-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 91
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Merge pull request #30 from iotaledger/(upcoming)-meeting/2020-09-09
meeting/2020-09-09)
- Loading branch information
Showing
3 changed files
with
68 additions
and
5 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ | ||
# 🗓️ Team Identity Meeting Notes - 2020-09-09 | ||
|
||
## 👥 Participants | ||
- @Thoralf-M | ||
- @nothingismagick | ||
- @tensor-programming | ||
- @JelleMillenaar | ||
- @l1h3r | ||
|
||
## 💬 Discussion topics | ||
- Standup | ||
- Fragment Name Uniqueness | ||
- Working Group participation | ||
- LD Proof Scope: Merkle Tree | ||
- Questions | ||
- Account required data and module implementation | ||
|
||
### Standup | ||
|
||
#### What was last week's progress on your project? | ||
- Worked on a library for handling LD Proofs and credential verfication (PR open). Looked at DIDcomm | ||
- Worked on the Proc macro for the Diff library - almost finished. | ||
- Dereferencing part for the resolver + resolver itself | ||
- Started writing the MethodSpec for W3C. Researched DIDcomm enviroment. Looking at DID Auth + NOISE. | ||
- Discovered existing DIDComm Spec and add facts to presentation. | ||
|
||
|
||
#### What will be the project's focus this week? | ||
- Continue with the resolver- | ||
- finish debugging the proc macro and move on to the account module. | ||
- Continue MethodSpec. Kickstart P2P Comms Layer. | ||
- Add some `jsonwebtoken`-based signature suites and look at SIOP DID- | ||
- Start to write DIDComm as Spec and in Code for experimental purposes- | ||
|
||
### Fragment Name Uniqueness | ||
Question: Do we check for name uniqueness and throw an error? | ||
([issue here](https://github.com/iotaledger/identity.rs/issues/29)) | ||
- Figure out when a fragment reference is legal | ||
- Add a function to check if all fragments are unique | ||
- Execute function when adding a new object to a DID Document | ||
- Leave additional checks up to the implementer (Call the function manually) | ||
|
||
### Questions | ||
Q: Can our current Proof implementation handle extra logic such as putting the data through a merkle tree? | ||
A: Yes | ||
|
||
Q: Can we run our signature logic within Stronghold? | ||
A: Most likely without too much hassle. |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters