07:03:59	 From  Adam Lambert : https://wiki.hyperledger.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=41583284
07:04:00	 From  Stephen Curran : https://wiki.hyperledger.org/pages/resumedraft.action?draftId=41583285&draftShareId=b3f4671f-86cf-41f6-a77d-69ccf44335df&
07:07:04	 From  Alex Jonsson : https://zoom.us/my/hyperledger.community.3?pwd=UE90WHhEaHRqOGEyMkV3cldKa2d2dz09
07:08:51	 From  Jim Mason : I see the Aries B call zoom url on the wiki needs to be corrected
07:08:58	 From  Jim Mason : https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/ARIES/Aries+Working+Group
07:11:46	 From  Sam Curren (TelegramSam) : +1 for yaml config!
07:33:03	 From  Jim Mason : makes sense the verifier use case sets the revocation currency requirement
07:35:48	 From  Rouven Heck : +q re. assumption / goals: chain specific/agnostic?
07:39:26	 From  Jim Mason : is there a thought to a design later on that can scale better?
07:40:00	 From  Martin Riedel : q+
07:47:51	 From  Martin Riedel : q+ Are the design differences of Tail 1.0 vs Rev 2.0 solely explained by ECC Accumulator vs RSA Accumulator?
07:51:47	 From  Martin Riedel : I answer that myself and Mike can object: I think aspect that we don’t need a tails file is related to the prime generator and NOT to the accumulator type. The batching possibility and the easier update IS related to the properties of the RSA accumulator.
07:54:01	 From  Brent Zundel : I agree about the merkle tree model having better data handling characteristics
07:54:33	 From  Michael Lodder : Martin, Batching works for both ECC and RSA
07:54:35	 From  Brent Zundel : and the interface can match with the W3C revocation bit array
07:54:43	 From  Michael Lodder : prime number is just an element
07:58:36	 From  Martin Riedel : Mike, for the Merkle Tree-based Proof data what size (depth or # elements) is that based on. (e.g. 1s proof generation), or is it independent of size?
07:59:16	 From  Michael Lodder : If its just the revoked ranges, proof generation and proof size depends on the depth of th etree
08:00:26	 From  Oliver Terbu : Couldn’t there be just an abstract interface for revoke(x), isRevoked(x), so you won’t have any limitations?
08:00:45	 From  Oliver Terbu : (Sure, the actual interface might look different)
08:02:34	 From  Rouven Heck : can collecting data + proofing run in parallel?
08:02:41	 From  Michael Lodder : yep
08:04:24	 From  Troy Ronda : I like simplifying what the ledger has to do and trying to work with the other efforts like the compressed bit array.
08:05:29	 From  Troy Ronda : Ideally we can just use DIDs from the ledger.
08:05:31	 From  Martin Riedel : unrevoked ranges are only anonymous if my range is >1, correct (depends a little on HOW much is revoked), but I lose anonyminity if my neighbors are revoked, correct?
08:07:46	 From  Rouven Heck : Thanks!
08:07:50	 From  Artur Philipp : Thanks a lot!