►
From YouTube: IPFS & Standards - W3C, IETF, DIF and the Road to Mass Adoption - Dietrich Ayala - Project & Communy
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
I'm
going
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
our
participation
in
existing
standards
bodies
and
how
we
take
our
technologies
to
the
point
where
it
can
be
interoperably
implemented
across
different
implementations,
but
in
a
verifiable
way,
maybe
with
some
more
friends
than
we
have
today.
Kind
of,
like,
like
lydle,
said,
being
a
healthy
and
friendly
and
open
community
bring
more
friends.
A
So
you've
probably
seen
this
slide,
and
this
is
kind
of
like
mapping
out
the
work
that
we've
done
across
a
bunch
of
different
areas
with
a
bunch
of
browser,
vendors
and
like
I
just.
I
want
to
be
really
clear
that
this
is
not
standards.
Work
that
is
work
that
we're
doing
building
relationships
with
organizations.
We're
writing
code,
we're
shipping
code,
we're
asking
other
people
to
take
our
code
and
put
it
in
their
code,
or
at
least
close
to
it,
and
and
bundle
it.
A
And
it's
like
it's
a
it's
a
lot
of
duct
tape
and
a
lot
of
I
like,
sadly
like
back
channel
negotiations,
like
not
public
conversations
to
be
able
to
gain
some
ground
here
and
that's
really
really
challenging.
We
don't
really
have
standards
yet,
then
I
also
want
to
step
back
a
little
bit
and
ask
like
what
does
that
mean
like
what
does
it
mean
to
have
to
have
a
standard?
And
where
does
this
work
kind
of
happen?
A
Today
and
really
briefly,
you
know
there
are
a
set
of
standards
organizations
that
of
like
our
area
of
development,
internet
development.
You
know
hyper
media
protocols
could
could
be
involved
in
and
some
of
these
you
might
know
the
w3c
or
the
itf
decentralized
identity
foundation.
We
cross
paths
with
pretty
regularly,
and
then
we
don't
have
an
identity
built
to
our
protocols.
A
The
web
platform
and
http
has
been
so
successful
is
because
so
many
groups
have
implemented
these
protocols
in
ways
and
have
tested
this
product.
Let's,
like
the
interoperability,
there's
something
called
the
wpt
and
in
the
last
talk
we
were
talking
a
little
bit
about
like
what
our
testing
frameworks,
where
who's
done.
This
well
web
platform
tests
as
a
platform
for
building
tests
for
the
web.
That
is
something
that
basically
didn't
exist
until
2015
16,
maybe,
and
some
things
nobody
said-
was
possible.
There's
no
way
you
can
build
a
test
framework
for
the
web.
A
A
How
are
you
going
to
test
that
well
and
think
about
all
the
web
content
going
back
to
like
1996
right,
like
all
that
stuff
still
has
to
work,
and
this
this
guy
robin
was
like?
Well,
I'm
just
going
to
make
a
format
and
throw
it
out
there
for
people
to
shoot
it
down.
What
happened
is
people
were
like
god,
they
needed
to
change
that
and
they
went
and
they
did
right.
So
I
think
there's
prior
for
some
of
the
stuff
stuff
happening.
But
aside,
like
you
know,
these
are
membership
organizations.
A
Sometimes
the
ietf
is
oddly,
not
a
membership
organization.
Anybody
can
show
up
and
participate.
It
just
costs
500
to
join
their
three
annual
conferences,
but
anybody
can
participate
in
the
list
w3c.
You
have
to
actually
pay
to
be
a
member
of
and
there's
different
levels
and
sliding
scale
things
like
this.
But
generally
these
are
groups
of
people
who
are
kind
of
aligned
around
a
shared
outcome.
They
want
their
technologies
to
work
together
and
that's
why
they
do
this.
Some
myths
to
break
standards
making
is
slow
all
right
like
it.
A
It
really
can
be
very,
very
slow,
but
it
also
can
be
really
fast
and
I'll.
Show
you
an
example
of
that
another
myth-
and
we,
you
know,
talked
about
this
a
little
bit
in
the
last
talk
too,
which
is
a
standardist,
not
necessarily
a
document
according
to
the
w3ca
standard
is
when
there
are
more
than
one
implementation
of
a
technology,
and
maybe
they
work
together.
A
But
out
of
that,
you
know
aligned
interests
of
multiple
people
that
want
to
see
the
same
thing
exist
and
haven't
worked
together.
You
can
eventually
converge
on
a
standard
and
a
document
may
emit
from
that
process,
but
not
required
not
necessarily
another
one
is
that
businesses
pay
to
play
and
I
think,
there's
a
lot
of
different
like
industry,
consortiums
and
standards
bodies,
and
many
many
like
tens
of
thousands
of
these
types
of
organizations
and
we're
really
just
talking
about
a
few,
but
in
the
few
that
we
do
participate
in.
A
That's
not
really
how
it
works
like
it's.
It's
pretty
tough
to
actually
like,
so
I'm
going
to
talk
about
work,
we've
done
with
the
galia
and
in
one
of
the
opening
conversations
that
I
had
with
them.
When
I
was
like
hey,
we
would
love
you
for
you
to
fix
some
things
in
different
web,
rendering
engines
for
us
where
things
aren't
working
right
and
it's
preventing
that's
a
barrier
for
our
developers
succeeding.
They
were
like.
A
We
cannot
accept
money
to
put
ipfs
and
browsers
for
you,
that's
not
gonna,
and
I
was
like.
Oh
no.
I
know
how
this
right
so
we
like-
and
we
had
that
moment,
though,
where
they
were
like.
Are
you
the
crazy
crypto
people
coming
here
to
ask
us
to
add
your
blockchain
to
the
web
and
well
turns
out
we're
not
and
there's
a
lot
of
stuff
that
we
have
to
do
to
get
there
but
like
that
was
that
was
their
their
defensive
stance
right
like
no?
A
This
was
not
how
this
works,
so
it
really
is
hard
sometimes
to
make
things
happen.
This
is
another
myth,
and
you
know
going
back
to
that
first
slide
with
all
the
browsers
and
how
we
are
not
standardizing
our
stuff
yeah
we're
working
with
people
to
implement.
I
think
there's
in
web
3
and
crypto
generally
in
blockchain,
world
and
nfts,
like
people,
are
rushing
forward
with
new
innovations,
new
developments
and
thinking
about
ways
we
can
actually
you
know,
result
have
end
user
needs
met
in
different
ways
that
don't
go
through.
A
A
I
say
that
my
company
rejects
the
idea
of
you
talking
about
this
as
the
w3c,
not
community
groups,
but
for
for
full
working
groups
like
there's
a
process
where
you
as
a
member
can
say.
I
object
to
a
full
working
group
performing
around
to
discuss
a
topic
or
a
statement.
So
being
present
is
a
really
key
part
of
succeeding
there.
So
this
is
a
diagram
that
I
made
that
kind
of
shows
the
lifetime
of
css
grid.
You
know
layout
on
the
web,
sucked
for
about
20
years
before
we
got
to
this
point.
A
It
was
around
for
a
long
time
before
it
actually
kind
of
built
some
momentum
and
that
momentum
came
from
bloomberg
bloomberg.
A
massive
publisher
was
like
it's
really
hard
for
us
to
do
business
on
the
web,
because
we
can't
lay
things
out
the
way
we
need
to
to
be
able
to
meet
our
users
needs,
so
they
hired
some
other
groups
to
implement
css
grid
and
start
working
with
the
browser,
vendors
and
eventually
the
browser
vendors
are
like
yeah.
A
It's
pretty
pretty
good
idea
and
then
some
of
those
devrels
got
on
board
right
and
then
what
happened
is
is
within
a
very
short
period
of
time,
web
scale.
Of
course,
this
technology
was
enabled
unprefixed
in
all
of
the
major
browsers
in
and
immediately
the
adoption
of
this
technology
went
through
the
roof.
It
was
yes,
there's
lots
of
swearing
emitted,
probably
from
that
diagram,
but
this
is
an
idea
that
if
we
take
these
ideas
and
think
and
apply
these
to
how
we
develop
our
technologies,
where
we
engage
in
these
fora,
we
work
together.
A
We
coordinate
in
order
to
increase
the
speed
at
which
we
can
have
our
technologies
adopted.
There's
some
models
for
this
happening,
so
I
do
call
bs
on
the
idea
that
we
can
skip
standards
development.
I
think
you
know
a
lot
of
the
conversations
this
week
have
been
around
the
idea
that
if
our
things
aren't
working
together,
it
just
makes
it
harder
for
everybody
and
that's
a
that's
like
some
casual
language,
saying
specifications,
interoperability,
testing
and
standards
development.
A
So,
but
one
of
the
things
we're
facing,
especially
with
our
stack,
is
the
really
simplified
model
of
how
the
internet
works
today,
which
is
like
well,
it's
http,
you
make
a
request.
Did
you
get
a
response,
and
I
mean
if
any
of
you
have
looked
at
http,
3
or
quick?
That's
not
really
that
simple
anymore,
but
the
trust
model
still
kind
of
is,
which
is
these
key
components
you
have
https,
you
have
the
certificate
that
encodes
the
dns
name,
and
you
have
these
three
things
that
really
work
together
to
create
this.
A
You
know
very
bounded
space
of
what
is
acceptable,
and
you
know
we're
coming
out
this
with
a
little
bit
more
nuance.
We're
like
all
right.
You
could
have
two
phones
that
have
are
in
the
desert,
there's
no
connection
at
all
and
still
with
things
like
content
addressing
and
p2p,
they
can
kind
of
work.
A
So,
if
there's
entirely
different
paradigms
which
we're
evaluating
how
this
technology
like,
what
our
end
users
need
and
how
technology
can
work
but
to
the
standards,
development
folks
that
really
just
kind
of
looks
a
little
bit
like
this
they're
like
this
is
insane.
This
is
a
terrible
idea
who
came
up
with
this.
A
You
want
us
to
do
what
is
really
the
kind
of
answer
that
we
get
in.
Some
of
these
places
right
like
like
you've
got
to
be
kidding
and
you
have
to
be
there
with
a
straight
face
and
very
serious
and
very
practical
and
very
reasonably
talk
about
end
user
needs
like
the
web
is
not
meeting
end
user
needs
today.
It's
locking
out
billions
of
people.
Let's
have
that
conversation
and
here's
the
like.
How
do
we,
you
know
eating
an
elephant
in
very
small
bites?
How
can
well?
What
are
the
small
parts
of
tackling
this
right?
A
Let
me
let
me
talk
to
you
about
the
catalan
election
right
you're,
like
no
really
there's
this
place
called
turkey,
no,
not
the
food.
They
banned
wikipedia
there
over
a
hundred
thousand
women
people.
You
know
you're
in
silicon
valley
and
they're
like
well.
They
start
our
problems.
Like
I
got,
I
got
5g
I'm
looking
forward
to
6g,
it's
going
to
be
great
right,
so
it's
like
a
really
then
so,
even
when
you're
talking
about
like
the
most
critically
unserved
populations
by
not
just
the
web,
but
by
technology.
A
We're
like
no,
let's
just
change
the
firmament
of
the
internet
first
slowly
bit
by
bit
anyway
right
and
it
ends
up
in
a
culture
clash,
and
this
is
happening
in
places
like
the
w3c
today.
So
we
are
a
member
of
the
w3c
protocol
labs
is
we
have
some
folks
that
are
in
the
w3c
as
well,
that
are
friends
like
consensus
and
brave
and
a
bunch
of
other.
You
know
people
but
the
there's
a
major
formal
objection
to
the
decentralized
identity
spec
at
the
w3c.
A
Several
major
browser
vendors
objected
to
that
work
group
being
chartered
three
four
years
ago
and
then,
when
it
got
to
one
they
jumped
through
all
the
hoops
for
all
those
years.
They
finally
got
to
the
point
like
they
have.
They
actually
have
a
like
a
framework
for
for
determining
how
decentralized
something
is
because
you
know
the
people
were
like
you
can't
there's
no
such
thing
as
decentralized.
What
does
that
even
mean?
A
And
they
came
up
with
this
massive
piece
of
work
around
like
a
framework
for
actually
figuring
that
out
and
there's
a
set
of
use
cases
and
those
use
cases.
Documents
are
like
really
interesting
to
read
and
at
the
end
it
got
to
the
proposal
for
1.0
and
the
some
of
the
same
formal
objectors
of
before
said.
We
object.
We
object
that
the
wwc
should
not
approve
of
this
being
a
recommendation
and
there's
a
appeals
process
and
ultimately
was
appealed
and
accepted,
so
the
id
will
go
forward
to
be
1.0,
but
you
know
so.
A
Some
of
the
objections
like
these
are
objections
for
like
they
were
really
important
to
these
businesses.
That
objected.
They
had
very
you
know,
well
articulated
reasons
in
a
lot
of
cases,
there's
a
little
bit
of
catch-22
there,
where
one
of
the
objections
was
there's
there's
not
enough
real
implementations
of
of
did
method,
resolution
methods,
but
the
charter
that
they
originally
got
specifically
banned
them
from
doing
that.
So
they're
like
come
on
right.
A
That
kind
of
that's
where
things
maybe
go
into
politics
and
and
other
things
that
affect
these
processes,
the
itf
we
actually
do
have
some
work.
There
ben
is
working
with
a
contributor
from
the
decentralized
identity
foundation
and
open
czar
digital
bazaar,
so
many
bazaars
to
push
forward
the
multi-multi-star
set
of
technologies
at
idf.
So
hopefully
that
will
happen
sometime
this
year,
thanks
ben
for
stepping
up
and
pushing
on
some
of
that
stuff,
and
then
martin
seaman
is
also
on
the
quick
working
group
at
the
itf.
A
So
we
do
have
some
participation
in
these.
We
also
end
up
in
conversations
at
some
of
these
other,
like
standard
bodies
or
standard
body.
Adjacent
places
like
the
wicg
is
like
boris
said
earlier.
You
know
it's
a
forum
for
talking
about
new
potential,
new
technologies
and
kind
of
like
we
were
talking
about.
Where
do
you
talk
about?
Do
you
propose
an
ipip
for
ipfs
first,
or
do
you
talk
about
it
somewhere
else?
First?
A
I
wanted
to
talk
about
our
quest
to
get
ipfs
and
ips
schemes
registered,
so
you
can
use
the
register
protocol
handler
api,
both
in
web
extensions
and
browsers,
and
also
on
the
web
to
be
able
to
have
a
handler
for
those
protocols
in
browsers.
So
this
has
been
going
on
for
a
number
of
years
and
we've
partnered
with
a
golly
on
this
register.
Protocandler
is
part
of
web
standards.
Today,
all
the
browser
is
implemented,
but
you
know
you
can't.
There's
a
safely
or
an
allow
list
of
schemes.
A
Basically,
we
were
working
with
agalia
to
kind
of
go
through
jump
through
these
hoops
and
have
those
conversations
do
the
implementation.
One
of
the
first
things
that
happened
is
that
these
schemes
were
not
real
names.
There's
a
separate
body
that
approves
names
strings
that
you
can
use
in
places
like
this,
so
we
went
through
ayanna
and
registered
these
schemes
as
names.
A
First,
which
is
I
know,
and
so
you
get
to
this
point
where
we're
talking
with
browser
vendors,
about
this
right
and
and
you
really
kind
of
have
to
poke
like
at
first
generally,
there's
like
nah,
and
you
have
to
poke
and
poke
and
poke,
and
at
the
end
you
know
in
this
conversation
you
get
to
the
point
where
they're
like
oh
well.
What
would
it
take
like
what
is
like?
A
What
is
the
criteria
that
you
use
and
actually
mozilla
had
a
page
where
they
said
this
is
the
criteria
that
we
use
and
they
you
know
said
we
need
multiple,
independent,
interoperable
implementations
as
as
blessed
by
a
standards
body
so
getting
back
to
full
circle.
You
end
up
going
back
to
the
w3c
and
being
like
I'm
bfs
and
now
you're
back
at
the
conspiracy
theory
wall
again
right.
A
A
A
You
know
effect
that
it
can
have
when
we
have
these
conversations
with
people
having
a
a
spec
that
says
what
what
we
want
implementers
to
do.
I
think
I
think
vital
said
that
earlier,
which
is
like,
if
you
haven't
documented
what
things
are
the
state
of
things
today.
You
can't
talk
about
a
delta,
there's,
no
there's.
No,
there
there
and
pointing
people
towards
the
code
base
and
saying
that's.
Our
spec
is
just
not
like
that's
as
a
non-starter
for
a
conversation
point
at
a
standards
body.
A
So
if
the
w3c
or
the
itf,
these
different
spaces
or
they've
been
around
a
long
time,
they're
very
credible,
respected
it's
where
real
businesses
make
their
decisions,
if
they're
so
hostile
to
our
work.
Where
do
we
go
for
things
like
web
3's
specifications,
standard
development
conventions,
interop
testing,
all
this
kind
of
stuff.
A
We're
hiring
come
join
us.
Maybe
we
make
a
new
standards
body.
Maybe
we
have
a
lot
of
we
have
we
have
we
have
a
lot
of.
We
have
a
lot
of
friends
in
the
web
3
space.
We
have
innumerable
nft
platforms
that
are
all
having
problems
because
they're
the
assets
of
metadata
aren't
the
paths,
aren't
correct,
they're,
all
different,
that
that
data
is
formatted
formatted
differently
like
there's
like
all
these
areas
of
work,
wallets
interoperability
so
like
what
would
a
unified
wallet
event
model
look
like
across?
A
Is
that
something
that
actually
is
happening
at
w3c?
But
it's
slow
going,
there's
a
lot
of
areas
where
we
could
like
how
do
what
about
interoperable
dapps?
What
does
it
look
like
when
a
dap
that's
launched
by
ledger
live
works,
the
same
as
the
dap
that's
launched
by
metamask
in
a
browser
that
works
the
same
as
the
one
that's
launched
on
your
phone
and
maybe
someday
built
into
your
phone
operating
system?
A
You
need
a
place
where
a
lot
like
the
whole
ecosystem
can
probably
at
least
gather
and
be
productive,
as
opposed
to
being
fought
against
constantly.
So
maybe
this
will
happen.
Maybe
we
make
it
together.
Maybe
somebody
else
makes
it,
but
you
know
still
smiling
for
for
the
most
part
except
you
could
you
could
see
a
little
pain
coming
through
there,
so
thanks
leidol
for
all
the
work,
he's
done
really
a
lot
of
the
heavy
lifting
in
a
lot
of
these
relationships.
C
So
I'm
curious
what
people
think
I'm
like
do
we
need
more
involvement
and
they're,
like
you
know,
long-running
standards
bodies?
Might
there
need
to
be
another
standards
body
or
is
the
problem
like
what
we
really
need
is
a
standards
protocol
versus
like
another
institution
or
something
like
I'm,
not
so
strong-willed
about
that,
but
it's
just
like
what
do
you
think
what
like
and
I
don't
know,
did
you
ever
think
about
sort
of
similar.
A
D
Send
it
for
the
department,
a
bunch
of
humans
talking
to
humans
is
perhaps
the
bedrock
of
some
of
the
stuff.
So
we
need
that
regardless,
I
will
pitch
some
of
the
people
talking
to
each
other
things
that
are
happening.
The
chain,
agnostic,
standards,
alliance
or
casa
is
a
bunch
of
people
who
are
like.
There
are
improvement
protocols
for
many
many
different
blockchains.
D
What
if
every
one
of
those
improvement
protocols
did
not
have
to
reinvent
the
wheel,
but
they
could
actually
point
at
some
like
shared
areas
so
that
they
will
work
across
areas.
So
it's
very
much
community
driven
bottoms
bottoms
up
stuff.
It
will
likely
the
next
meeting
will
likely
happen
around
dapcon
in
berlin
in
mid-september
and
I'll
share
some
links
in
the
notes.
Around
casa,
I
will
say
in
visions,
experience
we're
members
of
the
decentralized
identity
foundation
def.
D
E
And
also
on
that
point,
because
you
know
we
were
looking,
you
know.
Where
do
we
put
ucan
right
and
I
talked
to
a
bunch
of
people
that
maintain
lots
of
specs
for
a
long
time
like
the
editor
of
the
xml
spec
and
the
person
who
invented
oauth
and,
like
you
know,
a
bunch
of
these
people
and
they
looked
at
ucan
were
like
oh
yeah?
No,
you
need
to
move
way
faster
than
what
any
of
these
is
going
to
do.
E
B
I
think
there's
an
interesting
pattern
with
erc
standards,
because
those
tokens
are
naturally
incentivized
to
attract
like
lots
of
scrutiny.
Lots
of
I
mean
lots
of
malicious
actors,
and
so
people
creating
new
erc
standards
get
them
audited.
That's
a
very
standard
part
of
the
process.
That
kind
of
implies
a
level
rigor,
that's
put
into
it,
and
then
it's
right
and-
and
you
know,
depending
on
who's
doing
the
auditing.
B
But
I
think
you
know
the
the
the
proof
is
in
the
pudding
when
they
get
released
and
then
you
know,
hackers
can
either
attack
that
contract
or
not
right
or
we
can
find
bugs
in
those
contracts
or
not,
and
it
seems
like
that
environment
has
accelerated
the
standardization
process
in
a
way
that
you
know
isn't
happening
across
the
general
web
and
maybe
there's
some.
You
know
maybe
there's
some
crystals
there
that
we
can
learn
from
it's.
It's
probably
like
moving
really
fast
on
the
working
code,
part
and
less
on
the
rough
consensus
side.
E
So
what
I
really
like
about
the
eip
process
in
ethereum
is
that
it
is
so
open
and
that
there's
like
technically
there's
gatekeeping
some
are
along
not
for
ercs,
but
for
like
the
consensus
modifying
stuff,
but
you
can
just
throw
something
up
into
the
repo
and
just
be
like
hey
merge
this.
It
gets
a
number
done
and
then
people
can
look
at
it
and
start.
You
know
complaining
in
the
forum
like
immediately.
D
It's
the
shelling
point
of
having
an
id
assigned,
and
we
just
have
to
be
super
clear,
so
there's
some
carnage
around,
because
anyone
can
do
this.
You
were
like
yeah.
I
have
erc
one
two,
three
four
and
that
will
end
up
being
a
real
thing
and,
and
that
can
sometimes
over
legitimize
people
who
are
less
informed
about
the
process
sort
of
thing.
But
it
means
you've
got
this
ultimate
short
shorthand
where
you're
like
yeah
one
two,
three
four
and
that
and
then
you
can
have
all
of
these
things
that
point
there.
D
So
it's
this
it's
very
loose,
but
it
just
ends
up
sticking
up
like
hey.
This
is
the
pivot
point
shelling
point
that
we're
going
to
talk
about.
That
is
super
super
useful
and
on
balance,
I
think
that's
the
kind
of
thing
the
other
thing
is
is
I
helped
extract
the
discussion
out
of
the
github
forum
into
the
ether
magicians
discourse
to
make
it
more
accessible
and
visible
to
people
who
will
have
input
who
are
like?
Actually,
I'm
a
minority
group
that,
whether
technically
or
otherwise
that
will
be
harmed
by
this
thing?
D
Who
otherwise
would
not
see
it
in
the
depths
of
a
technical,
only
discussion
sort
of
thing?
So
that's
that
balance
of
we
need
high
signal
to
lo
to
noise
for
technical
collaborators
who
are
like.
We
can't
constantly
be
answering
new
questions,
while
also
having
a
surface
area
to
get
input
from
end
user
needs
and
everything
else
like
that.
That
can
yeah
and
I
think
that's
a
really
really
interesting
convening
balance
to
create.
C
That
don't
want,
like
people
that
could
probably
contribute
good
ideas
and
or
like
benefit
the
ecosystem,
be
benefited
by
the
ecosystem
that,
like
just
don't,
want
to
have
a
github
account
because
maybe
they're
not
from
the
us.
Maybe
they
don't
they're
mad
at
microsoft
for
stuff.
They
did
40
years
ago,
like
that's
its
own,
bear
that's
its
own
practical
accessibility,
inclusion
barrier
for
some
smart
nice
people.
F
So
dietrich
correct
me:
if
I'm
wrong,
I'm
hearing
a
couple
of
things
there's
these
are
my
subjects,
one
participation
in
these
long
multi-year
things
as
some
of
us
who
run
smaller
startups
have
mentioned.
We
just.
We
can't
hang
with
that,
and
one
of
the
huge
advantages
of
pl
being
a
bigger
org,
more
capable
of
supporting
that
kind
of
infrastructure
feels
like
an
important
and
so
me
as
an
operator
of
one
of
the
smaller
orgs.
F
The
question
that
I'm
wondering
is:
how
do
we
support
this
multi-year
effort
from
our
position
within
the
community,
and
I
think
the
things
that
I'm
hearing
are
you've
made
two
very
explicit
requests:
a
clear,
declarative
spec
of
what
ipfs
is
to
help
disambiguate,
what
it
is
not
and
a
series
of
multiple
implementations
that
are
legitimate.
That
can
sort
of
point
to
that.
How
does
that
feel
from
us
supporting
your
multi-year
effort
perspective?
F
A
A
Now
when
it
comes
to
support
in
these
types
of
environments,
oftentimes,
what
we
go
do
is
actually
you
know
we
go
lytle
and
I
will
be
like
knocking
on
people's
doors
being
like
hey
textile.
Can
you
comment
on
this
issue
with
the?
What
wg
and
one
of
the
challenges
is
that
there's
when
it's
just
pl?
It's
not
a
lot
of
voices,
it's
just
one
voice
and
we
look
like
the
conspiracy
theory
wall,
okay
right
like
and
when
there's
a
lot
of
voices
saying
this
is
my
business.
A
This
is
how
I
use
this
technology
and
it's
a
barrier
for
me,
because
it
is
not
standardized
and
here's
what
the
barrier
looks
like
it's
effect
on
my
ability
to
do
what
I'm
going
to
do
or
whatever
right
so
that
ends
up
being
a
lot
of
part
of
the
friction
between
the
decentralized
identity
foundation.
W3C,
for
example,
is
major
players
w3c
saying
well.
A
This
is
not
really
like
legitimate
nobody's
really
using
this,
and
the
dif
has
to
be
like
actually
here's
these
76
different
businesses
that
are
all
already
shipping,
this
stuff
right
and
so
there's
some
some
disjoint
there,
and
one
of
the
easiest
ways
to
support
is
when
we
make
that
call
like
yeah
is
just
come
and
make
a
comment
say.
Like
hey
my
name's
brendan,
I
implement
ipfs.
Here's
why
here's
my
customers,
here's
my
use
cases!
Well,
you
know.
F
I
think
that's
like
to
me.
I
just
want
to
highlight.
Sometimes
we
like
does
this
work?
Should
we
improve
the
system
like
that
feels
exactly
accurate
right,
like
where's
the
bandwidth
constrained,
I
do
not
have
time
to
wander
through
wc3
halls
of
enlightenment,
zero
time
for
that.
But
if
you
pull
me
aside
and
say,
hey
examine
this,
I
I
have
separated
the
signal
from
the
noise
from
you
and
and
ideally
that's
a
call
to
all
of
us
in
the
room.
If
dietrich
sends
you
an
email
answer,
it
think.
D
I
think
this
surface
surfaces
something
really
interesting.
I
don't
think
there's
actually
been
enough
talk
about
this
at
this
event,
and
I
actually
had
one
person
ask
me
what
is
pln
and
I'll
say
it
for
the
record,
which
is
the
protocol
labs
network
which,
which
is
meant
to
be
a
superset
of
pl
and
multiple
companies,
orgs,
etc,
that
that
operate
in
a
networked,
org
style.
D
Do
you
want
them
to
work
for
you
or
us
or
someone
else?
I've
got
x
dollars
for
per
month
for
that
fte
that
we
want
to
fund
right
like
this.
This
is
new
stuff
that
we
haven't
really
done
before,
but
the
same
thing
like
you
brought
to
the
table
of
like
oh
well,
you
know
there's
this
new
stuff,
that's
erc,
and
they
came
up
with
a
slightly
different
method.
D
C
And
I
agree
with
most
of
er
100
percent.
What
burster
said
and
also
like
pln
is
better
than
pl
and
like
as
someone
who
only
recently
joined
like
if
a
bunch
of
people
are
doing
stuff
with
wwc
and
they're,
like
oh
we're
all
working
different
companies,
but
they're
all
alphabet
companies
that
still
wouldn't
be
very
legitimate,
ethically
speaking
or
in
a
lot
of
people's
ethics
at
least
and
so
there's
a
risk
of
being
even
even
pln,
is
potentially
not
as
ideal
for
external
people
who
are
not
economically
incentivized.