🚀

Voyager Identity #13

Last Edited Time
Jun 13, 2022
Created time
Jun 3, 2022
Participants
Created By
Type
Identity WG
Created
Jun 3, 2022
Zoom Recording
Property
Property 1
 
Attendees
  1. Cent, Josh, Yash Gadhade, Mendez, James Brennan
Resources
Meeting Primer
🚀
Voyager Identity #5 Meeting Summary
Meeting Minutes
JT: Shop the proposal to some people. M: What is stopping us from bringing this to people? JT: The schema is basically there, and the Issuer URI is there. JT: How could we write a user story that involves SBT or a more on-chain asset M: We don't want this to be an on-chain thing. We just want people to match the attestation JT: Am going to keep slimming the spec JT: Redefining terms and making more generic JT: Will then post it M: The use cases for DisCo, PLeasure, etc needs to be better formated. I also think we will get pushback because we don't define what an attestation is. IF you are creating a common end-point, it makes sense that there are attestations for all of those, but we don't tackle this question. JT: The issuer URI is an attestaion type M: We don't have an attestation framework JT: The idea is that everyone publishes data. When you publish a data, you should say that this is the person making an attestation. It is a provinance question.
 
Remainder of session was working session revising proposal standard.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
🚀

Voyager Identity #13

Last Edited Time
Jun 13, 2022
Created time
Jun 3, 2022
Participants
Created By
Type
Identity WG
Created
Jun 3, 2022
Zoom Recording
Property
Property 1
 
Attendees
  1. Cent, Josh, Yash Gadhade, Mendez, James Brennan
Resources
Meeting Primer
🚀
Voyager Identity #5 Meeting Summary
Meeting Minutes
JT: Shop the proposal to some people. M: What is stopping us from bringing this to people? JT: The schema is basically there, and the Issuer URI is there. JT: How could we write a user story that involves SBT or a more on-chain asset M: We don't want this to be an on-chain thing. We just want people to match the attestation JT: Am going to keep slimming the spec JT: Redefining terms and making more generic JT: Will then post it M: The use cases for DisCo, PLeasure, etc needs to be better formated. I also think we will get pushback because we don't define what an attestation is. IF you are creating a common end-point, it makes sense that there are attestations for all of those, but we don't tackle this question. JT: The issuer URI is an attestaion type M: We don't have an attestation framework JT: The idea is that everyone publishes data. When you publish a data, you should say that this is the person making an attestation. It is a provinance question.
 
Remainder of session was working session revising proposal standard.