Re: Reminder and Agenda for Secure Data Storage WG Call Oct 8

How about Encrypted Freeholds?

> On Oct 8, 2020, at 3:25 AM, Kaliya IDwoman <kaliya-id@identitywoman.net> wrote:
> 
> 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 <https://hackmd.io/4lwz17bERpmVs8J8Vbjjww>
> Meeting link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84828031746?pwd=V0xGTnJ2Zm15RHlSRFpNTlRPQzdLUT09 <https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84828031746?pwd=V0xGTnJ2Zm15RHlSRFpNTlRPQzdLUT09>
> 
> Specification: https://identity.foundation/secure-data-store/ <https://identity.foundation/secure-data-store/>
> Specification repository: https://github.com/decentralized-identity/secure-data-store <https://github.com/decentralized-identity/secure-data-store>
> 
> Audio recordings and transcripts of previous meetings: https://dif.groups.io/g/sds-wg/wiki/19633 <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 <https://dif.groups.io/g/sds-wg/wiki/Home>
> 
> Secure Data Storage WG Agenda
> 
> IPR Reminder
> Introductions and Re-Introductions
> Authorization data model discussion
> 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