Hi, Thanks to feedback from @pegartillo95 and others I’ve updated the lab to the latest SGX SDK, deps, and most recently Azure configuration. There was a version disparity in that environment complica

I’m ok archiving the poet 2 lab (and just noted so on the PR). I just sent a separate note to the SParts contributor in case they are not on this list. I got a note from an interested new contributor

I declare Umbra winner of best lab name ever. :) --dan On 11/5/18, 12:51 PM, "labs@... on behalf of David Huseby" <labs@... on behalf of dhuseby@...

#umbra

Tomorrow I’d like to use the blake PR to have some discussion about standards and tiers per https://lists.hyperledger.org/g/labs/topic/sharedcrypto_3rd_party/27631934?p=,,,20,0,0,0::recentpostdate%2Fs

#SharedCrypto

Yes, that criteria list was heavily biased towards standard implementations. To accommodate the other 2 tiers it should be expanded to quantify the level of review of the algorithm. When it comes to g

#SharedCrypto

I’m fine with the updated maintainers concept. We can enforce n maintainer reviews with github. We already do that in sawtooth. I’m still planning to get the contributor rules writeup in as a PR befor

#SharedCrypto

I propose we establish some standards for libraries we will incorporate in crypto-lib (or Ursa or whatever we will soon call it :) ) As a motivating example there’s a PR to add a blake2 library. I’ve

#SharedCrypto

sounds good to me --Dan On 10/12/18, 2:45 PM, "labs@... on behalf of David Huseby" <labs@... on behalf of dhuseby@...> wrote: Hi Crypto-Lib Team, W

#SharedCrypto

Thanks for wrangling this, Hart. Not sure if I can make it to today’s call. In case I can’t I’ve added a couple comments in the proposal. As further high-level thoughts, though, it might be helpful to

#SharedCrypto

Reminder we have a meeting Wed at 2-3pm GMT (8am PDT) ``` Agenda: 1. Common signing API (discuss proposed code from Indy perspective. Discuss differences between txn signing and block signing) 2. ZKLa