Hi. Yes, with FAB-17733 implementedyou need to do it in 2 stages- first expand the organizations and thenadd the new consenter. I guess it's possible to addressyour problem by speculatively looking

Hyperledger Fabric Samples Workgroup When: Tuesdays 10am US Eastern / 14:00 UTC Where: https://zoom.us/my/hyperledger.community.3 A few of us have been working on the next generation of Fabric

Never mind: Belatedly, I realized that the cryptogen config has a `EnableNodeOUs` field and setting that to true does exactly solve my issue (in fact, it even generates automatically the `NodeOUs`

Hey, we are using an architecture where there is a TLS root CA and each organisation has its own intermediate TLS CA which is an immediate child to the TLS root CA (realized with fabric-ca v1.4.7).

Hello, I did not use cryptogen tool, I created all identities manually. I guess I messed it up during that process. I'll try to recreate everything from scratch. BR

Hi, Incidentally, I’ve just run in the same issue recently. While I did figure out the NodeOU config in msp/config.yaml but then run into a subsequent problem: The certs defined by cryptogen do

Does your MSP configuration enable NodeOUs? See https://hyperledger-fabric.readthedocs.io/en/latest/msp.html#identity-classification for more details. If your MSP definition does not enable node OUs,

Hello Abhijeet, You can use this stack overflow thread to see a more detailed discussion of this error:

Hello! I'm trying to configure private data between two orgs in a Fabric 2.0 network using Fabric Node SDK v2.1; but unable to find documentation pertaining to the implementation. I looked at the

Hello wonderful people. I am facing an issue while creating a channel. PFA the logs from Peer cli, orderer and folder structure of MSP. The error says "policy for [Group] /Channel/Application not

Yes, you can use Prometheus metrics to determine transactions per second for both channels and private data collections. Channels will be faster for two reasons - it allows for more parallelization

Hi Santiago, To add further, the channel is always superior in terms of performance. It allows a peer to process blocks in parallel. Difficult to achieve a similar performance using a public or

Hi Santiago, I have performed a benchmarking of private data collections. Once I talk with the team, I can share more details. For now, I can say that the performance is low and I have

Hi, Senthil, I appreciate your response. I'm trying to use data collection to avoid channels, regardless of the use case. In this regard, your table provides a general context. Therefore, I will try

Hi, David, I appreciate your response. I see your point. I mentioned resource consumption because I am trying to justify using data privacy collection instead of more channels, i.e., I am trying to

Hello, I'm having a hard time making the user type registered work with the org policies. I register & enroll an admin user used by the peers at org1. - &org1 Name: org1 ID: org1 MSPDir:

Most people make the decision based on functional and privacy requirements, not resource consumption. See functional and privacy considerations

Hi Santiago, What is your requirement? At a high level, it can be differentiated based on privacy, performance, data silos, and development/management complexity. Channels Private Data

Hi fabric experts, I am trying to establish a comparison of the advantages of using private data collections over increasing the number of channels. I have been thinking about measuring how much

I am running multiple peers and I have installed chaincode on both of them with the same external chaincode server address. Installing the chaincode and committing a chaincode works fine. But while