FW: Document "After-the-fact mandate changes" ready for external review


Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van <oskar.vandeventer@...>
 

Hi Clive, all,

 

The document “After-the-fact mandate changes” was discussed in detail in the Hyperledger Identity working group. There were ten participants, including a person from Hyperledger Indy. There were some discussions about solution directions and potential implementation issues. The general feedback was that the document was well written and clear. No further changes were made.

Let us now formally close the document, that is, PDF it, add it to the Wiki list, and formally share it with the Architecture and Identity working groups. OK?

Best regards,

Oskar


From: hyperledger-requirements-wg-bounces@... <hyperledger-requirements-wg-bounces@...> on behalf of Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van <oskar.vandeventer@...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 12:57 AM
To: Boulton, Clive
Cc:
hyperledger-requirements-wg@...
Subject: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] Document "After-the-fact mandate changes" ready for external review

 

Hi Clive, all,

 

I have just updated the document "After-the-fact mandate changes" (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1psJc9UWuteSzOqIG0VLIdzdlxFb9kq-Csw-dxcjPzEo), incorporating the comments received at the 26-June RequirementsWG call. The full set of requirements now reads as follows.

 

Requirement 1: A user (“anchor”) shall be able to sign over its authorization over a smart contract to another user (“guardian”) after the fact.

1a: The original user (“anchor”) loses its authorization over the smart contract.

1b: The original user (“anchor”) maintains its authorization over the smart contract.

Requirement 2: A blockchain consortium shall be able to sign over the authorization over a smart contract from one user (“anchor”) to another user (“guardian”).

Requirement 3: It should be possible to re-assign the authorization over multiple or all a smart contracts for a user (“anchor”) to another user (“guardian”) in a single action.

Requirement 4: It should be possible to re-assign the authorization over a smart contract back to the original (“anchor”) user.

Requirement 5: The solution to requirements 1-4 shall not require the handing over of private keys.

Requirement 6: The solution to requirements 1-4 shall not require mutability of the blockchain.

Requirement 7: The introduction of a solution to requirements 1-4 should be backward compatible, such that they also apply to smart contracts that predate this introduction.

Requirement 8: The solution to requirements 1-4 may be programmable.

 

Following your suggestion, I shall share the document also with hyperledger-arch-wg@... and hyperledger-identity-wg@....

 

As always, reviews, comments and suggestions remain very welcome!

 

Best regards,

 

Oskar

 

 

From: Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van
Sent: Wednesday, 05 July, 2017 09:43
To: Aaron Benningfield <aaron.b.benningfield@...>
Cc: clive boulton <clive.boulton@...>
Subject: RE: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] Minutes from Monday, June 26th

 

Hi Aaron,

 

  • My comments did not make it in Oskar's Document for what ever reason

I checked the document history of https://docs.google.com/document/d/1psJc9UWuteSzOqIG0VLIdzdlxFb9kq-Csw-dxcjPzEo, but I could not find any trace of your comments in earlier versions. Sorry about that.

 

  • What about returns? As in merchandise you would have returned, maybe the person was going to take a flight, vacation etc. and now cannot go.

I am not sure how your comment relates to the subject of my document. My document is about “after-the-fact mandate changes”. Here either the authorized user (“anchor”) himself or the blockchain consortium (as ordered by court) turns over the authorization to another user (“guardian”).

 

Oskar

 

 

From: Aaron Benningfield [mailto:aaron.b.benningfield@...]
Sent: Wednesday, 05 July, 2017 02:18
To: clive boulton <
clive.boulton@...>; Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van <oskar.vandeventer@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] Minutes from Monday, June 26th

 

What about returns? As in merchandise you would have returned, maybe the person was going to take a flight, vacation etc. and now cannot go. My comments did not make it in Oskar's Document for what ever reason so I was going to add the aforementioned (returns) as one to think about, 

 


From: clive boulton <clive.boulton@...>
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 3:41:25 PM
To: Aaron Benningfield
Cc: Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van
Subject: Fwd: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] Minutes from Monday, June 26th

 

Hi Aaron,

 

Do you know any mandated cases? 

 

What about a corporate bankruptcy: Assets and liabilities are often about the same. But who gets paid first is somehow always mandated.

 

Assuming so, how do we stop smart contracts auto paying out funds after a bankruptcy / untimely death from bank making automatic mortgage payments.    

 

-Clive.

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: clive boulton <
clive.boulton@...>
Date: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:21 PM
Subject: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] Minutes from Monday, June 26th
To: Hyperledger Requirements <
hyperledger-requirements-wg@...>

The minutes from [last] Monday's Requirements Working Group bi-weekly are here: 

https://wiki.hyperledger.org/groups/requirements/requirements-wg/minutes#june_26th_2017


Domain experts please review the use case: 

 

Our next meeting July 10 - 1pm EST / 10am PST 

-Clive

 

 

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.


Mark Parzygnat <markparz@...>
 

Hi Everyone,

Apologies I've not been able to attend the req-wg meetings as I have conflicts with the timing. However looking this over, I would like to know a bit more about this particular document. Is this to gather input on how this currently works project by project? Hyperledger Fabric has all these controls in place via channels. In order to be able to instantiate the chaincode(smart contract) you have to have the authorization, which also means you have ownership since it's installed on your file system.

Regards,
Mark


"Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van" ---07/18/2017 05:35:53 AM---Hi Clive, all, The document "After-the-fact mandate changes" was discussed in detail in the Hyperled

From: "Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van" <oskar.vandeventer@...>
To: "Boulton, Clive" <clive.boulton@...>
Cc: "hyperledger-requirements-wg@..." <hyperledger-requirements-wg@...>
Date: 07/18/2017 05:35 AM
Subject: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] FW: Document "After-the-fact mandate changes" ready for external review
Sent by: hyperledger-requirements-wg-bounces@...





Hi Clive, all,


The document “After-the-fact mandate changes” was discussed in detail in the Hyperledger Identity working group. There were ten participants, including a person from Hyperledger Indy. There were some discussions about solution directions and potential implementation issues. The general feedback was that the document was well written and clear. No further changes were made.
Let us now formally close the document, that is, PDF it, add it to the Wiki list, and formally share it with the Architecture and Identity working groups. OK?
Best regards,
Oskar


From: hyperledger-requirements-wg-bounces@... <hyperledger-requirements-wg-bounces@...> on behalf of Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van <oskar.vandeventer@...>
Sent:
Wednesday, July 5, 2017 12:57 AM
To:
Boulton, Clive
Cc:
hyperledger-requirements-wg@...
Subject:
[Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] Document "After-the-fact mandate changes" ready for external review

Hi Clive, all,

I have just updated the document "After-the-fact mandate changes" (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1psJc9UWuteSzOqIG0VLIdzdlxFb9kq-Csw-dxcjPzEo), incorporating the comments received at the 26-June RequirementsWG call. The full set of requirements now reads as follows.

Requirement 1: A user (“anchor”) shall be able to sign over its authorization over a smart contract to another user (“guardian”) after the fact.

1a: The original user (“anchor”) loses its authorization over the smart contract.

1b: The original user (“anchor”) maintains its authorization over the smart contract.

Requirement 2: A blockchain consortium shall be able to sign over the authorization over a smart contract from one user (“anchor”) to another user (“guardian”).

Requirement 3: It should be possible to re-assign the authorization over multiple or all a smart contracts for a user (“anchor”) to another user (“guardian”) in a single action.

Requirement 4: It should be possible to re-assign the authorization over a smart contract back to the original (“anchor”) user.

Requirement 5: The solution to requirements 1-4 shall not require the handing over of private keys.

Requirement 6: The solution to requirements 1-4 shall not require mutability of the blockchain.

Requirement 7: The introduction of a solution to requirements 1-4 should be backward compatible, such that they also apply to smart contracts that predate this introduction.

Requirement 8: The solution to requirements 1-4 may be programmable.

Following your suggestion, I shall share the document also with hyperledger-arch-wg@... and hyperledger-identity-wg@....

As always, reviews, comments and suggestions remain very welcome!

Best regards,

Oskar

From: Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van
Sent:
Wednesday, 05 July, 2017 09:43
To:
Aaron Benningfield <aaron.b.benningfield@...>
Cc:
clive boulton <clive.boulton@...>
Subject:
RE: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] Minutes from Monday, June 26th

Hi Aaron,

    • My comments did not make it in Oskar's Document for what ever reason
I checked the document history of https://docs.google.com/document/d/1psJc9UWuteSzOqIG0VLIdzdlxFb9kq-Csw-dxcjPzEo, but I could not find any trace of your comments in earlier versions. Sorry about that.

    • What about returns? As in merchandise you would have returned, maybe the person was going to take a flight, vacation etc. and now cannot go.
I am not sure how your comment relates to the subject of my document. My document is about “after-the-fact mandate changes”. Here either the authorized user (“anchor”) himself or the blockchain consortium (as ordered by court) turns over the authorization to another user (“guardian”).

Oskar

From: Aaron Benningfield [mailto:aaron.b.benningfield@...]
Sent:
Wednesday, 05 July, 2017 02:18
To:
clive boulton <clive.boulton@...>; Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van <oskar.vandeventer@...>
Subject:
Re: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] Minutes from Monday, June 26th

What about returns? As in merchandise you would have returned, maybe the person was going to take a flight, vacation etc. and now cannot go. My comments did not make it in Oskar's Document for what ever reason so I was going to add the aforementioned (returns) as one to think about,



From: clive boulton <clive.boulton@...>
Sent:
Monday, July 3, 2017 3:41:25 PM
To:
Aaron Benningfield
Cc:
Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van
Subject:
Fwd: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] Minutes from Monday, June 26th

Hi Aaron,

Do you know any mandated cases?

What about a corporate bankruptcy: Assets and liabilities are often about the same. But who gets paid first is somehow always mandated.

Assuming so, how do we stop smart contracts auto paying out funds after a bankruptcy / untimely death from bank making automatic mortgage payments.

-Clive.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: clive boulton <clive.boulton@...>
Date: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:21 PM
Subject: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] Minutes from Monday, June 26th
To: Hyperledger Requirements <hyperledger-requirements-wg@...>

The minutes from [last] Monday's Requirements Working Group bi-weekly are here:

https://wiki.hyperledger.org/groups/requirements/requirements-wg/minutes#june_26th_2017


Domain experts please review the use case:

“After-the-fact mandate changes”

Our next meeting July 10 - 1pm EST / 10am PST

-Clive

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages._______________________________________________
Hyperledger-Requirements-WG mailing list
Hyperledger-Requirements-WG@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-requirements-wg



Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van <oskar.vandeventer@...>
 

Hi Mark,

 

De document was developed by me in collaboration with several others. It is likely to become an agreed document from the RequirementsWG very soon. The purpose of the document is input to IdentityWG, ArchitectureWG and (possibly indirectly) to Hyperledger projects, which includes Hyperledger Fabric.

 

  • Hyperledger Fabric has all these controls in place via channels. In order to be able …

I am not sure how I should read this statement. If Hyperledger Fabric does already intrinsically support the full set of requirements, then that is great. If not, then there is potential work for contributors to that project.

 

Does this make sense?

 

Best regards,

 

Oskar

 

 

Dr. ir. M.O. (Oskar) van Deventer
Senior Scientist Blockchain Networking
Dept. Networks

T +31 (0)88 866 70 78
M +31 (0)65 191 49 18
oskar.vandeventer@...

Location

 

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.

 

 

From: Mark Parzygnat [mailto:markparz@...]
Sent: Wednesday, 19 July, 2017 19:33
To: Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van <oskar.vandeventer@...>
Cc: Boulton, Clive <clive.boulton@...>; hyperledger-requirements-wg@...; hyperledger-requirements-wg-bounces@...
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] FW: Document "After-the-fact mandate changes" ready for external review

 

Hi Everyone,

Apologies I've not been able to attend the req-wg meetings as I have conflicts with the timing. However looking this over, I would like to know a bit more about this particular document. Is this to gather input on how this currently works project by project? Hyperledger Fabric has all these controls in place via channels. In order to be able to instantiate the chaincode(smart contract) you have to have the authorization, which also means you have ownership since it's installed on your file system.

Regards,
Mark


"Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van" ---07/18/2017 05:35:53 AM---Hi Clive, all, The document "After-the-fact mandate changes" was discussed in detail in the Hyperled

From: "Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van" <oskar.vandeventer@...>
To: "Boulton, Clive" <clive.boulton@...>
Cc: "hyperledger-requirements-wg@..." <hyperledger-requirements-wg@...>
Date: 07/18/2017 05:35 AM
Subject: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] FW: Document "After-the-fact mandate changes" ready for external review
Sent by: hyperledger-requirements-wg-bounces@...





Hi Clive, all,


The document “After-the-fact mandate changes” was discussed in detail in the Hyperledger Identity working group. There were ten participants, including a person from Hyperledger Indy. There were some discussions about solution directions and potential implementation issues. The general feedback was that the document was well written and clear. No further changes were made.
Let us now formally close the document, that is, PDF it, add it to the Wiki list, and formally share it with the Architecture and Identity working groups. OK?
Best regards,
Oskar


From: hyperledger-requirements-wg-bounces@... <hyperledger-requirements-wg-bounces@...> on behalf of Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van <oskar.vandeventer@...>
Sent:
Wednesday, July 5, 2017 12:57 AM
To:
Boulton, Clive
Cc:
hyperledger-requirements-wg@...
Subject:
[Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] Document "After-the-fact mandate changes" ready for external review

Hi Clive, all,

I have just updated the document "After-the-fact mandate changes" (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1psJc9UWuteSzOqIG0VLIdzdlxFb9kq-Csw-dxcjPzEo), incorporating the comments received at the 26-June RequirementsWG call. The full set of requirements now reads as follows.

Requirement 1: A user (“anchor”) shall be able to sign over its authorization over a smart contract to another user (“guardian”) after the fact.

1a: The original user (“anchor”) loses its authorization over the smart contract.

1b: The original user (“anchor”) maintains its authorization over the smart contract.

Requirement 2: A blockchain consortium shall be able to sign over the authorization over a smart contract from one user (“anchor”) to another user (“guardian”).

Requirement 3: It should be possible to re-assign the authorization over multiple or all a smart contracts for a user (“anchor”) to another user (“guardian”) in a single action.

Requirement 4: It should be possible to re-assign the authorization over a smart contract back to the original (“anchor”) user.

Requirement 5: The solution to requirements 1-4 shall not require the handing over of private keys.

Requirement 6: The solution to requirements 1-4 shall not require mutability of the blockchain.

Requirement 7: The introduction of a solution to requirements 1-4 should be backward compatible, such that they also apply to smart contracts that predate this introduction.

Requirement 8: The solution to requirements 1-4 may be programmable.

Following your suggestion, I shall share the document also with hyperledger-arch-wg@... and hyperledger-identity-wg@....

As always, reviews, comments and suggestions remain very welcome!

Best regards,

Oskar

From: Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van
Sent:
Wednesday, 05 July, 2017 09:43
To:
Aaron Benningfield <aaron.b.benningfield@...>
Cc:
clive boulton <clive.boulton@...>
Subject:
RE: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] Minutes from Monday, June 26th

Hi Aaron,

    • My comments did not make it in Oskar's Document for what ever reason

I checked the document history of https://docs.google.com/document/d/1psJc9UWuteSzOqIG0VLIdzdlxFb9kq-Csw-dxcjPzEo, but I could not find any trace of your comments in earlier versions. Sorry about that.

    • What about returns? As in merchandise you would have returned, maybe the person was going to take a flight, vacation etc. and now cannot go.

I am not sure how your comment relates to the subject of my document. My document is about “after-the-fact mandate changes”. Here either the authorized user (“anchor”) himself or the blockchain consortium (as ordered by court) turns over the authorization to another user (“guardian”).

Oskar

From: Aaron Benningfield [mailto:aaron.b.benningfield@...]
Sent:
Wednesday, 05 July, 2017 02:18
To:
clive boulton <clive.boulton@...>; Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van <oskar.vandeventer@...>
Subject:
Re: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] Minutes from Monday, June 26th

What about returns? As in merchandise you would have returned, maybe the person was going to take a flight, vacation etc. and now cannot go. My comments did not make it in Oskar's Document for what ever reason so I was going to add the aforementioned (returns) as one to think about,



From: clive boulton <clive.boulton@...>
Sent:
Monday, July 3, 2017 3:41:25 PM
To:
Aaron Benningfield
Cc:
Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van
Subject:
Fwd: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] Minutes from Monday, June 26th

Hi Aaron,

Do you know any mandated cases?

What about a corporate bankruptcy: Assets and liabilities are often about the same. But who gets paid first is somehow always mandated.

Assuming so, how do we stop smart contracts auto paying out funds after a bankruptcy / untimely death from bank making automatic mortgage payments.

-Clive.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: clive boulton <clive.boulton@...>
Date: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:21 PM
Subject: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] Minutes from Monday, June 26th
To: Hyperledger Requirements <hyperledger-requirements-wg@...>

The minutes from [last] Monday's Requirements Working Group bi-weekly are here:

https://wiki.hyperledger.org/groups/requirements/requirements-wg/minutes#june_26th_2017


Domain experts please review the use case:

“After-the-fact mandate changes”

Our next meeting July 10 - 1pm EST / 10am PST

-Clive

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages._______________________________________________
Hyperledger-Requirements-WG mailing list
Hyperledger-Requirements-WG@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-requirements-wg

 


Mark Parzygnat <markparz@...>
 

Hi Oskar,

Thanks. It's probably just my misunderstanding, so apologies for asking what maybe be silly questions. This particular document looks to be about access controls, after initial deployments. Broken down nicely in several different scenarios. The main question I am asking is there a project that doesn't currently handle these scenarios? Iroha, Sawtooth, and Fabric seem to handle these scenarios from what I can tell. I'm wondering is this a document for new projects to verify they fulfill these use cases, or is there a specific project or area that currently needs these requirements?

IMO, it would be a huge benefit for all of us in the requirements WG to look across the projects and figure out what features are currently missing in the projects that should be implemented. For instance, nice UIs for each of the platform projects, interoperability aspects that could be used from one project into another, or specific project needs based on what people are looking for like Fabric needs a JS chaincode, etc. I know it's a big task, but I think worth the investment.

Hope I'm making sense.

Regards,
Mark





"Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van" ---07/20/2017 09:21:14 AM---Hi Mark, De document was developed by me in collaboration with several others. It is likely to becom

From: "Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van" <oskar.vandeventer@...>
To: Mark Parzygnat <markparz@...>
Cc: "hyperledger-requirements-wg@..." <hyperledger-requirements-wg@...>
Date: 07/20/2017 09:21 AM
Subject: RE: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] FW: Document "After-the-fact mandate changes" ready for external review





Hi Mark,

De document was developed by me in collaboration with several others. It is likely to become an agreed document from the RequirementsWG very soon. The purpose of the document is input to IdentityWG, ArchitectureWG and (possibly indirectly) to Hyperledger projects, which includes Hyperledger Fabric.
    • Hyperledger Fabric has all these controls in place via channels. In order to be able …
I am not sure how I should read this statement. If Hyperledger Fabric does already intrinsically support the full set of requirements, then that is great. If not, then there is potential work for contributors to that project.

Does this make sense?

Best regards,

Oskar

Dr. ir. M.O. (Oskar) van Deventer
Senior Scientist Blockchain Networking
Dept. Networks
T +31 (0)88 866 70 78
M +31 (0)65 191 49 18
E
oskar.vandeventer@...
Location

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.


From: Mark Parzygnat [mailto:markparz@...]
Sent:
Wednesday, 19 July, 2017 19:33
To:
Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van <oskar.vandeventer@...>
Cc:
Boulton, Clive <clive.boulton@...>; hyperledger-requirements-wg@...; hyperledger-requirements-wg-bounces@...
Subject:
Re: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] FW: Document "After-the-fact mandate changes" ready for external review

Hi Everyone,

Apologies I've not been able to attend the req-wg meetings as I have conflicts with the timing. However looking this over, I would like to know a bit more about this particular document. Is this to gather input on how this currently works project by project? Hyperledger Fabric has all these controls in place via channels. In order to be able to instantiate the chaincode(smart contract) you have to have the authorization, which also means you have ownership since it's installed on your file system.

Regards,
Mark


"Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van" ---07/18/2017 05:35:53 AM---Hi Clive, all, The document "After-the-fact mandate changes" was discussed in detail in the Hyperled

From:
"Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van" <oskar.vandeventer@...>
To:
"Boulton, Clive" <clive.boulton@...>
Cc:
"hyperledger-requirements-wg@..." <hyperledger-requirements-wg@...>
Date:
07/18/2017 05:35 AM
Subject:
[Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] FW: Document "After-the-fact mandate changes" ready for external review
Sent by:
hyperledger-requirements-wg-bounces@...






Hi Clive, all,


The document “After-the-fact mandate changes” was discussed in detail in the Hyperledger Identity working group. There were ten participants, including a person from Hyperledger Indy. There were some discussions about solution directions and potential implementation issues. The general feedback was that the document was well written and clear. No further changes were made.
Let us now formally close the document, that is, PDF it, add it to the Wiki list, and formally share it with the Architecture and Identity working groups. OK?
Best regards,
Oskar


From: hyperledger-requirements-wg-bounces@... <hyperledger-requirements-wg-bounces@...> on behalf of Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van <oskar.vandeventer@...>
Sent:
Wednesday, July 5, 2017 12:57 AM
To:
Boulton, Clive
Cc:
hyperledger-requirements-wg@...
Subject:
[Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] Document "After-the-fact mandate changes" ready for external review

Hi Clive, all,

I have just updated the document "After-the-fact mandate changes" (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1psJc9UWuteSzOqIG0VLIdzdlxFb9kq-Csw-dxcjPzEo), incorporating the comments received at the 26-June RequirementsWG call. The full set of requirements now reads as follows.

Requirement 1: A user (“anchor”) shall be able to sign over its authorization over a smart contract to another user (“guardian”) after the fact.

1a: The original user (“anchor”) loses its authorization over the smart contract.

1b: The original user (“anchor”) maintains its authorization over the smart contract.

Requirement 2: A blockchain consortium shall be able to sign over the authorization over a smart contract from one user (“anchor”) to another user (“guardian”).

Requirement 3: It should be possible to re-assign the authorization over multiple or all a smart contracts for a user (“anchor”) to another user (“guardian”) in a single action.

Requirement 4: It should be possible to re-assign the authorization over a smart contract back to the original (“anchor”) user.

Requirement 5: The solution to requirements 1-4 shall not require the handing over of private keys.

Requirement 6: The solution to requirements 1-4 shall not require mutability of the blockchain.

Requirement 7: The introduction of a solution to requirements 1-4 should be backward compatible, such that they also apply to smart contracts that predate this introduction.

Requirement 8: The solution to requirements 1-4 may be programmable.

Following your suggestion, I shall share the document also with hyperledger-arch-wg@... and hyperledger-identity-wg@....

As always, reviews, comments and suggestions remain very welcome!

Best regards,

Oskar

From: Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van
Sent:
Wednesday, 05 July, 2017 09:43
To:
Aaron Benningfield <aaron.b.benningfield@...>
Cc:
clive boulton <clive.boulton@...>
Subject:
RE: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] Minutes from Monday, June 26th

Hi Aaron,

        • My comments did not make it in Oskar's Document for what ever reason
I checked the document history of https://docs.google.com/document/d/1psJc9UWuteSzOqIG0VLIdzdlxFb9kq-Csw-dxcjPzEo, but I could not find any trace of your comments in earlier versions. Sorry about that.
        • What about returns? As in merchandise you would have returned, maybe the person was going to take a flight, vacation etc. and now cannot go.
I am not sure how your comment relates to the subject of my document. My document is about “after-the-fact mandate changes”. Here either the authorized user (“anchor”) himself or the blockchain consortium (as ordered by court) turns over the authorization to another user (“guardian”).

Oskar

From: Aaron Benningfield [mailto:aaron.b.benningfield@...]
Sent:
Wednesday, 05 July, 2017 02:18
To:
clive boulton <clive.boulton@...>; Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van <oskar.vandeventer@...>
Subject:
Re: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] Minutes from Monday, June 26th

What about returns? As in merchandise you would have returned, maybe the person was going to take a flight, vacation etc. and now cannot go. My comments did not make it in Oskar's Document for what ever reason so I was going to add the aforementioned (returns) as one to think about,



From:
clive boulton <clive.boulton@...>
Sent:
Monday, July 3, 2017 3:41:25 PM
To:
Aaron Benningfield
Cc:
Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van
Subject:
Fwd: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] Minutes from Monday, June 26th

Hi Aaron,

Do you know any mandated cases?

What about a corporate bankruptcy: Assets and liabilities are often about the same. But who gets paid first is somehow always mandated.

Assuming so, how do we stop smart contracts auto paying out funds after a bankruptcy / untimely death from bank making automatic mortgage payments.

-Clive.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: clive boulton <clive.boulton@...>
Date: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:21 PM
Subject: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] Minutes from Monday, June 26th
To: Hyperledger Requirements <hyperledger-requirements-wg@...>

The minutes from [last] Monday's Requirements Working Group bi-weekly are here:

https://wiki.hyperledger.org/groups/requirements/requirements-wg/minutes#june_26th_2017


Domain experts please review the use case:

“After-the-fact mandate changes”

Our next meeting July 10 - 1pm EST / 10am PST

-Clive

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages._______________________________________________
Hyperledger-Requirements-WG mailing list

Hyperledger-Requirements-WG@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-requirements-wg



Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van <oskar.vandeventer@...>
 

Hi Mark,

 

  • The main question I am asking is there a project that doesn't currently handle these scenarios?

This question can only be answered based on well formulated requirements. The RequirementsWG has worked on these for the last two months. Initial feedback suggests that there are Hyperledger projects that do not support this set of requirements. Moreover, the support may be difficult for some of them without major architectural changes.

 

  • figure out what features are currently missing

The purpose of the RequirementsWG is to figure out what features are needed.

(The fact that a feature is missing does not imply that there is a market need, more likely the opposite.)

 

  • UIs for each of the platform projects, interoperability aspects that could be used from one project into another

So we should spell out the associated use case and requirements, correct?

(By the way, I am particularly interested in inter-project use cases and requirements.)

 

Best regards,

 

Oskar

 

From: Mark Parzygnat [mailto:markparz@...]
Sent: Thursday, 20 July, 2017 16:30
To: Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van <oskar.vandeventer@...>
Cc: hyperledger-requirements-wg@...
Subject: RE: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] FW: Document "After-the-fact mandate changes" ready for external review

 

Hi Oskar,

Thanks. It's probably just my misunderstanding, so apologies for asking what maybe be silly questions. This particular document looks to be about access controls, after initial deployments. Broken down nicely in several different scenarios. The main question I am asking is there a project that doesn't currently handle these scenarios? Iroha, Sawtooth, and Fabric seem to handle these scenarios from what I can tell. I'm wondering is this a document for new projects to verify they fulfill these use cases, or is there a specific project or area that currently needs these requirements?

IMO, it would be a huge benefit for all of us in the requirements WG to look across the projects and figure out what features are currently missing in the projects that should be implemented. For instance, nice UIs for each of the platform projects, interoperability aspects that could be used from one project into another, or specific project needs based on what people are looking for like Fabric needs a JS chaincode, etc. I know it's a big task, but I think worth the investment.

Hope I'm making sense.

Regards,
Mark





"Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van" ---07/20/2017 09:21:14 AM---Hi Mark, De document was developed by me in collaboration with several others. It is likely to becom

From: "Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van" <oskar.vandeventer@...>
To: Mark Parzygnat <markparz@...>
Cc: "hyperledger-requirements-wg@..." <hyperledger-requirements-wg@...>
Date: 07/20/2017 09:21 AM
Subject: RE: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] FW: Document "After-the-fact mandate changes" ready for external review





Hi Mark,

De document was developed by me in collaboration with several others. It is likely to become an agreed document from the RequirementsWG very soon. The purpose of the document is input to IdentityWG, ArchitectureWG and (possibly indirectly) to Hyperledger projects, which includes Hyperledger Fabric.

    • Hyperledger Fabric has all these controls in place via channels. In order to be able …

I am not sure how I should read this statement. If Hyperledger Fabric does already intrinsically support the full set of requirements, then that is great. If not, then there is potential work for contributors to that project.

Does this make sense?

Best regards,

Oskar

Dr. ir. M.O. (Oskar) van Deventer
Senior Scientist Blockchain Networking
Dept. Networks

T +31 (0)88 866 70 78
M +31 (0)65 191 49 18
E
oskar.vandeventer@...

Location

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.



From: Mark Parzygnat [mailto:markparz@...]
Sent:
Wednesday, 19 July, 2017 19:33
To:
Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van <oskar.vandeventer@...>
Cc:
Boulton, Clive <clive.boulton@...>; hyperledger-requirements-wg@...; hyperledger-requirements-wg-bounces@...
Subject:
Re: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] FW: Document "After-the-fact mandate changes" ready for external review

Hi Everyone,

Apologies I've not been able to attend the req-wg meetings as I have conflicts with the timing. However looking this over, I would like to know a bit more about this particular document. Is this to gather input on how this currently works project by project? Hyperledger Fabric has all these controls in place via channels. In order to be able to instantiate the chaincode(smart contract) you have to have the authorization, which also means you have ownership since it's installed on your file system.


Regards,
Mark



"Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van" ---07/18/2017 05:35:53 AM---Hi Clive, all, The document "After-the-fact mandate changes" was discussed in detail in the Hyperled

From:
"Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van" <oskar.vandeventer@...>
To:
"Boulton, Clive" <
clive.boulton@...>
Cc:
"
hyperledger-requirements-wg@..." <hyperledger-requirements-wg@...>
Date:
07/18/2017 05:35 AM
Subject:
[Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] FW: Document "After-the-fact mandate changes" ready for external review
Sent by:
hyperledger-requirements-wg-bounces@...






Hi Clive, all,


The document “After-the-fact mandate changes” was discussed in detail in the Hyperledger Identity working group. There were ten participants, including a person from Hyperledger Indy. There were some discussions about solution directions and potential implementation issues. The general feedback was that the document was well written and clear. No further changes were made.
Let us now formally close the document, that is, PDF it, add it to the Wiki list, and formally share it with the Architecture and Identity working groups. OK?
Best regards,
Oskar


From: hyperledger-requirements-wg-bounces@... <hyperledger-requirements-wg-bounces@...> on behalf of Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van <oskar.vandeventer@...>
Sent:
Wednesday, July 5, 2017 12:57 AM
To:
Boulton, Clive
Cc:
hyperledger-requirements-wg@...
Subject:
[Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] Document "After-the-fact mandate changes" ready for external review

Hi Clive, all,

I have just updated the document "After-the-fact mandate changes" (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1psJc9UWuteSzOqIG0VLIdzdlxFb9kq-Csw-dxcjPzEo), incorporating the comments received at the 26-June RequirementsWG call. The full set of requirements now reads as follows.

Requirement 1: A user (“anchor”) shall be able to sign over its authorization over a smart contract to another user (“guardian”) after the fact.

1a: The original user (“anchor”) loses its authorization over the smart contract.

1b: The original user (“anchor”) maintains its authorization over the smart contract.

Requirement 2: A blockchain consortium shall be able to sign over the authorization over a smart contract from one user (“anchor”) to another user (“guardian”).

Requirement 3: It should be possible to re-assign the authorization over multiple or all a smart contracts for a user (“anchor”) to another user (“guardian”) in a single action.

Requirement 4: It should be possible to re-assign the authorization over a smart contract back to the original (“anchor”) user.

Requirement 5: The solution to requirements 1-4 shall not require the handing over of private keys.

Requirement 6: The solution to requirements 1-4 shall not require mutability of the blockchain.

Requirement 7: The introduction of a solution to requirements 1-4 should be backward compatible, such that they also apply to smart contracts that predate this introduction.

Requirement 8: The solution to requirements 1-4 may be programmable.

Following your suggestion, I shall share the document also with hyperledger-arch-wg@... and hyperledger-identity-wg@....

As always, reviews, comments and suggestions remain very welcome!

Best regards,

Oskar

From: Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van
Sent:
Wednesday, 05 July, 2017 09:43
To:
Aaron Benningfield <aaron.b.benningfield@...>
Cc:
clive boulton <clive.boulton@...>
Subject:
RE: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] Minutes from Monday, June 26th

Hi Aaron,

        • My comments did not make it in Oskar's Document for what ever reason

I checked the document history of https://docs.google.com/document/d/1psJc9UWuteSzOqIG0VLIdzdlxFb9kq-Csw-dxcjPzEo, but I could not find any trace of your comments in earlier versions. Sorry about that.

        • What about returns? As in merchandise you would have returned, maybe the person was going to take a flight, vacation etc. and now cannot go.

I am not sure how your comment relates to the subject of my document. My document is about “after-the-fact mandate changes”. Here either the authorized user (“anchor”) himself or the blockchain consortium (as ordered by court) turns over the authorization to another user (“guardian”).

Oskar

From: Aaron Benningfield [mailto:aaron.b.benningfield@...]
Sent:
Wednesday, 05 July, 2017 02:18
To:
clive boulton <clive.boulton@...>; Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van <oskar.vandeventer@...>
Subject:
Re: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] Minutes from Monday, June 26th

What about returns? As in merchandise you would have returned, maybe the person was going to take a flight, vacation etc. and now cannot go. My comments did not make it in Oskar's Document for what ever reason so I was going to add the aforementioned (returns) as one to think about,



From:
clive boulton <clive.boulton@...>
Sent:
Monday, July 3, 2017 3:41:25 PM
To:
Aaron Benningfield
Cc:
Deventer, M.O. (Oskar) van
Subject:
Fwd: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] Minutes from Monday, June 26th

Hi Aaron,

Do you know any mandated cases?

What about a corporate bankruptcy: Assets and liabilities are often about the same. But who gets paid first is somehow always mandated.

Assuming so, how do we stop smart contracts auto paying out funds after a bankruptcy / untimely death from bank making automatic mortgage payments.

-Clive.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: clive boulton <clive.boulton@...>
Date: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:21 PM
Subject: [Hyperledger-Requirements-WG] Minutes from Monday, June 26th
To: Hyperledger Requirements <hyperledger-requirements-wg@...>

The minutes from [last] Monday's Requirements Working Group bi-weekly are here:

https://wiki.hyperledger.org/groups/requirements/requirements-wg/minutes#june_26th_2017


Domain experts please review the use case:

“After-the-fact mandate changes”

Our next meeting July 10 - 1pm EST / 10am PST

-Clive

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages._______________________________________________
Hyperledger-Requirements-WG mailing list
Hyperledger-Requirements-WG@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-requirements-wg