Date   

Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] hyperledger on dockerhub

Haskins, Gregory <GHaskins@...>
 

I’m sure Todd is already aware of this, but Mike Dolan mentioned he might have a contact at Docker that might be able to assist, FWIW.

 

-Greg

 

From: Binh Q Nguyen [mailto:binhn@...]
Sent: 08 April 2016 12:02
To: Todd Benzies via hyperledger-tsc
Cc: Haskins, Gregory; Christopher B Ferris
Subject: hyperledger on dockerhub

 

Hi Todd,

Follow up on the question I had yesterday during the call. We discovered someone already owes this account and are trying to figure out. Could you help.

https://hub.docker.com/u/hyperledger/


Thanks,

- Binh

Please read these warnings and restrictions:

This e-mail transmission is strictly confidential and intended solely for the ordinary user of the e-mail address to which it was addressed. It may contain legally privileged and/or CONFIDENTIAL information.

The unauthorised use, disclosure, distribution and/or copying of this e-mail or any information it contains is prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, constitute a criminal offence.

If you have received this e-mail in error or are not an intended recipient please inform London Stock Exchange Group (“LSEG”) immediately by return e-mail or telephone 020 7797 1000.

We advise that in keeping with good computing practice the recipient of this e-mail should ensure that it is virus free. We do not accept responsibility for any virus that may be transferred by way of this e-mail.

E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception and unauthorised amendment, and we do not accept liability for any such corruption, interception or amendment or any consequences thereof.

Calls to London Stock Exchange Group may be recorded to enable LSEG to carry out its regulatory responsibilities.

London Stock Exchange Group plc

10 Paternoster Square
London
EC4M 7LS

Registered in England and Wales No 05369106


[Hyperledger Project TSC] hyperledger on dockerhub

Binh Q Nguyen <binhn@...>
 

Hi Todd,

Follow up on the question I had yesterday during the call. We discovered someone already owes this account and are trying to figure out. Could you help.

https://hub.docker.com/u/hyperledger/


Thanks,

- Binh


Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Hyperledger Identity BOF or WG?

Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@...>
 



On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@...> wrote:
I have create Doodle meeting request to schedule an initial meeting for a Hyperledger Identity WG

 

So far the Doodle has a rough consensus for Friday, April 15th at 11am PDT.

HOWEVER, it isn't clear to me that Doodle did a good job representing time zones. So if you didn't mean 2pm EDT (or whatever your time zone is), please change your entries.

-- Christopher Allen
 


[Hyperledger Project TSC] Minutes / April 7th, 2016

Todd Benzies <tbenzies@...>
 

Hyperledger Project

Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting

April 7, 2016 (7:00am - 8:30am PT)

F2F at Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit & via GoToMeeting


TSC Members

Emmanuel Viale

Accenture


Stan Liberman

CME Group

Yes

Tamas Blummer

DAH

Yes

Stefan Teis

Deutsche Boerse Group


Pardha Vishnumolakala

DTCC

Yes

Hart Montgomery

Fujitsu

Yes

Satoshi Oshima

Hitachi


Chris Ferris

IBM

Yes

Mic Bowman

Intel

Yes

David Voell

J.P. Morgan

Yes

Richard G. Brown

R3

Yes


Resources:


Agenda

  • Action Item Review

  • Intel - proposed contribution (Patrick Holmes)

  • Discuss and Finalize

  • Updates

  • Tooling F2F

  • Next Technical F2F


Action Item Review

  • Chris sent request to call for CI volunteers and created slack channel

  • Chris A and Mic are having discussions to complete the readme for the merged code proposal that was approved


Intel - proposed contribution (Patrick Holmes)

  • Open sourcing project “distributed ledger”

  • Highly modular and extensible

    • Gossip topology:  Random walk and Barabasi-Albert

    • Consensus: PoET and Quorum voting

    • Solution domains:  Transaction Families

  • Transaction Families

    • Provide data model, transaction semantics and validation

  • Proof of Elapsed Time (PoET) Consensus

    • A power-efficient replacement for proof-of-work

    • Each node delays a random duration before claiming leadership

    • Trusted Execution Environment provides attestation

  • github.com/intelledger

    • Internal name “Sawtooth”

    • Sawtooth core is the fundamental component

    • Sawtooth validator is the validator process (startup, configuration settings, etc.)

    • Sawtooth marketplace is more complex marketplace

    • Sawtooth dev tools is the vagrant environment

    • Documentation on github.io

    • Developer’s guide with API documentation

    • Marketplace Developer’s guide to use marketplace code

  • http://intelledger.github.io/

  • https://inteldl.slack.com/

  • Q:  Going to make a formal proposal?

    • Patrick -- hoping people go study, do tutorial, give us feedback.  Then we come back in a week with further proposal of what we’d like to do.

  • Q:  Is it possible to use SGX with this code?

    • SGX is on some processors, but not all.  We’ve created a PoET simulator.  Simulates it running inside SGX, but not actually running inside SGX.  So, it is not secure implementation -- only simulating trusted execution environment.  Working on plans now for final implementation using a trusted environment.

    • DM:  Algorithm there is algorithm that would run inside of trusted environment.  Important aspects is brings consensus back to 1 CPU 1 vote.

      • There is a slack channel in documentation -- would love to get feedback.

  • Q:  Is there a whitepaper or something on this?

    • Patrick:   No.  But, introduction in documentation is what is available.

  • Q:  How does validation work?  Is there an execution engine or scripting engine?

    • PH:  Blocks are made up of transaction identifiers (hashes of transactions)… transactions are distributed through gossip network.

    • Q:  Transaction family is part of distributed ledger?

      • It is running on each node.  The validators is a composition of business logic which is abstracted from consensus mechanism, the selections of the consensus and peer protocols.

  • Q:  Business use cases?  Have you implement like IoT for example?  Or other business cases?

    • Mic:  a couple -- used endpoint registry (IoT)... also participated in R3 projects, financial services uses cases.  Have tested consensus mechanism with up to 1000 participating validators.  2,000 was highest it was pushed (on VMs).

  • Q:  What language support for smart contract development?

    • PH:  validator and code is Python.

  • Q:  Transaction families support Turing complete language?  Or is it more deterministic?

    • DM:  Author transaction family that has whatever orthogonality you want.  Could be fully Turing complete.  Attach an Ethereum-style execution model as a transaction family.  Example transaction families written have restricted verbiage to them right now.

  • Q:  Privacy achieved in executing through SGX environment?

    • DM:  Anticipate doing some unique things in SGX enclaves to support privacy in transaction models.

    • DV:  So wouldn’t be able to implement with current code base?

    • DM:  There isn’t a private facility within this code.  Transactions are fairly open.  But, nothing restricts you from layering privacy model into it.

    • Mic:  in this release, does not provide some of the fundamental capabilities of doing peer to peer private transactions at this point.

  • Q:  1 vote / 1 CPU -- how is permission identified?

    • Mic:  All of validators register themselves.  That can be used as point of restriction for identity access.  SGX signing allows us to identify the fact two certificates originated from the same location.


Discuss and Finalize

  • Project Lifecycle template (Arnaud Le Hors)

    • Looked at draft a few weeks ago, have factored in edits and comments.

    • Clarified what incubation entails -- incubation should be fairly easy to get into… want people to bring ideas to explore.  We don’t want to preclude things at this level.

    • Question about different stages and how to progress -- is it linear?  Text has been clarified.

    • Just because things are easy to get into incubation, does not mean there is a guarantee that you will progress beyond incubation or that it will be easy.

    • Need to define criteria to get to incubation and the to go to mature stage.  Chris Allen is working on this.

    • Can iterate and make changes as we move forward.

    • Q:  Are there particular reviews for going state to state?

      • Idea that within each project people are labeled as leaders.  They decide when they want to go to mature, they have own internal decision making process.  From there, they would need to bring it to the TSC to decide if it goes to maturation.

    • VOTE:  This Project LIfecycle as a starting point.  We can amend over time.

      • 7 of 8 present in favor (Richard abstained).  Approved.

    • ACTION:  Chris to move it on wiki.


  • Project Proposal template (Vipin Bharathan)

    • Nothing has come up except for Chris’ comment that something should say “sponsor” instead of “author”

    • VOTE:  8 of 8 present - unanimous.  Approved.

    • ACTION:  Chris to move this on wiki.


Updates

  • Requirements WG (Patrick Holmes)

    • Meeting was announced on slack requirements channel
    • Goal of group is to create system requirements… best way to do that is through use cases.
    • Next meeting will take use case through entire process.  Primrose (Accenture) will do work with counterfeit drugs use case.
    • Will continue to use wiki.
    • Next meeting time not yet set -- but will be announced on TSC list.
    • Semi-active slack channel -- please join us.
  • Architecture WG (Ram Jagadeesan)

    • n/a today -- updates coming next week

  • Whitepaper WG (Dave Voell)

    • First meeting post-F2F yesterday
    • Noam, Murali, and Mic are new participants (now there are 9)
    • Reviewed why the group is starting with OBC article?  Reiterated that it wasn’t rubber stamping OBC… it was really taking it from perspective that whitepaper was a good start in technical journalistic rigor.  Set a good baseline to start developing and modifying from, to reflect what is different.
    • Talked about logistics of whitepaper.
    • Every 2 weeks we’ll publish new version of the draft.  Want broad community feedback.  We’ll define process on how people can submit comments on wiki, as well as slack and tech mailing list.
    • Google docs is good for now… but will probably migrate later.
    • Should we have a whitepaper for each code stack?  Consensus was “no” -- this should not have any implementation details or specifics to any fabric under hyperledger banner.
    • Actual edits -- accepted a bunch of earlier suggestions.
    • Background section of paper -- OBC was originally designed to be permission only.  However, we will modify paper to envision scope of other use cases for public permissionless type mechanism.  But, this would be a later focus.  Have not yet phrased this how we want.  From there, it would be valuable to get Board review and agreement.
    • ACTION:  Finalize wording to get in front of Board to review and opine on.
    • ACTION:  Dave to update minutes on wiki

  • Identity Subgroup (Chris Allen)

    • Reached out on mailing list -- has a starting list of people that are interested in the discussion
    • Determining how to meet, how to have discussion
    • Identity is an important part of a permissioned system
      • Identity at the blockchain level is very different than identity from business logic level and how to handle
      • May feed into requirements working group
    • ACTION:  Chris Allen to canvass everyone that expressed interest, determine if they prefer a list created or just using slack.

Tooling F2F

  • Steve Westmoreland suggested everyone get together for .5 day or 1 day to run through tooling needs, driving integration, Gerrit, integrate with Slack and Travis, Jenkins, etc. or whatever for build orchestration.

  • ACTION:  Todd to create Doodle poll -- sometime during next few weeks.

  • Location:  possibly New York or East Coast?


Next Technical F2F

  • Next Technical F2F.  Possibly 1st week of May during Consensus event?

  • ACTION:  Todd to send Doodle poll -- 2 days would be good.  Will start soliciting space, as well.


Actions:


  • Chris A and Mic to complete the readme for the merged code proposal that was approved

  • Chris Ferris to move Project Lifecycle on wiki (no longer under proposals)

  • Chris Ferris to move Project Proposal on wiki (no longer under proposals)

  • Dave to finalize wording of whitepaper to get in from of Board to review and opine on.

  • Dave to update minutes for whitepaper WG

  • Chris Allen to canvass everyone that expressed interest in Identity subgroup, determine if they prefer a list created or just using slack.

  • Todd to create Doodle poll for Tooling F2F

  • Todd to create Doodle poll for Technical F2F

--
Todd Benzies
Senior Program Manager
The Linux Foundation
+1 (415) 412-0310 (m)
Skype: tbenzies


[Hyperledger Project TSC] Tooling F2F - Scheduling

Todd Benzies <tbenzies@...>
 

Hyperledger Project Technical Community,

For those of you interested in participating in person at the Tooling F2F (1/2 or 1 day meeting on the east coast), please complete your preferred availability at http://doodle.com/poll/qyhxpzhpfrzp72tu.

Regards,

Todd

--
Todd Benzies
Senior Program Manager
The Linux Foundation
+1 (415) 412-0310 (m)
Skype: tbenzies


Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Hyperledger Identity BOF or WG?

Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@...>
 

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 7:15 AM, Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@...> wrote:
 issues of Identity, ranging from:

* management of private keys and wallets
* token hardware
* hardware authentication requirements
* nature and requirements for multisignature
* different forms of authentication vs authoriziation
* privacy (in particular with EU and regulatory issues like HIPA)
* selective disclosure, 
* KYC 
* travel rule
* ui and use case
* cross-border international identity issues, etc

I have create Doodle meeting request to schedule an initial meeting for a Hyperledger Identity WG

Agenda for the first call is to introduce ourselves, focus on what can be a deliverable, and make a decision on how to collaborate asynchronously (slack, email list, etc.).

If you are interested in participating please fill out the poll! 


Thank you!

-- Christopher Allen


[Hyperledger Project TSC] Agenda for April 7, 2016 TSC Meeting

Todd Benzies <tbenzies@...>
 

Agenda
  • Intel - proposed contribution (Patrick Holmes)
  • Discuss and Finalize
  • Updates
  • Tooling F2F
  • Next Technical F2F

--
Todd Benzies
Senior Program Manager
The Linux Foundation
+1 (415) 412-0310 (m)
Skype: tbenzies


[Hyperledger Project TSC] Minutes / March 31st, 2016

Todd Benzies <tbenzies@...>
 

Hyperledger Project

Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting

March 31, 2016 (7:00am -8:30am PT)

F2F at Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit & via GoToMeeting


TSC Members

Emmanuel Viale

Accenture


Stan Liberman

CME Group

Yes

Tamas Blummer

DAH

Yes

Stefan Teis

Deutsche Boerse Group

Yes

Pardha Vishnumolakala

DTCC

Yes

Hart Montgomery

Fujitsu

Yes

Satoshi Oshima

Hitachi


Chris Ferris

IBM

Yes

Mic Bowman

Intel

Yes

David Voell

J.P. Morgan

Yes

Richard G. Brown

R3

Yes


Resources:


Agenda

  • Proposal for merged codebase

  • Linux Foundation IT/Tools Discussion


Proposal for merged codebase

  • Chris Ferris:  After close of last week’s Technical F2F, we agreed to bring forward proposal to the TSC this week

    • https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XECRVN9hXGrjAjysrnuNSdggzAKYm6XESR6KmABwhkE/edit

    • Proposing to formally incubate the merged codebase that emerged from last week’s F2F and formally evaluate through the incubation process where it builds and we can have a release.

    • Project sponsored by Chris Ferris (IBM) and Tamas (DAH)

    • PoC resulted from Hackathon

    • Team proposed set of high level next steps articulated in proposal along with another set of tasks to get to point of mature implementation

    • This was proposed as a incubation project

    • A question had come up if other projects could come forward with proposals -- answer is yes.  If others have proposals, bring them to the TSC.

    • Resources -- IBM and DAH are both committing FTEs to this.  Binh, Tamas, Robert, Sheehan would be initial maintainers.

  • Questions / Comments

    • Q:  Is this effort of only IBM/DAH, or community?

      • Not just IBM/DAH… it is the Hyperledger Community.

    • Q:  Can you establish a set of guidelines or documentation to help people that are new and want to get up to speed to help?

      • Yes, this can be part of initial work.  Will add initial next steps to create this.

    • Q:  Number of stages?  i.e. incubation and then?

    • Q:  Hackathon was great -- but, concern with word “incubation”... it feels premature to start down this path.  Proposals need to be vendor neutral.  This was a hackathon… let’s continue to experiment and turn into a proposal before it can be incubation.

      • CF:  Incubation is the first step.

      • ST:  There was a proposal… we worked on this during hackathon.  At this point, we move to incubation.

      • MD:  We shouldn’t be gateing and creating barriers for getting incubation and ideas to start.  This is different than a standards effort.  Others are free to bring proposals as well.  This method is similar to every major open source project.

      • HM:  May be a matter of semantics.  Need to make code easier to use.  Shouldn’t be wedded to a single architecture.  People seem to agree on what we need to do, but maybe arguing about terminology.

      • MB:  This is not _the_ codebase.  This is _a_ codebase that will be evaluated at a future point.  Want to understand what this evaluation will entail and what efforts are setting this criteria?  Lastly, feels like proposal is code without an understanding exactly what it is being proposed.  Architecture is extremely high level… want to understand how these components will be deployed, made available, etc.  What is being proposed architecturally?  That said, in favor of making code work, in parallel.

      • CF:  We need to aggressively work on evaluation criteria.  We can make that part of the proposal.  That said, we need to get code into the HLP project that everyone can start collaborating on.  If someone else wants to do a proposal that we incubate side-by-side, it is welcomed!

      • SL:  What are we accepting?  Maybe we accept parts of architecture and break into separate projects?  Right now it seems we are accepting entire OBC architecture as a proposal

      • CF:  This is a place to start from, not an end result.

      • RGB:  Struggling to understand how to contribute to process.  It is becoming clear that he needs to understand what we think an end state could be.  I disagree that there will ever be one correct codebase… different architectures for different requirements.  If the intention is that we get to one codebase, then we need to agree on the problem we are trying to solve.  Or, if the vision is that there are several sister projects addressing needs, that is possible too.  When we talk about eval process, need to address this.

      • CF:  May be a problem of semantics.  We are not selecting a code base.  Requirements, use cases, etc. will all shape what we build.  This is like starting with a lump of clay.  Just want to start a process of getting people to collaborate and working together.

      • Murali:  In favor of merging code bases.  Maybe we come up with a target architecture and identify different components and note which components come from which proposals.

      • CF:  Yes.  Other people may come forward with ideas of better member services (for example)... this is exactly what we want to do.  This is just a lump of clay to evolve.

      • PD:  If you have another idea, put a proposal forward.  Competing ideas lead to innovation.

      • CF:  OpenStack, for example.  Someone may want to refactor a component.  Get others to collaborate with them.

      • EM:  Maybe noting that this is one project being moved into incubation, but it is not intended as the _only_ foundation.

      • CF:  Correct.  But, people need to bring proposals.

      • ST:  Help us and others understand the initial proposed code… need a 101 description which would help everyone put it on a broader development base.

      • DV:  Sounds like a lot of violent agreement.  A lot is semantics.  Doesn’t see how moving this to incubation conflicts with any points above or what happens next or someone makes a different suggestion.

      • TB:  There are advantages to this merge.  DAH comes from bitcoin angle, IBM comes from more general angle.  This is pragmatic merge.

      • MB:  What does accepting proposal mean?  1) we give it a label that it is incubation status.  2)  give it a spot on the hyperledger github.  What else? What changes?

      • CF:  Bring under HLP umbrella and it goes under the governance of the project.  It would be moved from the independent repository.  This would put it under governance to engage and accept work from others.

      • MB:  In terms of process, it sounds like the real difference under HLP label, set of guidelines for code review, commitment, licensing, community, contributions, etc.

      • CF:  Successful at hackathon with getting different companies to collaborate.  There can be other proposals.  But, important that we start engaging and collaborating as community.

      • CA:  How about we accept the proposal into incubation, but make sure there, in this repo, there is further clarity that a) we are hoping for further proposals and incubation projects, that b) this isn't not a base at this time, and c) that as the first in there are incomplete understanding of goal end state and are waiving requirements of the proposal process of having a well defined scope as we don't know scope yet.

      • ALH:  Suffering by lack of common understanding of what it means to be in incubation.  Project Lifecycle doc could have solved this.  This document needs more work.  Need to finalize work of lifecycle doc and publish on web.

      • ACTION:  Christopher Allen and Mic Bowman suggest verbiage for readme for how we characterize this

      • MD:  Need to think in long term.  Putting up gates in front end for proposals may create challenges.  Focus more on getting out of incubation, as opposed to getting into incubation.

      • RGB:  Good point.  This makes the readme clarification important.

      • Primrose:  There are multiple proposals.  Why are just IBM, DAH, Blockstream as an incubator?  How does Ripple or others become incubating?

      • MD:  Those were statements of proposed contribution.  Please put forward a proposal for incubation.

      • CF:  It sounds like people are ok, but stuck on semantics.

      • RJ:  Would be good to have an Architecture WG

        • Ram will lead the WG, Hart will help.

        • Ram to circulate note on mailing list with more details and call for volunteers

  • VOTE -- Proposal with modifications from Stefan (accessible for new people), also added from Mic (TSC will work in parallel on incubation, graduation, etc. criteria)... Mic/Chris A. to collaborate on clear section in readme that describes exactly what this is).

    • Vote passes unanimously with the 9 TSC members present.


Emmanuel Viale

Accenture

-

Stan Liberman

CME Group

Yes

Tamas Blummer

DAH

Yes

Stefan Teis

Deutsche Boerse Group

Yes

Pardha Vishnumolakala

DTCC

Yes

Hart Montgomery

Fujitsu

Yes

Satoshi Oshima

Hitachi

-

Chris Ferris

IBM

Yes

Mic Bowman

Intel

Yes

David Voell

J.P. Morgan

Yes

Richard G. Brown

R3

Yes


Linux Foundation IT/Tools Discussion

  • Steve Westmoreland, Linux Foundation CIO

  • Gerrit is helpful in controlling to make sure there is a review process and any comments/questions can go back to the contributor, if necessary.  Code management and review.

  • Would also like to have a working session on infrastructure.

  • Linux Foundation will assign a release engineer.  Also, anyone that wants to work on CI, please let us know.

    • ACTION:  Chris Ferris to send a request to the list.


Evaluation Criteria for Incubation to Mature

  • MB:  Expect to come out of the requirements workgroup.  Will talk to Patrick Holmes on this.

  • CA:  Had put out a call for an Identity Subgroup.

    • ACTION:  LF to add an Identity mailing lists.

  • MD:  Note that LF IT team is working on slack/mailing list integration

--
Todd Benzies
Senior Program Manager
The Linux Foundation
+1 (415) 412-0310 (m)
Skype: tbenzies


[Hyperledger Project TSC] Agenda for March 31, 2016 TSC Meeting

Todd Benzies <tbenzies@...>
 

Agenda

--
Todd Benzies
Senior Program Manager
The Linux Foundation
+1 (415) 412-0310 (m)
Skype: tbenzies


Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Incubation Project Proposal

Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@...>
 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XECRVN9hXGrjAjysrnuNSdggzAKYm6XESR6KmABwhkE/edit?usp=sharing

Sorry, please use this link instead. This is also the link linked from the wiki Proposals page.

Cheers,



Christopher Ferris

IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Open Technology

IBM Cloud, Open Technologies

email: chrisfer@...

twitter: @christo4ferris

blog: https://developer.ibm.com/opentech/author/chrisfer/

phone: +1 508 667 0402




-----Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM wrote: -----To: hyperledger-technical-discuss@..., hyperledger-tsc@...
From: Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM
Date: 03/29/2016 08:08PM
Subject: Incubation Project Proposal

All,

I've published a formal proposal from Tamas and I based on what we discussed on the TSC call last Friday. We'll be brining this forward during the TSC call Thursday. Comments and discussion welcomed. Everyone should have comment ability. Let's keep discussion on hyperledger-technical-discuss@... or Slack. Thanks!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XECRVN9hXGrjAjysrnuNSdggzAKYm6XESR6KmABwhkE/edit

Cheers,


Christopher Ferris

IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Open Technology

IBM Cloud, Open Technologies

email: chrisfer@...

twitter: @christo4ferris

blog: https://developer.ibm.com/opentech/author/chrisfer/

phone: +1 508 667 0402


[Hyperledger Project TSC] Incubation Project Proposal

Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@...>
 

All,

I've published a formal proposal from Tamas and I based on what we discussed on the TSC call last Friday. We'll be brining this forward during the TSC call Thursday. Comments and discussion welcomed. Everyone should have comment ability. Let's keep discussion on hyperledger-technical-discuss@... or Slack. Thanks!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XECRVN9hXGrjAjysrnuNSdggzAKYm6XESR6KmABwhkE/edit

Cheers,


Christopher Ferris

IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Open Technology

IBM Cloud, Open Technologies

email: chrisfer@...

twitter: @christo4ferris

blog: https://developer.ibm.com/opentech/author/chrisfer/

phone: +1 508 667 0402


[Hyperledger Project TSC] Minutes / March 25th, 2016

Todd Benzies <tbenzies@...>
 

Hyperledger Project

Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting

March 25, 2016 (8:00am - 9:00am PT)

F2F in Brooklyn & via WebEx


TSC Members

Emmanuel Viale

Accenture


Stan Liberman

CME Group

Yes

Tamas Blummer

DAH

Yes

Stefan Teis

Deutsche Boerse Group

Yes

Pardha Vishnumolakala

DTCC


Hart Montgomery

Fujitsu

Yes

Satoshi Oshima

Hitachi


Chris Ferris

IBM

Yes

Mic Bowman

Intel

Yes

David Voell

J.P. Morgan

Yes

Richard G. Brown

R3



Resources:


Readouts from Technical F2F

  • Recording available of readouts from Technical F2F, which took place prior to TSC Meeting


Getting to a Code Base

  • A team at the hackathon developed a PoC for a merged code base

  • This team demonstrated their PoC work

  • The team noted that they pivoted slightly from the original plans once the pulled code together and merged

  • The net result is that they found a more elegant solution in the process


Open Discussion

  • Comment about identity issues.  Talking about federation and very different requirements... are we supporting multi-sig, what are wallet requirements, regulatory issues (hardware, tokens, etc.), privacy issues (i.e. Europe vs. US),  This will affect all of our Federations.  If we create a lot of different chaincodes with authority being granted by those chaincodes, how does that work?  Suggested to TSC to determine where identity fits into the project.

  • The TSC discussed general topics of the relationship of HLP protocols, code and architecture. There was interest in eventually creating a way to pass cryptographic proofs with a protocol for exchanging.


Next Steps


Future F2F

  • Plan to have another F2F in roughly 1 month's time.

  • Preference for east coast -- though may want to move GEO around

--
Todd Benzies
Senior Program Manager
The Linux Foundation
+1 (415) 412-0310 (m)
Skype: tbenzies


[Hyperledger Project TSC] Hyperledger Identity BOF or WG?

Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@...>
 

One thing this week that we've been punting on are the issues of Identity, ranging from:

* management of private keys and wallets
* token hardware
* hardware authentication requirements
* nature and requirements for multisignature
* different forms of authentication vs authoriziation
* privacy (in particular with EU and regulatory issues like HIPA)
* selective disclosure, 
* KYC,
* ui and use case
* cross-border international identity issues, etc

I've been working on a UN Summit http://ID2020summit.org on May 20th, and a followup 'design workshop' on the 21st and 22nd here in NYC. I'm also working with the W3C and OASIS on decentralized identifiers and keys on blockchains (we both just won a Homeland Security SBIR grants on decentralized identity on the blockchain).

I'd like suggst to the TSC that we identify those who are interested in a possible Hyperledger BOF or WG on this topic.

If you interested in participating in the UN Identity Summit and/or the followup design workshop, send email to me at ChristopherA@....

-- Christopher Allen


[Hyperledger Project TSC] 3/25 TSC Call

Todd Benzies <tbenzies@...>
 

Hyperledger Project Technical Community,

Quick update to the email from yesterday.  The Technical F2F will be holding a retrospective tomorrow starting at 10:00am ET.

The actual TSC portion of the call will run from 11am ET - noon ET.

Regards,

Todd

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Todd Benzies <tbenzies@...> wrote:
Hyperledger Project Technical Community,

Given that many of those from the technical community are actively working at the Technical F2F in Brooklyn, NY this week, we will cancel the TSC call tomorrow.

In addition, some of the time on Friday (3/25) will be spent on a retrospective of what transpired during the week.  As a reminder for those that are not able to attend in person, there is a WebEx set up for Friday (3/25):

Hyperledger Project - Technical F2F WebEx
Fri, Mar 25, 10:00 am ET | 3 hr


Meeting number: 198 437 157
Access code: 198 437 157

Regards,

Todd

--
Todd Benzies
Senior Program Manager
The Linux Foundation
+1 (415) 412-0310 (m)
Skype: tbenzies



--
Todd Benzies
Senior Program Manager
The Linux Foundation
+1 (415) 412-0310 (m)
Skype: tbenzies


[Hyperledger Project TSC] Research paper on BFT protocols for blockchain

Christian Cachin
 

As many of you are aware IBM's code contribution to Hyperledger at
https://github.com/openblockchain/obc-peer
contains an implementation of PBFT for consensus, which is part of
protocol "Sieve" that addresses non-determinism.

A technical paper describing the approach of "Sieve" and how to handle
non-deterministic transactions has just been made available at
http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~cca/papers/sieve.pdf

For referencing it, please wait until this appears as a technical report on
arxiv.org -- we will inform the list again.

Regards,

Christian

---
Christian Cachin email: cca@...
IBM Research - Zurich tel: +41-44-724-8989
Säumerstrasse 4
CH-8803 Rüschlikon, Switzerland http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~cca


[Hyperledger Project TSC] 3/24 TSC call cancelled; 3/25 Technical F2F retrospective details

Todd Benzies <tbenzies@...>
 

Hyperledger Project Technical Community,

Given that many of those from the technical community are actively working at the Technical F2F in Brooklyn, NY this week, we will cancel the TSC call tomorrow.

In addition, some of the time on Friday (3/25) will be spent on a retrospective of what transpired during the week.  As a reminder for those that are not able to attend in person, there is a WebEx set up for Friday (3/25):

Hyperledger Project - Technical F2F WebEx
Fri, Mar 25, 9:00 am ET | 4 hr


Meeting number: 198 437 157
Access code: 198 437 157

Regards,

Todd

--
Todd Benzies
Senior Program Manager
The Linux Foundation
+1 (415) 412-0310 (m)
Skype: tbenzies


[Hyperledger Project TSC] WebEx for Hyperledger Project Technical F2F

Todd Benzies <tbenzies@...>
 

Hyperledger Project Technical Community,

We have set up a WebEx for the F2F intro on Tuesday (9am - noon ET) and the retrospective on Friday (9am - 1pm ET).  For the remainder of the F2F, attendees will be working in clusters (as opposed to one person presenting), so WebEx/video will not be feasible during those portions.

If you are interested in remotely joining the sections listed above, the details are:

Hyperledger Project - Technical F2F WebEx
Tue, Mar 22, 9:00 am ET | 3 hr


Meeting number: 196 431 982
Access code: 196 431 982

Hyperledger Project - Technical F2F WebEx
Fri, Mar 25, 9:00 am ET | 4 hr


Meeting number: 198 437 157
Access code: 198 437 157

Regards,

Todd

--
Todd Benzies
Senior Program Manager
The Linux Foundation
+1 (415) 412-0310 (m)
Skype: tbenzies


[Hyperledger Project TSC] Minutes / March 17th, 2016

Todd Benzies <tbenzies@...>
 

Hyperledger Project

Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting

March 17, 2016 (7:00am - 8:30am PT)

via GoToMeeting


TSC Members

Emmanuel Viale

Accenture


Stan Liberman

CME Group

Yes

Tamas Blummer

DAH

Yes

Stefan Teis

Deutsche Boerse Group

Yes

Pardha Vishnumolakala

DTCC


Hart Montgomery

Fujitsu

Yes

Satoshi Oshima

Hitachi


Chris Ferris

IBM

Yes

Mic Bowman

Intel

Yes

David Voell

J.P. Morgan

Yes

Richard G. Brown

R3

Yes


Resources:


Agenda

  • White Paper Update (Dave Voell)

  • Code of Conduct (Arnaud Le Hors)

  • Technical F2F (3/22 - 3/25), Brooklyn, NY (Chris Ferris)

  • Linux Foundation IT Discussion (Steve Westmoreland)

  • Requirements WG Update (Patrick Holmes)


White Paper Update

  • Dave Voell is the editor

  • Chris Ferris laid out a potential outline for this white paper

  • For next week F2F, Dave will lead a breakout on this (looking for people to participate)

  • Please pre-read the IBM whitepaper, other versions are welcome, as well

  • OBC whitepaper is a good template and has done a good job of articulating plans

    • Scalability, confidentiality, privacy

    • Enterprise use cases -- many operating in regulated industries (big requirements there)

  • Q:  How do you want feedback on this?  Google docs comment?

    • Yes, Google docs works


Code of Conduct

  • Seems to be preference for W3C (not a landslide, but preference)

    • Majority prefer W3C

    • Also, more people object to CF version (only 1 disagrees with W3C)

  • The goal is to have a Code of Conduct to start moving on.  Suggest TSC to adopt W3C draft as a starting point.

    • Add a point about staying focused/on topic (from CF version)

    • Add a point about step down considerately -- if you leave the project, don’t just drop the ball, put a transition plan in place (from CF version)

  • TSC 6 in favor (Stan, Hart, Chris, Mic, Dave, Stefan), 1 abstain (Richard) -- W3C version with 2 additions above is approved as the Code of Conduct

  • Arnaud to make edits and work with Todd to get posted


Technical F2F (3/22 - 3/25), Brooklyn, NY


Linux Foundation IT Discussion

  • General discussion led by Steve Westmoreland, CIO, The Linux Foundation

    • LF IT provides a host of services to projects

    • Infra, security, web services, wiki, etc.

    • Github and Gerrit

    • Support both Travis CI and Jenkins CI functionality

    • Bug mgmt / bug tracking -- Jira

    • There will likely be a dedicated release engineer

    • Ability to have geo-diversity to support timezones/locations

  • SW:  Gerrit is a tool that has historically been integrated in with Github.  Allows to control the process around code review.  Code gets checked in, pre-configured requirements that it will go through review, enforces fact that it requires two committers, etc. other requirements that the code gets reviewed, scored, passed or failed.  Part of ecosystem that comes w/ Git.

  • CF:  mitigates potential for random code merge or accidents or mistakes

  • DV:  yes, should start off with something like this.  If there are complaints or issues… we can evaluate other options.  But, we need something in place that shows evidence of code reviews.

  • Stan:  think Gerrit is a great thing to have with this many potential contributors.  However, there may be a risk with setting up this early, could be a barrier to contributions.  Maybe after Hackathon, once we have a more final form for project.  But, it could be problematic before we have a single line of code (as it could be viewed as a barrier).

    • Sheehan:  agrees.  I like code review, but it can also slow things down if reviewers are not very active.

  • Need for further IT discussion


Requirements WG Update



--
Todd Benzies
Senior Program Manager
The Linux Foundation
+1 (415) 412-0310 (m)
Skype: tbenzies


Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] proposed draft f2f technical agenda

Zaki Manian
 

This looks like a great agenda and covers many of topics that I've been thinking about.

A topic ID like to call some attention to the Chaincode <-> Consensus API.

From DAH's perspective, the Chaincode api doesn't support a notion of a mempool which I suspect they want.

For folks who want pulling work from the Ethereum ecosystem, the Chaincode API doesn't support passing a state hash back to the consensus.




On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Christopher B Ferris via hyperledger-tsc <hyperledger-tsc@...> wrote:

I also posted this deck for discussion to slack TSC channel for posterity.

Cheers,



Christopher Ferris

IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Open Technology

IBM Cloud, Open Technologies

email: chrisfer@...

twitter: @christo4ferris

blog: https://developer.ibm.com/opentech/author/chrisfer/

phone: +1 508 667 0402




_______________________________________________
hyperledger-tsc mailing list
hyperledger-tsc@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-tsc



[Hyperledger Project TSC] proposed draft f2f technical agenda

Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@...>
 

I also posted this deck for discussion to slack TSC channel for posterity.

Cheers,



Christopher Ferris

IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Open Technology

IBM Cloud, Open Technologies

email: chrisfer@...

twitter: @christo4ferris

blog: https://developer.ibm.com/opentech/author/chrisfer/

phone: +1 508 667 0402

3721 - 3740 of 3844