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

federated data vaults

On Thu, Oct 8, 2020, at 10:09 AM, MXS Insights wrote:
> 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
>> 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
>>