Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  • Alexander Shcherbakov (Evernym) <alexander.shcherbakov@evernym.com>
  • Nemanja Patrnogic (Evernym) <nemanja.patrnogic@evernym.com>

Related Calls and Announcements

...

  • Documentation improvements: Michael B and Stephen C
    • Need to review and prune out-of-date documentation (Alice / Faber treatment of pairwise DIDs is a key pain point)
    • Michael is working on Indy Agent walkthrough using C#
    • Finishing work on ReadTheDocs (2 more weeks?)
    • Cloud Compass is building the Linux Foundation EdX courses for Indy and Aries
  • SDK 2.0 architecture / Indy-Aries split (Sergey)
    • Evernym: A PR with an example how the wallet can be separated; this is internal work
    • Kiva is working on a Futures implementation of threading (instead of call-backs) (https://github.com/kiva/aries-sdk.git)
  • CI / CD: GitLab migration (Mike and Steve G)
  • Advanced Schemas and W3C creds (Ken)
  • Warnings from rust cargo clippy (Mike and Axel)
    • Epic: IS-1410 
  • New design for revocation / Anoncreds 2.0 (Mike)
  • Replacing Indy-Crypto with Ursa in Indy Node (Mike and Cam)

...

  • The future of consensus in Indy Node: proposal for moving from RBFT to Aardvark
    • Jira
      serverHyperledger JIRA
      serverId6326cb0b-65b2-38fd-a82c-67a89277103b
      keyINDY-2250
    • Kiwa is OK
    • No other comments or concerns
  • Update on Indy / Aries split
    • Watch last Aries call recording
    • Jira
      serverHyperledger JIRA
      serverId6326cb0b-65b2-38fd-a82c-67a89277103b
      keyARIES-3
      - create repos for Aries
    • Jira
      serverHyperledger JIRA
      serverId6326cb0b-65b2-38fd-a82c-67a89277103b
      keyIS-1376
      - move Indy wallet into Aries
  • Define the pull request review process for Indy Plenum/Node
    • Should define the process, including how we handle exceptions (emergency fixes shouldn't be blocked, but would require notification)
    • What is important in a good review?
    • Proposed Process (by Evernym team):
      • All Pull Requests can be reviewed by non-Evernym team members
      • Evernym team members will also do internal review in addition to external one
      • All interested parties are notified when a PR is sent
      • If a person wants to do an external review, he or she puts a comment or tag. This needs to be done in X hours.
      • Once a reviewer put a "want-to-review" tag, he or she need to finish review in Y hours
      • If no one wants to review a PR in X hours, or review is not finished in Y hours, we can do our internal review and merge the PR
      • An external review can be done against closed PRs as well, and Evernym team will process all findings ASAP
      • We may merge a PR with internal review only in case of urgency (critical fixes, release preparation etc.)
    • Items to be defined with the Community:
      1. A timeframe for external review (X):
        - X=12 hours, Y=2 days?
      2. What projects it should affect?
        - Plenum and Node?
        - Only Node?
        - We are not proposing SDK as it will be split to Aries in any case
      3. Who is going to commit to participate in this process?
  • No volunteers on this call

Future Calls

  • Requirements question: IS-1099, should we allow duplicate credentials from the same issuer?
  • Non-secrets in the Indy Wallet
    • Cam is working on pluggable crypto. They wallet shouldn't decide what encryption you should be using.
    • Use cases where we would want to move keys between wallets
      • Moving the link secret / credential data from one device to another (synchronized storage).
      • Debug use cases
      • Richard's hit other uses cases that were better solved with DID Doc,  pre-signing, signing API.
    • Work-around with the web-crypto API

...