Page History

Summary

Timezone: APAC Morning, US mid-day and Europe evening

We will be taking advantage of the staggered adoption of daylight savings time to have a call with additional Indy contributors. The Indy Contributors call will be on October 28 at 11AM US Pacific / 19H Central European Time / 21H Moscow Standard Time / 7H October 29 in New Zealand.
Zoom link is changed too: https://zoom.us/j/715671233

...

Expected topics:

...

Timezone: APAC Morning, US mid-day and Europe evening

We intend to record this call.

...

• The future of consensus in Indy Node: proposal for moving from RBFT to Aardvark

  • Jira
    server Hyperledger JIRA serverId 6326cb0b-65b2-38fd-a82c-67a89277103b key INDY-2250

• Remaining concerns with the current Indy Ledger
  • Lack of a diverse contributor community
    • Who is going to work on solutions?
  • Interpreted language (Python) is slower than a compiled language (Rust) 
  • Features from general purpose ledgers we would like
    • Observer nodes
    • Smart contracts
• Strengths of Plenum
  • Battle tested
    • BFT with a 25 node pool and 10 write transactions per second (1000 reads)
  • Identity specific
  • BLS State Proofs
  • Pluggable ledgers
• Next steps: dedicate an Indy Contributors call to the future of the ledger in early 2020.

Future Calls

• 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?
    • Items from Evernym team:
      • covered by tests
      • has a link to the issue in Jira
      • fixed according to PoA
      • follows https://github.com/hyperledger/indy-node/blob/master/docs/source/write-code-guideline.md
  • 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?

Future Calls

• Migration of Indy-SDK to Aries-Core
• 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

...

•  HIPE #138, Issue #144 (Ken and Brent)
  
  • Create a PR for changing status to ACCEPTED
  • Check for an Aries RFC
•  PR to RFC #0019 to compare pack/upack to msgpack (Sergey)
•  Richard and Sergey will close old pull requests with a descriptive comment.
•  Mike wants to review the 61 cases of "unsafe" libindy calls and figure out if they are justified.

Call Recording