Christopher Allen: The BTCR project wants to do something in July ✪
Christopher Allen: The idea is 9am Pacific, a standup call to give fast status, then a slack channel is used to communicate over the day. Monday-Friday ✪
Christopher Allen: Still want to do the DID outreach hackathon - all methods projects - try to attract new players, walk them through - exact timing TBD - probably late September/early October ✪
Kim Hamilton Duffy: BTCR - want to coordinate to do a planning session. Ryan and Dan Pape have been working on tx-ref (?) encoding, C++ implementation - decide on some good outcomes for the hackathon & start assigning tasks ✪
Microsoft is not on the implementers spreadsheet. We have uPort Validbook Foundation Dominode, Inc Province of British Columbia HIE of One lifeID Foundation HTC Exodus phone Veres one Sovrin Danube Tech Transendx Chlu ✪
Christopher Allen: Did you really mean: https://www.iiw2018.com/ ? [scribe assist by Chris Boscolo] ✪
Markus Sabadello: Another possibility for examples at did-resolution github - link above ✪
Christopher Allen: We need verifiable claims (test repo); need signed verifiable claims (reference versions - signed in various ways); various examples of DID documents ✪
Christopher Allen: If a DID WG is started then it may have a repo that will contain the example materials ✪
Joe Andrieu: The verifiable claims stuff should be in the Verifiable Claims WG ✪
Joe Andrieu: Action item: add a web page to CCG wiki with links to DID document examples ✪
Topic: DID Method Requirements?
Joe Andrieu: We need a formal statement of what is required to be declared a ‘did method’ ✪
Joe Andrieu: Revocation is not fully consensus (does it actually need revocation?) ✪
Joe Andrieu: Revocation - should be about key compromise ✪
Joe Andrieu: Rotation is also undecided - generally updating transactional keys ✪
Christopher Allen: Some did methods want to have a single key with no concept of revocation or rotation - should these be accepted as did methods? ✪
Christopher Allen: Need to set a minimum requirement to avoid quality issues or security issues ✪
Christopher Allen: Revocation/rotation is a new/interesting thing that DID methods offer ✪
Drummond Reed: Pelle from uPort has made a case for these "single key single use" DIDs. I was initially opposed but he convinced me that it was okay because these types of DIDs would have their own DID method that explain that they are single use with no rotation. ✪
Joe Andrieu: Planting the seed - there are probably other open issues and undecided topics - features that are supported/not ✪
Christopher Allen: But are those DIDs revocable? ✪
Christopher Allen: There may be a risk that if we have non-rotatable DIDs, the legacy identity community points to them and says "but DIDs are worse then what we already offer" ✪
Ryan Grant: References are made to the DID-Auth draft at RWOT ✪
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Interesting, if they are single-use only (how is this enforced?) then maybe revocation is less important? But maybe some timebox is needed? I.e. if it's created and then "immediately" used (for some definition of immediate), the window for key theft is reduced ✪
Ryan Grant: Did-auth has a few different mechanisms described for web logon - need some additional details there, probably ✪
Ryan Grant: Sticky wicket - don’t try to store a password - just ask for proof of control of the did (presumably did-auth?) ✪
Joe Andrieu: I like the point that DIDs separate proof from the identifier ✪
Joe Andrieu: Use case came from verifiable credentials use case discussion ✪
Joe Andrieu: Better use case for dids than for verifiable credentials ✪
Chris Boscolo: Where is the appropriate place to have this DID method discussion? (here/mailing list/some other chat chanel...) ✪
Joe Andrieu: University students have access to other university library - typical approach is to whitelist based on attributes provided from home university ✪
Joe Andrieu: What would this look like using dids? ✪
Kim Hamilton Duffy: I liked Christopher's point that Tzviya's use case is a great one for DIDs + OCAP ✪
Dan Burnett: Sounds like a special case of Single Sign On ✪
Chris Webber: Ocap-ld - need to have some cryptographic material that has been authorized to do something - this might be student’s did or derived from their student id ✪
Chris Webber: The ocap way - a university would get a capability to access the library - then assign it to your did ✪
Dcc: need to understand how the licensing model works for libraries to make sure the use case is accurate ✪
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Curious for more context from Tziya or someone else at Wiley on the call. Seems like they'd have domain knowledge there :) ✪
Joe Andrieu: Yes, it’s probably that we are missing the point from the use case ✪
Chris Webber: Note - there is a way to deal with prohibiting delegation (split contract) ✪
Benjamin Young: Tzviya is Ben’s boss - ra21.org is looking at this problem - one thing is the ‘access by vpn’ - restrictions are IP filters so hard to do individual control of access ✪
Benjamin Young: Would like to be able to do individual-based access control with verifiable credentials ✪