Re: Status Update on Multiformats at IETF

Not that is is a lot of help…but I will be at IETF 117 (my first IETF meeting I was planning to go to the March 2020 one and welp we were in a pandemic.)

I am happy to add my voice in any way that is helpful.
 Also I’m curious who else will be there.

- Kaliya 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 2, 2023, at 8:39 PM, Shigeya Suzuki <shigeya@wide.ad.jp> wrote:
> 
> Hi Manu, Orie,
> 
> I will be at IETF 117, so I will help coordinate with other members (who will come?) to talk with ADs.
> 
> shigeya
> 
>> On Sun, Jul 2, 2023, at 20:44, Manu Sporny wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 6:30 PM Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries> wrote:
>>> How are we ensuring that the work at IETF will be stable enough for the W3C to continue to reference.
>> 
>> The current usage of multibase and multicodec in the Data Integrity
>> specifications is quite small. Specifically, we use two multibase
>> prefixes "z" and "u", and a handful of multicodec entries for ECDSA
>> and Ed25519 public keys. We currently state those values explicitly in
>> the specifications and that is all we need in order for the
>> specifications to be implementable.
>> 
>> To put it another way, we don't have a blocking dependency on the
>> Multiformats work progressing at IETF on the same timeline that VCWG
>> is on. This has always been the case. Yes, it would be nice if the
>> IETF work was ready for us to reference in the VCWG work, but that is
>> not going to block the VCWG from being able to get to REC w/ our
>> specifications.
>> 
>> At present, we're going through all the feedback that we got at IETF
>> 116 and responding to commenters on the IETF Multiformats mailing
>> list. We are then cleared, per the discussion at IETF 116, to spin up
>> a quick WG to publish the Multibase and Multihash specifications and
>> establish the registries at IETF.
>> 
>> If folks want to help in that process, having a chat with Murray (or
>> other ADs that were involved in the discussion at IETF 116) during the
>> upcoming IETF on what processes are needed to spin the WG up is what's
>> needed next. NOTE: It was already approved to go to a WG at the last
>> dispatch and there was talk of a "fast process" to get it set up if
>> the community wanted it (which it seems to want to do), so the next
>> step is to find out exactly what this "fast process" is, get that
>> kicked off, and get the WG operational.
>> 
>> -- manu
>> 
>> -- 
>> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
> 

Received on Monday, 3 July 2023 03:45:50 UTC