- From: Stefan Thomas <stefan@ripple.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:00:23 -0700
- To: Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFpK0Q2DMG9-w9JsV86hbCYj-dr+mzk0XEVo+Pp_piPnvwpOqA@mail.gmail.com>
Hey all, Last week, Jehan, Zaki, Evan and I met at Jehan's office to work on cryptoconditions, specifically the conversation turned to two things a) changing the scheme from a condition/fulfillment scheme to more of a signature scheme and b) fleshing out the multi-message functionality. After the conversation it turned out that the devil with multi-message is really in the details. So what I ended up doing over the weekend is update the spec with the change to make it act more like a signature scheme. This turned out to be a *hugely* simplifying change and I'm very happy with it, nice work Jehan, Zaki, Evan! As for adding multi-message support, I now believe that it should be out-of-scope for v1. It requires the ability to destructure objects and directing the right parts of the signed message to the right conditions. We should still work on it, but I think it's a very valid choice if we decide not to include it in v1. Neither Jehan's nor Five Bells use cases require it as a feature and it can be easily added in the future by adding a new condition type to do the destructuring. Note that we may also change the name of the scheme: Evan suggested "Composite Signatures" - which is the front-runner so far. But I didn't want to make a ton of nomenclature changes until we've all agreed on a new set of terminology. Here's the PR - all of the changes and rationale are described therein: https://github.com/interledger/five-bells-condition/pull/14 - Stefan
Received on Monday, 21 March 2016 19:01:18 UTC