21 October 2024

Attendees

  • Andreas Reich, TrustNXT

  • Andy Rosen, Sequence Key

  • Christian Paquin, Microsoft

  • Daniel Zellmer, Noosphere Technologies

  • David Bigsby, Government of British Columbia

  • Eric Scouten, Adobe

  • Gavin Peacock, Adobe

  • Hans Granqvist, Noosphere

  • Karen Kilroy, FileBaby

  • Konrad Bleyer-Simon, Global Media Registry

  • Liviu Gheorghe, Adobe

  • Loren Hart, Noosphere Technologies

  • Nigel Earnshaw, BBC

  • Neil Thomson, Trust Over IP Foundation

  • Noga Hurwitz, Adobe

  • Pamela Dingle, Microsoft

  • Scott Perry, Digital Governance Institute

  • Tim Cappalli, Okta

  • Utkarsh Sharma, Vlinder

  • Will Kreth, HAND (Human & Digital) Identity

Notes

New members introduction

  • 🎥 0'42": Neil Thomson, Trust Over IP Foundation

  • 🎥 1'39": Noga Hurwitz, Adobe

Review previous action items

🎥 2'10": Briefly reviewed the following action items from two weeks ago.

Review PR #188: Add support for domain control validation (DCV) aka verified web site

🎥 2'57": Discussed PR #188: Add support for domain control validation (DCV) aka verified web site.

Follow up to Claudiu’s request to vet creator willingness/ability to go through proposed steps to prove control over domain.

Creator Feedback: Noga shared that creators expressed enthusiasm for a verified mechanism to protect their identity, creative spaces, and brand. They preferred a simple and accessible method for domain control validation. Noga found that meta tags are more accessible for most creators, especially those using platforms like Squarespace or Wix.

ACTION: Eric to revise PR 188 to remove discussion of DNS records and add discussion about using meta tags.

Relevant links from chat:

Points to consider:

  • Validation should include a verification that the same random value that was initially specified remains present at the designated URL.

  • Creator should be able to specify a path within a domain.

  • Consider how BlueSky and Mastodon do domain verification.

Review PR #187: Add support for verified presentations

🎥 22'36": Move to withdraw PR #187: Add support for verified presentations.

Discuss the following two issues, which 187 was intended to close:

ACTION (✅): Create issue to consider verified e-mail address. (DONE: See issue #196: Consider adding verified e-mail address to ICA model?)

ACTION (✅): Eric to close #187 without merging.

Review issue #195: Make sure identity claims aggregation model is well understood

🎥 38'44": Discussed issue #195: Make sure identity claims aggregation model is well understood.

Eric acknowledged the need for more examples and explanatory text to clarify the model of identity claims aggregation. He committed to making this a priority before the next meeting.

Eric mentioned the possibility of conducting a workshop at the Internet Identity Workshop (IIW) to gather feedback and improve the explanatory text for identity claims aggregation.

ACTION: Eric to prepare more examples and explanatory text ahead of IIW and to call a session describing the ICA model there.

Review issue #53: Explore questions of anonymized credentials and how they might be expressed in the standard

🎥 41'38": Discussed issue #53: Explore questions of anonymized credentials and how they might be expressed in the standard.

No clear consensus on a use case for anonymized credentials in the identity claims aggregation model.

ACTION (✅): Eric to move issue 53 to post-1.1 milestone.

Review issue #171: Recommend (require?) use of bitstring status lists for revocation?

🎥 41'38": Discussed #171: Recommend (require?) use of bitstring status lists for revocation?.

Need for Revocation: Eric discussed the need for a mechanism to signal the invalidation of claims issued by an identity claims aggregator.

Claim Retraction: Scott emphasized the importance of having a clear path for claim retraction. He suggested exploring best practices for revocation mechanisms to ensure that claims can be invalidated when necessary. Revocation mechanisms are a moving target.

ACTION: Eric to review current revocation mechanisms and draft a PR describing at least one preferred revocation mechanism.

Open discussion: What questions to ask at IIW?

🎥 41'38": Next week is Internet Identity Workshop.

Eric, Neil, and Pam will be attending.

ACTION: Eric to call sessions on:

  • Explaining the identity claims aggregation model

  • (Joint presentation with Wenjing Chu of Trust Over IP) Explaining the conceptual overlap and differences between C2PA+CAWG and ToIP’s Trust Spanning Protocol