

Keep being awesome folks

thanks everyone

thanks