Date   

Re: CI/CD update

Christopher Ferris <chrisfer@...>
 

We should keep an eye on https://github.com/tektoncd 

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Fellow, CTO Open Technology
IBM Digital Business Group, Open Technologies
email: chrisfer@...
twitter: @christo4ferris

On May 8, 2019, at 12:26 AM, Dave Huseby <dhuseby@...> wrote:

Hi TSC,

After receiving feedback from many of you that you didn't think the CI/CD committee should be private, the CA team has decided to open it all up. I am keeping the one page with all of the outside CI/CD costs private to protect the confidentiality I promised when gathering expense information from companies currently paying to run Hyperledger CI/CD pipelines.

The CI/CD space can be found here:


You can see all of the ongoing research and ideas as well as the meeting minutes from our meetings. If you would like to participate, I am still looking for people to join the committee to help us work out solutions.

The biggest problem we face now is that many of the CI/CD pipelines for Hyperledger projects use docker-in-docker and docker-compose to first build their CI docker image and test it before running it to build the project code and test that. The current idea of airlifting existing pipelines onto a Hypereldger Kube cluster is blocked by the current docker-in-docker requirement.

Thanks to Mark, we have been thinking about how to get away from docker-in-docker since last October at the Montreal meetup. RedHat has a good solution called Buildah and there are a few others. We could really use help examining the different CI pipelines for the different projects to gauge the level of impact switching from docker-in-docker to something like Buildah would cause.

Kube is not a silver bullet. So the end recommendation from the committee should account for the cost moving all of the projects to a Kube cluster, in terms of estimated work hours and risk due to change.

If you can spare the cycles and know your project's CI pipeline fairly well, we could use your help.

Cheers!
Dave
---
David Huseby
Security Maven, Hyperledger
The Linux Foundation
+1-206-234-2392
dhuseby@...


Re: Add VRF(Verifiable Random Functions) Into Ordering Service to Support Large-scale COnsensus NetWork

VIPIN BHARATHAN
 

Hello all,

Having delved into this more, I have the following comments. 
Agree with Brian's points. 
To the last point: VRF does not appear to have any live patents and is used by other projects (other than Algorand), a more thorough search is warranted.

I will add another route for HL participation: Work with Ursa and get the VRF algorithm into that library.  I believe that the solution can be broader than just applicability to Fabric BFT.

Also, there is a comment on the FAB (https://jira.hyperledger.org/browse/FAB-15350) which argues against the committee selection process and the use of VRF for hashing. 
These have to be addressed.

The commenter (Yakov Manevich) has assumptions about the future (see below). You have to balance this comment against the cost of implementing a VRF based BFT as a pluggable component in Fabric or any other DLT.

"So, clearly - using committee selection is good for large networks with thousands of nodes, and I don't think we'll have a Byzantine ordering service oriented for large networks in the near future. "


Best,
Vipin

dlt.nyc
Vipin Bharathan
Enterprise Blockchain Consultant
vip@...


From: tsc@... <tsc@...> on behalf of Brian Behlendorf via Lists.Hyperledger.Org <bbehlendorf=linuxfoundation.org@...>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 10:43 PM
To: tsc@...; 宣章炯
Cc: tsc@...
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Add VRF(Verifiable Random Functions) Into Ordering Service to Support Large-scale COnsensus NetWork
 

Further to the other supportive comments:

* The Fabric developer mailing list, and or the chat channel, may be a better place to continue the technical side of this discussion, as it's really up to them what gets integrated directly into Fabric.  TSC is more of a cross-community technical discussion list.  I would bet there's interest in a Sawtooth consensus plugin as well, though, so it's not bad that you asked this here, though a consensus engine would work differently there.

* If your question is less about the technical side of how to build it (or whether it's a good idea) and more about getting it into Hyperledger, you could offer this kind of thing to the Hyperledger Fabric project directly as a PR on Gerrit (what Fabric uses instead of Github) or you could host it as a separate consensus engine under Hyperledger Labs.  That may be obvious but I'm not sure how well you know the community so thought it was worth stating.

* If your intent is to offer it as a contribution of code into Hyperledger (whether into Fabric directly or as an add-on hosted at Labs, etc) then you may want to make sure that there aren't obvious patents that apply to VRF, or if there are, that the patent holders have granted a license to you or to the public in general for open source implementations.  We want to avoid the situation where code that clearly implements a patented algorithm is embedded into Fabric or other open source code, and then a patent holder comes around later to Hyperledger or to end users demanding a license for that use.

Thanks,

Brian

On 5/7/19 12:43 PM, VIPIN BHARATHAN wrote:
Hello Zhangjiong Xuan,
Sounds great. A faster version of consensus in the form of a VRF implementation. There may be some challenges with the structure and functions of nodes in HLF. I am sure you will overcome those. Ever since VRF was opensourced at the end of 2018 I had expected a group like yours to take on the challenge.
Best,
Vipin

 

From: tsc@... on behalf of via Lists.Hyperledger.Org <xzj19922010=gmail.com@...>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 8:14 AM
To: tsc@...
Cc: tsc@...
Subject: [Hyperledger TSC] Add VRF(Verifiable Random Functions) Into Ordering Service to Support Large-scale COnsensus NetWork
 

My name is Zhangjiong Xuan. I come from Hangzhou Qulian Technology Co., Ltd. We have a team to research Algorand and VRF Algorithm. Now we have implement the VRF Algorithm in the Golang. And we think there is a good scenario in the Hyperledger Fabric. So we want to ask the communitty if it’s a good Idea to use VRF Algorithm into Ordering Service, to do a feature in the Ordering Service. I hope TSC group can have a discussion whether will receive this proposal. If both of you think it's a good idea .Maybe we can have a try to do this job .And make a more detailed design in the google docs.

Thanks.


Jira:

Google doc:


-- 
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf


TSC Agenda for this week

Silona Bonewald <sbonewald@...>
 

Please remember to add things to the agenda!


Thanks!
--
Silona Bonewald
VP of Community Architecture, Hyperledger
Mobile/Text: 512.750.9220
https://calendly.com/silona
The Linux Foundation
http://hyperledger.org


CI/CD update

Dave Huseby <dhuseby@...>
 

Hi TSC,

After receiving feedback from many of you that you didn't think the CI/CD committee should be private, the CA team has decided to open it all up. I am keeping the one page with all of the outside CI/CD costs private to protect the confidentiality I promised when gathering expense information from companies currently paying to run Hyperledger CI/CD pipelines.

The CI/CD space can be found here:


You can see all of the ongoing research and ideas as well as the meeting minutes from our meetings. If you would like to participate, I am still looking for people to join the committee to help us work out solutions.

The biggest problem we face now is that many of the CI/CD pipelines for Hyperledger projects use docker-in-docker and docker-compose to first build their CI docker image and test it before running it to build the project code and test that. The current idea of airlifting existing pipelines onto a Hypereldger Kube cluster is blocked by the current docker-in-docker requirement.

Thanks to Mark, we have been thinking about how to get away from docker-in-docker since last October at the Montreal meetup. RedHat has a good solution called Buildah and there are a few others. We could really use help examining the different CI pipelines for the different projects to gauge the level of impact switching from docker-in-docker to something like Buildah would cause.

Kube is not a silver bullet. So the end recommendation from the committee should account for the cost moving all of the projects to a Kube cluster, in terms of estimated work hours and risk due to change.

If you can spare the cycles and know your project's CI pipeline fairly well, we could use your help.

Cheers!
Dave
---
David Huseby
Security Maven, Hyperledger
The Linux Foundation
+1-206-234-2392
dhuseby@...


Re: Add VRF(Verifiable Random Functions) Into Ordering Service to Support Large-scale COnsensus NetWork

Brian Behlendorf
 


Further to the other supportive comments:

* The Fabric developer mailing list, and or the chat channel, may be a better place to continue the technical side of this discussion, as it's really up to them what gets integrated directly into Fabric.  TSC is more of a cross-community technical discussion list.  I would bet there's interest in a Sawtooth consensus plugin as well, though, so it's not bad that you asked this here, though a consensus engine would work differently there.

* If your question is less about the technical side of how to build it (or whether it's a good idea) and more about getting it into Hyperledger, you could offer this kind of thing to the Hyperledger Fabric project directly as a PR on Gerrit (what Fabric uses instead of Github) or you could host it as a separate consensus engine under Hyperledger Labs.  That may be obvious but I'm not sure how well you know the community so thought it was worth stating.

* If your intent is to offer it as a contribution of code into Hyperledger (whether into Fabric directly or as an add-on hosted at Labs, etc) then you may want to make sure that there aren't obvious patents that apply to VRF, or if there are, that the patent holders have granted a license to you or to the public in general for open source implementations.  We want to avoid the situation where code that clearly implements a patented algorithm is embedded into Fabric or other open source code, and then a patent holder comes around later to Hyperledger or to end users demanding a license for that use.

Thanks,

Brian

On 5/7/19 12:43 PM, VIPIN BHARATHAN wrote:
Hello Zhangjiong Xuan,
Sounds great. A faster version of consensus in the form of a VRF implementation. There may be some challenges with the structure and functions of nodes in HLF. I am sure you will overcome those. Ever since VRF was opensourced at the end of 2018 I had expected a group like yours to take on the challenge.
Best,
Vipin

 

From: tsc@... on behalf of via Lists.Hyperledger.Org <xzj19922010=gmail.com@...>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 8:14 AM
To: tsc@...
Cc: tsc@...
Subject: [Hyperledger TSC] Add VRF(Verifiable Random Functions) Into Ordering Service to Support Large-scale COnsensus NetWork
 

My name is Zhangjiong Xuan. I come from Hangzhou Qulian Technology Co., Ltd. We have a team to research Algorand and VRF Algorithm. Now we have implement the VRF Algorithm in the Golang. And we think there is a good scenario in the Hyperledger Fabric. So we want to ask the communitty if it’s a good Idea to use VRF Algorithm into Ordering Service, to do a feature in the Ordering Service. I hope TSC group can have a discussion whether will receive this proposal. If both of you think it's a good idea .Maybe we can have a try to do this job .And make a more detailed design in the google docs.

Thanks.


Jira:

Google doc:


-- 
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf


Re: Add VRF(Verifiable Random Functions) Into Ordering Service to Support Large-scale COnsensus NetWork

Baohua Yang
 

Great, zhangjiong!

I think this is an interesting topic, as VRP was typically used in public scenarios and some open-sourced repo will be a good start.


On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 10:14 PM 宣章炯 <xzj19922010@...> wrote:

My name is Zhangjiong Xuan. I come from Hangzhou Qulian Technology Co., Ltd. We have a team to research Algorand and VRF Algorithm. Now we have implement the VRF Algorithm in the Golang. And we think there is a good scenario in the Hyperledger Fabric. So we want to ask the communitty if it’s a good Idea to use VRF Algorithm into Ordering Service, to do a feature in the Ordering Service. I hope TSC group can have a discussion whether will receive this proposal. If both of you think it's a good idea .Maybe we can have a try to do this job .And make a more detailed design in the google docs.

Thanks.


Jira:

Google doc:



--
Best wishes!

Baohua Yang


Re: Transact Project Proposal

Shawn Amundson
 

Dan - sounds absolutely fantastic. Node.js and Java are both on the list of languages we will support for smart contract engines. The next week or so will probably be spent finalizing the project name and getting infrastructure setup for the project. We have a #transact channel in RocketChat now (it will be renamed later) and will setup regular contributors meetings soon.

-Shawn

On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 8:58 AM Dan Selman via Lists.Hyperledger.Org <dan=clause.io@...> wrote:
Also excited by this. Within the Accord Project (http://accordproject.org) we maintain the Open Source Cicero runtime and Ergo Domain Specific Language for Smart Contracts. We've already experimented with embedding Cicero within Fabric (via compilation to Node.js and Java), but if compilation to Transact could open the door to supporting other ledgers that would be of great interest to the AP community.

How can we get involved?

Thanks,
Dan

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 6:50 PM Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...> wrote:
I'm super excited about this, as I've long hoped for a intermediate layer between DLT and smart contracts that might allow better componentization within HL as a whole.  And I'm happy to see the very thoughtful description of how this would relate to other Hyperledger projects, both planned and possible.  It'd be great to hear on-list or as comments to the proposal from devs involved in these other projects, and people thinking about other smart contract engines (like DAML) that could be plugged in.  Very happy to see Gari's name on the proposal as a sponsor, and hope this indicates a willingness from the Fabric team to spend more time with this.

Brian

On 4/17/19 6:21 PM, Shawn Amundson wrote:
I'm happy to extend this proposal to the TSC for future consideration on behalf of its sponsors:


From the proposal: "Transact is a transaction execution platform designed to be used as a library or component when implementing distributed ledgers, including blockchains. Hyperledger framework-level projects and custom distributed ledgers can make use of Transact's advanced transaction execution and state management to simplify the transaction execution code required within their projects or to gain additional features."

Please provide feedback to help us enhance this proposal!

Thanks,

-Shawn


-- 
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf



--

Dan Selman

CTO

Email: dan@...

Mobile: +44 7785-792717

clause.io

social

This message is confidential and its contents shall not be distributed to any third parties without the permission of the sender. Similarly any documents that are marked as private and confidential or similar are strictly not for distribution or disclosure to any unaddressed parties, without exception. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system. You may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.


Re: Add VRF(Verifiable Random Functions) Into Ordering Service to Support Large-scale COnsensus NetWork

VIPIN BHARATHAN
 

Hello Zhangjiong Xuan,
Sounds great. A faster version of consensus in the form of a VRF implementation. There may be some challenges with the structure and functions of nodes in HLF. I am sure you will overcome those. Ever since VRF was opensourced at the end of 2018 I had expected a group like yours to take on the challenge.
Best,
Vipin

 

From: tsc@... on behalf of via Lists.Hyperledger.Org <xzj19922010=gmail.com@...>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 8:14 AM
To: tsc@...
Cc: tsc@...
Subject: [Hyperledger TSC] Add VRF(Verifiable Random Functions) Into Ordering Service to Support Large-scale COnsensus NetWork
 

My name is Zhangjiong Xuan. I come from Hangzhou Qulian Technology Co., Ltd. We have a team to research Algorand and VRF Algorithm. Now we have implement the VRF Algorithm in the Golang. And we think there is a good scenario in the Hyperledger Fabric. So we want to ask the communitty if it’s a good Idea to use VRF Algorithm into Ordering Service, to do a feature in the Ordering Service. I hope TSC group can have a discussion whether will receive this proposal. If both of you think it's a good idea .Maybe we can have a try to do this job .And make a more detailed design in the google docs.

Thanks.


Jira:

Google doc:


Re: RocketChat Downtime

Ry Jones
 

The issue was Anton and Tim were not subscribers to this list, so I needed to approve the messages.


On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 7:32 AM Middleton, Dan <dan.middleton@...> wrote:

Seems like this was an after the fact downtime announcement.

 

Please confirm that maintenance is complete.

 

Thanks

 

From: <tsc@...> on behalf of Jay Guo <guojiannan1101@...>
Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 9:17 AM
To: Tim Johnson <tijohnson@...>
Cc: Hyperledger TSC <tsc@...>, Anton Baranov <abaranov@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] RocketChat Downtime

 

I suppose 08:00 PM?

 

Oddly, I'm constantly getting 502 gateway right now... some other folks report the same issue. Anything wrong at server side?

 

- J

 

On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 10:14 PM Tim Johnson <tijohnson@...> wrote:

We will be upgrading RocketChat, Tue May 7th at 08:00 EST. It should be back on-line within 30mins.
Let me know if this time is objectionable. I will send out another reminder on Mon afternoon.

Tim





--
Ry Jones
Community Architect, Hyperledger


Re: RocketChat Downtime

Jonathan Levi (HACERA)
 

So I figured. Sure thing, Tim. Take your time… better to do it a bit more slowly but surely.
Some (other, of course) open source projects don’t always make it THAT easy to upgrade, or at least, less easy than advertised. Ahem ;-)

— Jonathan

https://hacera.com

On May 7, 2019, at 7:33 AM, Tim Johnson <tijohnson@...> wrote:

We are encounter unexpected issues. I will update as information becomes
available.

On 5/6/19 1:51 PM, Tim Johnson wrote:
We will be upgrading RocketChat, Tue May 7th at 08:00 EST. It should be back on-line within 30mins.
Let me know if this time is objectionable.

Tim


Re: RocketChat Downtime

Tim Johnson <tijohnson@...>
 

We are encounter unexpected issues. I will update as information becomes
available.

On 5/6/19 1:51 PM, Tim Johnson wrote:
We will be upgrading RocketChat, Tue May 7th at 08:00 EST. It should be back on-line within 30mins.
Let me know if this time is objectionable.

Tim


Re: RocketChat Downtime

Middleton, Dan <dan.middleton@...>
 

Seems like this was an after the fact downtime announcement.

 

Please confirm that maintenance is complete.

 

Thanks

 

From: <tsc@...> on behalf of Jay Guo <guojiannan1101@...>
Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 9:17 AM
To: Tim Johnson <tijohnson@...>
Cc: Hyperledger TSC <tsc@...>, Anton Baranov <abaranov@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] RocketChat Downtime

 

I suppose 08:00 PM?

 

Oddly, I'm constantly getting 502 gateway right now... some other folks report the same issue. Anything wrong at server side?

 

- J

 

On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 10:14 PM Tim Johnson <tijohnson@...> wrote:

We will be upgrading RocketChat, Tue May 7th at 08:00 EST. It should be back on-line within 30mins.
Let me know if this time is objectionable. I will send out another reminder on Mon afternoon.

Tim




Re: RocketChat Downtime

Jay Guo
 

I suppose 08:00 PM?

Oddly, I'm constantly getting 502 gateway right now... some other folks report the same issue. Anything wrong at server side?

- J

On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 10:14 PM Tim Johnson <tijohnson@...> wrote:
We will be upgrading RocketChat, Tue May 7th at 08:00 EST. It should be back on-line within 30mins.
Let me know if this time is objectionable. I will send out another reminder on Mon afternoon.

Tim





Re: RocketChat Downtime

Anton Baranov <abaranov@...>
 

Maintenance will start shortry


On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 4:51 PM Tim Johnson <tijohnson@...> wrote:
We will be upgrading RocketChat, Tue May 7th at 08:00 EST. It should be back on-line within 30mins.
Let me know if this time is objectionable.

Tim


RocketChat Downtime

Tim Johnson <tijohnson@...>
 

We will be upgrading RocketChat, Tue May 7th at 08:00 EST. It should be back on-line within 30mins.
Let me know if this time is objectionable.

Tim


Add VRF(Verifiable Random Functions) Into Ordering Service to Support Large-scale COnsensus NetWork

宣章炯 <xzj19922010@...>
 

My name is Zhangjiong Xuan. I come from Hangzhou Qulian Technology Co., Ltd. We have a team to research Algorand and VRF Algorithm. Now we have implement the VRF Algorithm in the Golang. And we think there is a good scenario in the Hyperledger Fabric. So we want to ask the communitty if it’s a good Idea to use VRF Algorithm into Ordering Service, to do a feature in the Ordering Service. I hope TSC group can have a discussion whether will receive this proposal. If both of you think it's a good idea .Maybe we can have a try to do this job .And make a more detailed design in the google docs.

Thanks.


Jira:

Google doc:


RocketChat Downtime

Tim Johnson <tijohnson@...>
 

We will be upgrading RocketChat, Tue May 7th at 08:00 EST. It should be back on-line within 30mins.
Let me know if this time is objectionable. I will send out another reminder on Mon afternoon.

Tim


Re: Transact Project Proposal

Dan Selman
 

Also excited by this. Within the Accord Project (http://accordproject.org) we maintain the Open Source Cicero runtime and Ergo Domain Specific Language for Smart Contracts. We've already experimented with embedding Cicero within Fabric (via compilation to Node.js and Java), but if compilation to Transact could open the door to supporting other ledgers that would be of great interest to the AP community.

How can we get involved?

Thanks,
Dan

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 6:50 PM Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...> wrote:
I'm super excited about this, as I've long hoped for a intermediate layer between DLT and smart contracts that might allow better componentization within HL as a whole.  And I'm happy to see the very thoughtful description of how this would relate to other Hyperledger projects, both planned and possible.  It'd be great to hear on-list or as comments to the proposal from devs involved in these other projects, and people thinking about other smart contract engines (like DAML) that could be plugged in.  Very happy to see Gari's name on the proposal as a sponsor, and hope this indicates a willingness from the Fabric team to spend more time with this.

Brian

On 4/17/19 6:21 PM, Shawn Amundson wrote:
I'm happy to extend this proposal to the TSC for future consideration on behalf of its sponsors:


From the proposal: "Transact is a transaction execution platform designed to be used as a library or component when implementing distributed ledgers, including blockchains. Hyperledger framework-level projects and custom distributed ledgers can make use of Transact's advanced transaction execution and state management to simplify the transaction execution code required within their projects or to gain additional features."

Please provide feedback to help us enhance this proposal!

Thanks,

-Shawn


-- 
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf



--

Dan Selman

CTO

Email: dan@...

Mobile: +44 7785-792717

clause.io

social

This message is confidential and its contents shall not be distributed to any third parties without the permission of the sender. Similarly any documents that are marked as private and confidential or similar are strictly not for distribution or disclosure to any unaddressed parties, without exception. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system. You may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.


Upcoming Event: Hyperledger Burrow Quarterly Update Due #tsc-project-update - Thu, 05/09/2019 #cal-reminder #tsc-project-update

tsc@lists.hyperledger.org Calendar <tsc@...>
 

Reminder: Hyperledger Burrow Quarterly Update Due #tsc-project-update

When: Thursday, 9 May 2019

View Event

Organizer: community-architects@...

Description: The Hyperledger Burrow update to the TSC was due 6 May, 2019, and it will be presented to the TSC on 9 May, 2019. Please review the update at TSC Project Updates prior to the meeting and add your questions to the update.


Upcoming Event: Hyperledger Performance and Scalability WG Quarterly Update Due #tsc-wg-update - Thu, 05/09/2019 #cal-reminder #tsc-wg-update

tsc@lists.hyperledger.org Calendar <tsc@...>
 

Reminder: Hyperledger Performance and Scalability WG Quarterly Update Due #tsc-wg-update

When: Thursday, 9 May 2019

View Event

Organizer: community-architects@...

Description: The Hyperledger Performance and Scalability WG update to the TSC was due 6 May, 2019, and it will be presented to the TSC on 9 May, 2019. Please review the update at TSC Working Group Updates prior to the meeting and add your questions to the update.

1681 - 1700 of 3904