This meeting uses UnSync conventions and takes place on our Discord channel; transcript of actual meeting chat published here. [ charter | meeting archive | schedule ]
Nothing fancy needed; just a wave. This helps us tell whether we have a quorum, interpret silence, hold people accountable, and know who we're collaborating with.
- IIW XXXIV is coming up, April 26-28 in California. It is NOT remote.
- Yesterday, I (Daniel) gave DIDComm v2 webinar to the CCG. In case you are interested, slides are here: https://bit.ly/3qTuG9m
- Sam Curren has been talking about a really interesting new metaphor to explain the relationship between DIDComm and other internet activities/protocols that may or may not be DIDComm-based. Drummond has described DIDs as "the missing trust layer for the Internet"; Sam is now describing DIDComm as "the control channel for the Internet." @Sam: could you please add a link to the slides that you presented on this topic, so our user's group can all reference them and amplify the message?
-
@Will Abramson and @Brian Richter: can you summarize what happened with the didcomm.org issue about wildcard routes?
-
@Snorre: hope you had a wonderful wedding, and we're not expecting that you did much about DIDComm lately. But I'm just keeping alive your action item to write about the question you raised (when might it be appropriate to send plaintext messages).
-
@Lance Byrd: Thanks for socializing us in a few venues lately. Any update on work you and @Rodolfo are doing on getting started?Snorre: did you add our UG meeting announcement to the agenda of the next DIF Interop WG?
-
@Brian Richter: Any updates on work on the protocols section?
-
@John Jordan (BC Gov) volunteers to schedule a slot for a blog post at TOIP. Status?
Sam Curren has raised a PR against didcomm.org, wanting to check in an update to the JSON-LD context that should be referenced by anyone who wants to combine JSON-LD with DIDComm. He said on the DIDComm WG call on Monday that he isn't fully confident that he got all the details right, so he would love to have someone with additional JSON-LD fu review it.
Proposed closure: read the PR and leave your comments on GitHub. We want to merge at the end of our UnSync unless we get dissonance.
The current TOC for the DIDComm book has broken hyperlinks; the hyperlinks go to "threading.md", "pfs.md", etc. Here's a PR that fixes that: decentralized-identity/didcomm.org#34. Please have a look and give feedback.
Proposed closure: read the PR and leave your comments on GitHub. We want to merge at the end of our UnSync unless we get dissonance.
Technically, this is not a User Group item, because it's about the Spec -- which this UG doesn't own. But I'm sharing it in this form because the groups overlap a bit.
Before IIW, the DIDComm WG has a goal to get its spec to the "Working Group Approved" status. To get there, several "TODO" items in the spec have to be resolved. If you have bandwidth, I am sure the WG would appreciate your work with them, over in the spec repo (under JDF IP management) to get PRs for these last few items. To find and claim an item, just pull up the spec and search for "TODO".
Proposed closure: Visit each PR and vote in favor of either zero or one of them (and against what you don't like). Vote closes in 3 days.
The title of this item actually conflates two topics that overlap. That's me, attempting to be clever. :-) @Steve McCown raised one of them in our last meeting: the fact that the EU may be mandating interoperability between rich chat applications like Discord, Slack, WhatsApp, Signal, and so forth. He pointed out (rightly, I think) that this could represent an opportunity for us to showcase DIDComm's virtues, because DIDComm could be a bridge. At the end of the meeting, the thread on that subtopic was still alive.
The second, related topic, is what it would take to implement rich chat on top of DIDComm. It's related because if we want DIDComm to act as a bridge, it needs to be capable of carrying all the info that these other apps currently carry; we need a mapping. I think it can, but we haven't developed the idea very deeply yet. (I heard rumors that you were working on this, @Steve M. Is this something you're willing to publicly admit? :-) I know some other people have been working on this as well (don't remember who). I did a little work on it also. I had a slide deck on the topic, but I can't find it now. Getting senile..., and
Anyway, I'd like to continue the discussion on this, during the UnSync -- so I will open a thread on it and we can discuss more if anybody else is interested.
Proposed closure: discuss on thread.
In this meeting, I'm going to post each agenda item as a separate thread, as previously suggested by others. Did you like that better than other approaches? How could we improve?
Proposed closure: Please leave your ideas in chat.