Reminder and Agenda for Secure Data Storage WG Call Oct 8

Hello everyone,

This is a reminder that the DIF / CCG Secure Data Storage Working group
weekly call will be happening on Thursday at 4pm Eastern / 1pm Pacific /
22:00 CEST.

Agenda link: https://hackmd.io/4lwz17bERpmVs8J8Vbjjww
Meeting link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84828031746?pwd=V0xGTnJ2Zm15RHlSRFpNTlRPQzdLUT09

Specification: https://identity.foundation/secure-data-store/
Specification repository:
https://github.com/decentralized-identity/secure-data-store

Audio recordings and transcripts of previous meetings:
https://dif.groups.io/g/sds-wg/wiki/19633

As always, the IPR policy requires that you can only make substantive
contributions if you sign the IPR Release Form. Please follow the
instructions at https://dif.groups.io/g/sds-wg/wiki/Home

*Secure Data Storage WG Agenda*


   1. IPR Reminder
   2. Introductions and Re-Introductions
   3. Authorization data model discussion
   4. Last 15 mins: WG and Spec Naming Discussion!
      - We are are here ->>> Week 2) Debating "hard no"s/deal breaker names,
      Next week Week 3) Community ranked-choice voting
      - To start us off: see the last several comments on issue #35
      <https://github.com/decentralized-identity/secure-data-store/issues/35>

Exploratory Names
 Comment

Exploratory properties of good name choices:

   - Short
   - No collisions
   - Should not snark/pun on existing similar solutions (like Solid Pods,
   for example)
   - Should not make people think “This already exists; Google Drive /
   Dropbox”
      - bengo: e.g. “encrypted”? +1 – manu
   - Should not suggest that this is more secure or decentralized than it
   really is.
      - bengo: As CCG has discussed, there are many definitions of
      ‘decentralized’, and there is usually a better choice of words.
      - bengo: Im new to the spec, but I was under the impression it would
      be possible to implement SDS in a very traditional/centralized
      architecture, while also enabling some new ones.

Exploratory properties of names that may not be important:

   - globally unique
   - resolvable
   - works with posix tools for resolving names. A valid name could be
   ‘enrypted.data’, whois encrypted.data
   - name is syntax-compatible with other standards
   - decision reached via Formal Consensus
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_consensus>
      - bengo: I believe it’s probably possible to make this decision via this
      protocol
      <https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/c-t-butler-and-amy-rothstein-on-conflict-and-consensus-a-handbook-on-formal-consensus-decisionm>,
      but not desirable if fielding concerns takes more than x weeks (x=4?).
      Mitigation: if consensus takes longer than y weeks, group could vote on a
      resolution to bound the debate to z weeks.


*Lower-level, storage-focused names:*
* Decentralized Encrypted Storage
* Decentralized Encrypted Vault
* Secure Data Vault
* Encrypted Storage Vault
* Vault Data Store
* Decentralized Data Vault
* Decentralized Vault Store
* Secure Data Share
* Encrypted Data Vault
* Secure Resource Server
* Ookie Pookie-
* Pubsubhubbub hubs
* Encrypted fiefdoms


*All-inclusive, app-focused names:*
* Dapp Hub
* App Mesh
* Dapp Mesh
* Decentralize App Hub
* Distributed Data Hub
* Encrypted Data Mesh
* Encrypted Storage Mesh
* User Space
* Encrypted fiefdoms