Re: Last Call for Comments on Crypto-Conditions

Hi again


It seems that the five-bells (I see it as the reference implementation) 
has unit tests that test for stronger requirements than the spec. It 
requires the implementation to use Canonical OER, while the spec does 
not mention whether Basic OER or Canonical OER is to be used.

It might be a good idea to state that explicitly.
I create a GitHub issue regarding this here: 
https://github.com/interledgerjs/five-bells-condition/issues/60


Best

Steven

On 08-12-16 22:11, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> For almost a year we've been working to refine the crypto-conditions 
> specification [1]. Stefan talked about them in detail as part of the 
> Ledger BOF [2] at IETF 96 in Berlin and recently I was at IETF 97 in 
> Seoul where I presented the latest draft[3] to the SAAG.
>
> We've had some great feedback which we have incorporated, but given 
> the nature of the work, it is important that we eventually settle on a 
> stable specification so that implementors can begin to use 
> crypto-conditions confidently, in the knowledge that they will 
> inter-operate with other implementations.
>
> At the end of next week (16 December) we will stop taking input on 
> this version of the specification and aim to have a final draft out 
> for comments soon after. Following this we'd like to limit changes to 
> editorial or style changes only and make no further functional changes.
>
> If anyone has breaking functional changes they wish to suggest please 
> make these on this list or via the Github issue list before 16 
> December otherwise they will only be considered for the next major 
> version of the specification.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
> [1] 
> https://github.com/interledger/rfcs/blob/master/0002-crypto-conditions/0002-crypto-conditions.md
> [2] https://youtu.be/uPXXfClTqSY?t=49m
> [3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomas-crypto-conditions-01

Received on Monday, 12 December 2016 18:23:33 UTC