Re: Reminder and Agenda for Confidential Storage Spec Call - Dec 3, 2020

So, to be slightly more detailed/pedantic, the evolution was more like:

"Trusted Trade Server" >> the SVIP program / proof of concept that used
that name generated interest and momentum in this. (I'm not sure where the
Trusted Trade Server name came from, I wasn't involved then.)

Then there was the Encrypted Data Vault draft spec (informed by the
experience with the Trusted Trade Server tech). Last year, it was proposed
to the W3C CCG as a work item. This stirred a lot of discussion and
questions, starting with things like "how do EDVs relate to project X over
here...".
It was clear that multiple groups working on similar tech were interested
in the concept of encrypted / secure storage, including DIF's Identity Hub
project (also some interest from Hyperledger Aries, Solid Project, etc).

So right around that same time, the Encrypted Data Vaults paper
<https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot9-prague/blob/master/draft-documents/encrypted-data-vaults.md>
came out (at the Rebooting the Web of Trust 9 conference in Prague), which
attempted to clarify what Encrypted Data Vaults were, and how they related
to other projects in this space (including Identity Hub).

Further discussion made it clear that a lot of this work is related, and
complementary (for example, Identity Hub could use Encrypted Data Vaults as
a low-level storage spec). And after a lot of *titanic* effort and
negotiation, several communities came to form the Secure Data Storage WG at
DIF (as a joint item with the W3C CCG). (There was a bit of time pressure
to come up with the name for the group and the spec, and 'Secure Data
Storage' was the best we could come up with at the time.)

The important detail here is - "Secure Data Storage" was an umbrella term
(for the spec and the working group) which included in it the Encrypted
Data Vault spec and the Identity Hub spec.

Fast forward to now. As the working group went on (and mentioned this work
to other communities), a consistent piece of feedback that we encountered
was... the fact that "secure" storage was too *generic* of a term. All
companies and storage provider (from the most random web hosting company to
Dropbox to Google Drive etc) rightly consider their storage, well.. secure.
It was turning out that the 'Secure Data Storage' name was not working.

Hence the project to rename it. (Very reluctantly rename it, mind you.) And
'Confidential Storage' is the name that got the most consensus.

And again, it doesn't *replace* Encrypted Data Vaults or Identity Hubs.
It's just the general umbrella term for those specs and related tech.

Does that make more sense?

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 12:51 PM John, Anil <anil.john@hq.dhs.gov> wrote:

> Just so I can trace the evolution of the naming here …
>
>
>
> Trusted Trade Server  >> Encrypted Data Vault >> Secure Data Storage >> to
> …. “Confidential Storage”? :-)
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Anil
>
>
>
> Anil John
>
> Technical Director, Silicon Valley Innovation Program
>
> Science and Technology Directorate
>
> US Department of Homeland Security
>
> Washington, DC, USA
>
>
>
> Email Response Time – 24 Hours
>
>
>
> [image: https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/svip]
>
>
>
>
>