Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 3 Current »

Summary:

Topics:

  • PRs and Issues
  • LTS Handling - Issue #, PR 
  • Questions from Anonyome Labs
  • 1.0.0 Progress
  • Open Discussion

Call Time: 8:00 Pacific / 17:00 Central Europe

Recordings From the Call:  


Hyperledger is committed to creating a safe and welcoming

community for all. For more information

please visit the Hyperledger Code of Conduct.

Welcome, Introductions and Announcements

Attendees

  • Stephen Curran  (BC Gov/Cloud Compass Computing Inc.) <swcurran@cloudcompass.ca>

Documentation:

Agenda

  • Open PRs
  • Open Issues:
  • Anything hot that should be addressed before 1.0.0rc0?
  • LTS Handling - Issue #2993, PR #3051
    • Outlines the strategy
    • Commits to LTS for 0.11.1 and 0.12.0
    • Initial Questions:
      • Policy for setting end dates for LTS.
      • Release number for an LTS – seems we need both a minor number to be the LTS (e.g., 0.11.1), but we also need to have additional releases on the branch for identified vulnerabilities – how does that work?
      • How are we notified of only the dependabot vulnerabilities that need fixing in an LTS?
  • Questions from John Court (Deactivated) of Anonyome Labs about Universal DID Support:
    • Universal DID Resolver support is there using the --universal-resolver switch to set server location (we actually have deployed this to support cheqd DIDs locally).
      • Supported – directly in ACA-Py.
    • The AnonCreds abstraction for native registrar and resolver implementation of AnonCred VC objects exists, being defined in aries_cloudagent/anaoncreds/base.py. Currently the only concrete implemenations I see is for legacy_indy in aries_cloudagent/anoncreds/default/legacy_indy/. The other default implementations seem to mostly have "NotImplemented" for most methods. This means someone could write a native AnonCreds registrar/resolver for other VDRs (e.g. cheqd). There is however no Universal AnonCreds equivalent community project to the Universal Resolver/Registrar that I can find.
      • This is correct. Immediate goal is to get did:indy and did:tdw as the next concrete use cases.
    • The real missing piece for me seems to be there is still no abstraction of the DID Registrar concept with that functionality still being tied to the aries_cloudagent/ledger code which is indy specific. This seems to be the point of https://github.com/hyperledger/aries-cloudagent-python/issues/1876 to resolve but has stagnated since 2022 ?
      • Attempted twice, and the conclusion seems to be that a Universal Registrar is a false optimization for ACA-Py – DIDs are too variable, and as such, the plugin approach is more appropriate, allowing a deployment to pick their own.
      • did:web would be a good example, as will did:tdw.
      • Infrastructure is there for adding an admin interface and secrets access via a plugin.
      • Patrick St-Louis has been trying out GoDIDdy to see the range of types, and agrees that the plugin approach is more appropriate – deployments could add whatever plugins needed for an instance.
        • Plugins should be documented in ACA-Py for how to do that – plugins in general, DID Registrar plugins specifically.  aries-acapy-plugins is the place for them.
    • The tails-server is currently indy specific and has no abstraction layer to deal with reading revocation registry data from non-indy VDRs.
      • This should probably be changed to "anoncreds-tails-server".
      • When ledger-agnostic AnonCreds was implemented, extra endpoints were added (with some verification), and the older Indy endpoints are still there with verifications tied to Indy.
      • Should we extend out the functionality of what amounts to a file server to support other kinds of things – e.g. BitStringStatusList VCs, etc.?  Generally yes, but the verification/authorization checks need to be appropriately applied.
      • Question: What authorization is implemented in a Tails Server deployment?
        • Endpoints are locked behind a reverse proxy so that only the issuers can write to the ledger.
        • The tails files are hash checked, so you could not override an existing file.
  • Question: Possible issue with the --preserve-exchange-records  flag in acapy
    • If you don't have that flag enabled, there is no way to complete a proof request if you are the verifier.
    • Should only be deleted AFTER the web-hook has fired to notify the controller.
      • The web-hook is coming back as a "terse web-hook", that does not have sufficient information, and then it is a race condition between the controller and the deleter.
      • Likely the fix needs to be making sure the webhook has sufficient info.
  • Getting to a default Arm friendly release.
    • Any progress?  Nothing yet.
    • Issue posted to Mattr with a request. Stephen Curran to follow up with the them and failing that – we look for an alternative.
  • Other hot issues.
  • Open Discussion

Upcoming Meeting Topics:

Future Topics

Action items


  • No labels