Skip to main content

Meeting 2026-04-30 1657 AEST

UN CEFACT GTR Project - AUS / EU​

Apr 30, 2026

Attendees​

  • Alina
  • Sankarshan
  • Jo
  • John

Summary​

The team aligned on glossary updates and addressed pending technical backlog items with defined project timelines.

Glossary and Merge Strategy
The team agreed to merge the existing digital identity anchor definition while tracking additional feedback in a new issue. This approach maintains progress while ensuring all refinements are addressed.

Technical Backlog and Strategy
Participants classified complex technical protocol issues as slow burners, prioritizing current architecture over theoretical additions. New features will only be integrated when they offer proven value.

Pilot Planning and Refinement
The team finalized plans for the Spanish Registradores pilot and discussed removing ambiguous terminology from the glossary. Efforts are scheduled to ensure completion before the summer holiday period.

Decisions​

ALIGNED​

  • Digital identity anchor merge process The team will proceed with the current merge request for the digital identity anchor definition, while creating a separate issue to track and evaluate Hans's alternative proposal.

  • Public review period initiation strategy The project documentation will enter a 60-day public review period once the team confirms collective readiness.

  • Non-urgent issue backlog management Non-urgent, research-oriented issues will be moved to a technical backlog rather than being closed, preserving them for potential future reference.

Next steps​

  • [Alina Nica Gales] Approve Merge: Approve pending merge request for digital identity anchor glossary definition. Complete approval this afternoon around 6:00 her time.

  • [John Phillips] Handle Document: Process the 1-page document received from Hans over the next few days.

  • [Jo Spencer] Input TRQP: Add third party view thoughts to the Trust Registry Query Protocol issue.

  • [John Phillips] Label Issues: Update status of technical backlog issues to non-active for future consideration.

  • [John Phillips] Create Issue: Raise a new issue using Hans comments and suggested glossary changes.

Details​

  • Initial Discussion on Selective Disclosure JSON Web Token (SD-JWT) Technology: The meeting opened with a discussion regarding a question raised by Steve Capel about the value of Selective Disclosure JSON Web Token (SD-JWT) technology within UNP specifications, noting that it is used in IDAS large-scale pilots. Steve posted this issue on LinkedIn and sent it via email, questioning its potential use in supply chain transparency. Participants then agreed to bring the meeting to order and proceed with the agenda [00:00:54].

  • Review of Current Merge Request for Glossary Update: The agenda followed a pattern of reviewing previous activities and checking the issue log [00:01:52]. The team had one open merge request to incorporate Alina Nica Gales's definition of the "digital identity anchor" into the glossary. This merge request was deemed an improvement as it concisely replaced four lines of text with three [00:02:26].

  • Consideration of Hans's Suggested Definition Changes: John Phillips noted that Brett Highland approved the proposed definition by saying, "I can live with this," and suggested merging it. However, Alina Nica Gales mentioned receiving a separate document with a proposal from Hans regarding the definition, though Hans had not posted it in the issue log as requested [00:03:30].

  • Decision on Merging and Tracking Further Changes: Sankarshan suggested merging the current definition to maintain progress and then creating a new issue to track Hans’s suggestions [00:04:27]. John Phillips agreed that they should merge the current updated definition for the glossary part and promised that they would review Hans's input afterward, ensuring the proposed changes are not ignored [00:05:25].

  • Execution Plan for Merge and Auto-Merge Setting: John Phillips offered to set the merge request to auto-merge once Alina Nica Gales approved it, as they were not logged into the GitLab environment at the moment. Alina Nica Gales confirmed they could approve the merge request later in the afternoon, around 6:00 their time, noting that the merge only involved changing one paragraph in the glossary [00:06:13].

  • Discussion on Hans's Use of Communication Channels: While sharing the one-page document received from Hans, Alina Nica Gales noted that Hans should have posted comments directly on the platform rather than sending documents via email. Sankarshan expressed concern that the UN GitLab environment might be difficult to use, causing Hans to share documents externally, though John Phillips confirmed Hans had the developer access rights needed to raise issues and comments [00:07:05] [00:09:30].

  • Refining the Merge Strategy for Hans's Feedback: Sankarshan reiterated the suggestion to merge the existing definition and then use Hans’s suggested changes—which update the current proposed new version—as the basis for tracking subsequent discussion and changes [00:09:30]. John Phillips noted that adopting the current merge first would create a clearer starting point for tracking differences between the versions [00:11:00].

  • Debate on the Term "Trust Wrapper": Jo Spencer questioned the use of the term "trust wrapper" in the definition, noting that they were unsure what it meant and suggested that if it is used, it should be defined in the glossary [00:11:00] [00:13:51]. Alina Nica Gales explained that the phrase was likely used to avoid the word "identifier" since European countries were hesitant about creating a new identifier [00:11:58].

  • Planning for the Public Review Period: John Phillips shifted the focus to the public review period, explaining that the declaration would initiate a 60-day period during which people could review and comment on the written content. The content is considered ready for review but not finished, as changes can still be made based on feedback received during the period [00:14:37].

  • Handling Open Technical Issues: TRQP and EAB/SD-JWT: Regarding open issues, John Phillips indicated that the Digital Identity Anchor issue would be automatically closed upon merge, as Sankarshan advised. Two other issues—one concerning the Trust Registry Query Protocol (TRQP) and another about integrating technologies like SD-JWT—were classified as "slow burners" [00:16:36] [00:19:57]. Jo Spencer felt that the current approach was simpler than adopting TRQP [00:17:34].

  • Strategy for Managing Future Technical Issues: Sankarshan argued that many technical issues arising are driven by theoretical needs not yet encountered in real-life systems, suggesting the focus should remain on current architecture until a system is available [00:20:52]. John Phillips agreed, noting that the group should only bring in new features when they demonstrably add value and that issues concerning TRQP and other potential additions should be labeled for the technical backlog rather than remaining active [00:21:48] [00:23:53].

  • Update on Spanish Registradores and Pilot Participation: Alina Nica Gales provided an update on securing active participation from the Spanish team, noting that a meeting with the board of their association (Colleion/Hoardio) is scheduled for Tuesday of next week [00:24:55]. A two-page summary of the cost-benefit analysis for participating in the pilot is being prepared for submission to the board on Monday [00:25:57].

  • Establishing a Timeline for Pilot Activity: The team aims to establish a working team and start the project quickly after the Tuesday meeting, ideally having the first rounds of the pilot finished well before the plenary in November [00:27:03]. Given that most of Europe takes July and August for holidays, the project would need to be substantially complete by early July to avoid delays [00:29:01].

  • Further Discussion on the Glossary Definition Refinement: Alina Nica Gales confirmed the plan to approve the current merge, and then open a new issue to discuss the definition concept further, particularly concerning Hans’s feedback [00:30:00]. The discussion returned to the term "trust wrapper," which Jo Spencer reiterated should be defined if used, or removed if unnecessary [00:31:43].

  • Proposal to Remove "Trust Wrapper" from the Definition: John Phillips suggested removing the phrase "and functions as a trust wrapper" from Hans's proposed text in the new issue to avoid introducing an undefined term [00:31:43]. This removal would still leave a definition that binds a legally recognized identifier to a decentralized identifier and explicitly states that the Digital Identity Anchor (DIA) does not constitute a new legal identifier, addressing the critical no-new-identifier message [00:32:35].

  • Concerns Raised about the Term "Binds": Jo Spencer raised concerns about the strength and potential implications of the word "binds," suggesting alternatives like "associates" or "links" due to the specific meaning "binds" holds in this technical space [00:33:25]. Alina Nica Gales agreed that "links" or "cryptographically links" could be similar [00:34:23].

  • Defending the Use of "Binds" and Clarifying the Merge Path: John Phillips argued that they preferred "binds" for its strength, implying a strong, cryptographic coupling, which aligns with the tamper-evident nature of the credentials [00:35:18]. Sankarshan clarified that since the term "binds" is already present in the definition pending the merge, they must merge the current version first and then address all contentious terms like "binds" and "trust wrapper" in a subsequent issue [00:36:08].

  • Clarification on Uniqueness and DID Association: The discussion concluded with a clarification on the one-to-one relationship between a DID and a Digital Identity Anchor (DIA), as the text uses "a decentralized identifier," implying a single entity. The decision to maintain a simple, one-DID-per-DIA structure was made previously to avoid complexity and prevent creating an unintended statement of equality among different DIDs [00:38:31].

  • Final Steps and Agreement on Future Work: The path forward was confirmed: approve the current merge request, open a new issue to address the definition concept using Hans's input, and then prepare for the Spanish Registradores meeting. It was agreed that future merges could be executed asynchronously outside of meetings, provided they receive the necessary online review and approval [00:40:07].

Chat​

00:40:36.776,00:40:39.776

John Phillips: https://opensource.unicc.org/un/unece/uncefact/gtr/-/issues/52

00:55:15.301,00:55:18.301

Hans J. Huber: hans.huber@verifiable.trade