Re: [Blockchain-interop] Charter discussion

[Luke Riley <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

jumping in.

I think how the internal data is structured (blockchain, blockDAG etc) is less of an issue for this protocol compared to if the ledger is fully replicated between nodes or partially shared. Where ledger data is partially shared (e.g. Corda, Fabric, Quorum, etc), backup gateways need to access the same current state data (regarding the status of the asset transfer), so the backup gateways will need to be more carefully chosen. That can be specified though.

So I think the protocol can remain as a DLT Gateway protocol as long as we make the above assumption clear.

Also Thomas about your previous question "Do you know if ITSA has a standardized APIs (RESTful) to allow checking/validating of token Identification Numbers?", sorry I don't know enough about their progress yet but we (Quant Network) are investigating.

Regards,

Luke
________________________________
From: Blockchain-interop <[e-mail]> on behalf of Michael McBride <[e-mail]>
Sent: 12 January 2021 19:03
To: Thomas Hardjono <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ned Smith ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; Martin Hargreaves <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Blockchain-interop] Charter discussion

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.


Hi Thomas,

The problem (or feature) with using the DLT term is that implies we are also including tangle (another DLT) interoperability and excluding non DLT databases. In addition to interoperability between blockchain systems, we would also be working on interoperability between blockchain & tangle DLT systems. Is that the intention? If so our first deliverable could be focusing specifically on blockchain and then we, as you said, could either wrap up the work or decide to expand to include tangle.

The DLT Gateway Protocol is not really accurate unless the plan is to truly provide a gateway protocol to all DLT's (which would be great). Otherwise Blockchain Gateway Protocol would be more appropriate but would be an acronym disaster.

mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Hardjono <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2021 2:17 PM
To: Michael McBride <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: Ned Smith ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; Martin Hargreaves <[e-mail]>; Thomas Hardjono <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Charter discussion


Thanks Mike,

We've consciously switched terms from "blockchain" to "DLT" because the later is a broader terminology. The gateway protocol (ODAP) must work regardless of whether one or both are DLT systems (or a blockchains).

>>> We could, alternatively, specify that the gateway api's provide interoperability between the resources any of the major database platforms

I like this suggestion, but as you correctly stated we are limiting to DLT for now. Finish what's on our plate before going for ice cream.

My understanding from IETF participation over the years and from chartering & chairing the MSEC WG (RFC 3740), a working group has the best chance of succeeding if the charter is concise, with clear deliverables and short timelines (e.g. 6 months).

I was thinking that for 2021 it would be great if we could finish two (or three) of the drafts, and only then consider new items or expand the charter.

This does not preclude discussions and other drafts (e.g. crash recovery protocol and APIs is complex), but these cannot be deliverables until the Architecture and ODAP are finished.

The key thing is to lay the foundation (with the architecture draft and ODAP draft), and then we can build other things on top of this.

Thoughts?


Best


-- thomas --



________________________________________
From: Michael McBride [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 4:17 PM
To: Thomas Hardjono; [e-mail]
Cc: Ned Smith ([e-mail]); Martin Hargreaves
Subject: RE: Charter discussion

Hi Thomas,

The charter is specific to DLT I assume to limit scope. A broader scope would be more compelling, but I get how ietf works.

We could, alternatively, specify that the gateway api's provide interoperability between the resources any of the major database platforms, ie. interoperability between assets in Oracle or MySQL or blockchain using odap. And have DLT interoperability as the first use case. DDGP (Distributed Database Gateway Protocol) WG or something like that. But since we are limiting this to DLT we should perhaps call out the unique characteristics of DLT's in the charter. And mention what we mean by DLTs, ie blockchains vs tangles vs other DLT's. Looks like we are only focusing on Blockchain DLT and that should be clear.

And it could be a bit confusing having a charter titled DLT gateway protocol while having DLT's listed out of scope. Perhaps saying "modifications to the existing Blockchain machinery" is out of scope would help.

Thanks,
mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Blockchain-interop <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Thomas Hardjono
Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 6:39 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Thomas Hardjono <[e-mail]>; Ned Smith ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; Martin Hargreaves <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Blockchain-interop] Charter discussion


Folks,

It would be great if we could start a Charter discussion so that we can have a draft charter going into IETF110 in the first week of March.

Below is a draft text that is basically taken from our slides at the previous IETF109 SecDispatch.

https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fmeeting%2F109%2Fmaterials%2Fslides-109-secdispatch-draft-hardjono-blockchain-interop-arch-00&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cmichael.mcbride%40futurewei.com%7Cfe9f662666834b305b6508d8b5b56e33%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637459138141005562%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=be6GTFkAuJSVohqTQ7qODO3CwizTE%2Fg42PCUTReS0o0%3D&amp;reserved=0

The charter needs to be tight enough that we can deliver within time (e.g. deliver the 3 drafts by end of 2021).

Looking for your inputs.

---------------------------

Proposed name:  DLT Gateway Protocol (DGP)

The goal of DGP is to develop a gateway-to-gateway protocol for virtual asset transfers between distributed ledger technology (DLT) systems.

The gateway protocol must support the unidirectional secure transfer of  the digital representation of an asset between two gateways fronting DLTs, satisfying requirements of atomicity and non-repudiation, and agnostic to the higher-layer economic value of the asset. It must support cases where one or both DLT systems behind the gateways are private (where the interior resources are not externally accessible). Additionally, APIs defined must support cases where one gateway is fronting a Legacy system.

The gateway protocol must satisfy the well-known ACID properties. Atomicity: a transfer must either commit or entirely fail (failure means no change to asset ownership). Consistency: a transfer (commit or fail) must always result in the asset located in one DLT only. Isolation: while a transfer is occurring, the asset ownership cannot be modified (no double-spend). Durability: once a transfer is committed, it must remain so regardless of subsequent gateway crashes.

The gateway protocol will be based on the classic 2-Phase Commit (2PC or 3PC) design.  The interaction channel between the APIs endpoints at the gateways is assumed to be protected using TLS1.2 (TLS1.3).

Proposed Deliverables (2021):
-- Architecture document
-- Gateway protocol document defining APIs and endpoint definitions (ODAP)
-- Use-cases & Requirements document

Optional:
-- Asset Profile JSON specification
-- Log-metadata JSON specification (crash recovery)

Existing drafts:
-- draft-hardjono-blockchain-interop-arch-01
-- draft-hargreaves-odap-01
-- draft-sardon-blockchain-gateways-usecases-00
-- draft-sardon-blockchain-interop-asset-profile-00


Out of scope:
-- Blockchains and DLT systems
-- Consensus & BFT protocols, PoW, PoS, etc.
-- Cryptocurrencies, tokenization, etc.
-- Incentive mechanisms, economic models; etc.
-- Zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) protocols
-- Authentication & Authorization protocols
-- Concurrency control algorithms
-- Identity management & privacy, etc. etc.


---------------------------


Best


-- thomas --


--
Blockchain-interop mailing list
[e-mail]
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fblockchain-interop&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cmichael.mcbride%40futurewei.com%7Cfe9f662666834b305b6508d8b5b56e33%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637459138141005562%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=Ssj9R8lK5G6AGrU0SR0ZlLDz3XEDqqIbjuYFgB5Gbwg%3D&amp;reserved=0

--
Blockchain-interop mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/blockchain-interop
This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain privileged and confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Quant Network does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus free.