/
2019-01-16

2019-01-16

Jan 16, 2019

Attendees

  • Gordon Graham

  • Mic Bowman

  • Vipin Bharathan

  • Tracy Kuhrt

  • Hart Montgomery

  • Stan Liberman

  • John Gu

  • Ayan

  • Ram Jagadeesan

  • MP Sandeep

  • Daniel Hardman

Discussion

Identity White Paper

  • Wanted to discuss combining the work done by the Identity WG on their Identity White Paper and the Architecture WG System Identities paper

  • Thought was to continue the work from the Architecture WG white paper and then add information from the Identity white paper to this

  • Idea with the Architecture WG paper was to take the 6 main points and for each of the frameworks talk about how these 6 main points are implemented. This requires input from the individual projects

  • Gordon suggests releasing the Architecture WG paper separately

  • Working sessions with each of the leads to re-work the sections for the frameworks

  • Also add a table to this

  • Daniel Hardman will re-work the Indy section for use as a model

Interoperability White Paper

  • Status: minor edit to group the use cases together and not discuss them twice. No material changes since early to mid December

  • Does the structure of the overall document seem like it is heading in the right direction? So far the papers that we have been writing have more collaboration and contributions from other folks.

  • We are still having hard time scoping the document. What is the actual objective? What are we trying to describe? Back and forth on verbiage, intent, and objective. Until that part is clear, it feels like it is difficult to know what needs to be contributed.

  • This paper is still at a very high-level instead of mapping what the frameworks will do.

  • Other papers are descriptive. Interoperability paper seems prescriptive.

  • There is a working instance of the items that we have covered so far. With this topic, there is no working instance of this. We are ahead of what the frameworks support today.

  • Discussion on interoperability is different than the work that we have done in the past. With interoperability, there is very little examples of how this is done today. This makes it difficult for us to talk about what we want.

  • It is a good thing for us to be more prescriptive.

  • Common primitives will allow for interoperability.

  • Between the DLTs, are there any interoperability projects today (other than EVM)

  • Corda settler

  • Other interoperabilty projects in Hyperledger

  • Continue work on this and make sure the other groups are contributing.

  • Let's review the Introduction section to ensure that it covers what we are trying to achieve with this document

    • This paper will not focus on component portability

    • The point is that we are focusing on interoperability (operations that span ledgers) not portability (code or components that could be moved between ledgers)

  • Sequence diagram - document assumptions surrounding that