[BIF-007] Identity, DID and signing FIPs

Secured
#2
We started work on the V2 DID specification.

BIF/Sphereon, Factomatic and Factom Inc had 2 Google hangout meetings to brainstorm about the V2 DID specification and another session planned next week. In the meantime BIF will take the lead in drafting the specification. In this stage the 3 entities are working closely together. The plan is to have a rough draft of the V2 specification in roughly a week, and then slowly start including feedback of other people over the next 4 weeks.

The DID v2 spec will probably be the first Factom Interoperability Specification I am also creating at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#5
Yes. The DID v2 specification is coming along nicely. We had our 5th meeting today. The Spec will be in a state that is workable for implementers of entry structures end of this week. We expect it to take some more small iterations over the next few weeks, but nothing major (well at least not planned ;) )

Current DID spec can be found here: https://github.com/bi-foundation/FIS/blob/feature/DID/FIS/DID.md

Updated implementation will start next week, as well as a signature FIP
 
Secured
#7
The current specification probably still needs some polishing, but looks "feature complete".
https://github.com/bi-foundation/FIS/blob/feature/DID/FIS/DID.md

As promised we started work on an updated Java client and will use this sprint (week) and next 2 sprints to finish the client and the Universal Resolver. At the same time initial work has started on the signature FIP.

We are currently a bit behind (5 days) because the spec took more time than expected, but all in all it seems like we will finish close after the proposed deadline of September 2nd (will probably be September 7th). The signature FIP will probably needs some feedback cycles from the community though, so be aware of that.
 
Secured
#10
Here is a transcript of the most recent updates present in the #dids channel on the core dev server:

Code:
[Factom Inc] sam - 09/12/2019
> As promised we started work on an updated Java client and will use this sprint (week) and next 2 sprints to finish the client and the Universal Resolver. At the same time initial work has started on the signature FIP. We are currently a bit behind (5 days) because the spec took more time than expected, but all in all it seems like we will finish close after the proposed deadline of September 2nd (will probably be September 7th). The signature FIP will probably needs some feedback cycles from the community though, so be aware of that.

@Niels any update on the status of the resolver (able to optionally resolve at a given height, return full key history, extensible for multiple connection types, etc.)? There is a fair amount of work we have pending that is gated on the grant work being completed


Niels - 09/13/2019
The client is almost done. The Universal Resolver not, because 2 big projects are on a critical timeline right now. We expect to deliver the client this sprint though and I will push for the resolver as well, but in all honesty I think that one will be 3 weeks out (delivery)

...

[Factom Inc] Carl - 10/09/2019
Do we have a universal resolver implemented? Or how close are we to having such?

Niels - 10/09/2019
... I think we are a few weeks out of a Java and Python resolver
I haven't seen any public tracking of BIF's client or resolver work, but if someone could point me to a repo I would greatly appreciate it. I am curious to see what the current sticking points are in its development and if anyone in the community can help push it forward in a timely manner.

Valentin and his team, while not a part of this grant, have been demonstrating publicly a lot of progress with their python DID work (library and resolver) and posting regular updates in the aforementioned discord channel.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#13
Hi @Niels Klomp,

Following my questions and your answer (posted by Marteen) during the last grant round and your commitment to provide an update, could you let us know when you will be releasing the Java Client ad Universal Resolver in order to complete this grant ?
I understand this is also needed in order to progress on the VC grant which makes it even more important.

Thanks.
 
Secured
#16
Hi @Niels Klomp
I think more than 2 weeks have passed since you promessed during the grant round to give an update and to publish the public repo about this grant.

I know you are certainly busy. That is why people have been patient (first question from Tor is from beginning of September). I think we can all consider we have provided enough time to answer all of this particularly since the DID spec has now been published for several weeks.

As a reminder the questions are:
- status of the Java client and Universal resolver?
- status of the signing FIP?

Thank you.
 
Secured
#18
Have you considered contributing or investing in any of the cutting edge technology that your commercial platform entirely depends on?

Because sitting on the sidelines cracking a whip isn’t helping.
And what about you actually?

From someone who did question the value of the DID work performed by one ANO during the last grant round whereas your platform will be based on this very standard this is quite funny. If you add the fact that me and Niels were defending the value of this proposal this makes it even more comical.

I am asking a grantee questions about an overdue grant like many other people here. And no I will not feel satisfied as long as we have no answer particularly when updates have been promessed.
Does that sound particularly wrong to you? Do not you think it is normal that 4 people asking for an update during 3 months and receiving no answer continue to ask for it?
 
Secured
#21
Ok - I take it from your defensive answer to a simple question, that you are in fact NOT planning to contribute or invest in the technology you are seeking for financial gain.

While I understand this grant is late, I am trying to understand your motivation for such levels of harassment.

Your complaint being that this free technology that you will profit from is not being delivered to you fast enough - Does that sum it up? Or are you truly pretending this is just about Grant accountability? Because there's many other grants that also need your attention.

The point being, when you haven't contributed or invested in technology you hope to exploit, open source or not - it's quite unfortunate to then moan, nag, and crack your imaginary whip from the sidelines, week in week out.
 
Secured
#22
Ok - I take it from your defensive answer to a simple question, that you are in fact NOT planning to contribute or invest in the technology you are seeking for financial gain.

While I understand this grant is late, I am trying to understand your motivation for such levels of harassment.

Your complaint being that this free technology that you will profit from is not being delivered to you fast enough - Does that sum it up? Or are you truly pretending this is just about Grant accountability? Because there's many other grants that also need your attention.

The point being, when you haven't contributed or invested in technology you hope to exploit, open source or not - it's quite unfortunate to then moan, nag, and crack your imaginary whip from the sidelines, week in week out.
This is completely and utterly irrelevant. It's the community's job to hold grantees accountable. Most people don't, so Matthias should be applauded for doing so instead of attacked with red herrings.

This grant is so far overdue it's perfectly rational to want to have an update on its status.
 
Secured
#23
Sure Sam, have you tried reaching out as a human first before going public?

With overdue grants I think it’s good to look at the big picture:

(This is generalisation, not specific to this grant for which I have no insight)

This work is already subsidised. With the lowering of FCT, the work is now heavily subsidised to the point of charity.

The resources don’t come from a magical pit of money. It is only able to be so heavily subsidised by the undertaking of commercial work alongside which has to take priority.

We should be grateful these grants still get done without demands for top ups.

Please recognise that the price the ecosystem pays for the value of FCT based awards declining, is not the completion/quality of work, but the timeline. Because bills have to be paid, ok!?

E.g guides resigning to take a normal job that can better support a family. Because that’s life, totally understandable.

It is certainly not making the timeline go faster to publicly call out the dev teams every week. It only pisses off the people doing this charity work.

So again I ask people to step back from their 0s and 1s, or their greed to sell other people’s creations and show some understanding for these grants that still ‘magically’ get completed in the face of their reward dropping 70%.
 
Secured
#24
Sure Sam, have you tried reaching out as a human first before going public?
I am not required to private message grant recipients about their progress before posting publicly on this thread. The whole purpose of this thread is for accountability and transparency in our grant process. Grant updates and discussions are posted publicly in these threads so everyone can participate and everyone has access to the same information. I don't understand why you seem to object to that.

Colin Campbell said:
With overdue grants I think it’s good to look at the big picture:

(This is generalisation, not specific to this grant for which I have no insight)

This work is already subsidised. With the lowering of FCT, the work is now heavily subsidised to the point of charity.

The resources don’t come from a magical pit of money. It is only able to be so heavily subsidised by the undertaking of commercial work alongside which has to take priority.

We should be grateful these grants still get done without demands for top ups.

Please recognise that the price the ecosystem pays for the value of FCT based awards declining, is not the completion/quality of work, but the timeline. Because bills have to be paid, ok!?

E.g guides resigning to take a normal job that can better support a family. Because that’s life, totally understandable.

It is certainly not making the timeline go faster to publicly call out the dev teams every week. It only pisses off the people doing this charity work.

So again I ask people to step back from their 0s and 1s, or their greed to sell other people’s creations and show some understanding for these grants that still ‘magically’ get completed in the face of their reward dropping 70%.
This grant started June 3rd and was supposed to conclude on September 3rd. The last update we had from the grantee was on August 5th--nearly four months ago. We all understand that development work is complicated and delays are not unusual, but the bare minimum that is acceptable is to provide the community with updates about why there are delays, what the new estimated completion time is and provide the context around the situation. We have not even had that on this grant, so there are multiple community members politely requesting an update on the situation.

All of us are hurting at these FCT prices and we've all made sacrifices to continue to be involved in this ecosystem so continually bringing that up whenever the community attempts to get an update on a long-overdue grant isn't helpful, Colin. I understand that you are incredibly passionate about this ecosystem and have have made many sacrifices for it and I am genuinely grateful for your involvement in this community. However, you tend to go from zero to defensively emotional at the drop of a hat, and it's not helpful for constructive dialog and ensuring the integrity of our grant process.

I also object to calling this charity work. Grantees were paid exactly what they requested in their grant proposal and are expected to deliver what they promised they would. Therefore it's the grantees' responsibility to bid a suitable number of FCT, to price in risk, and to liquidate the necessary amount in order to ensure the project is funded. This is the expectation we have held other grantees to so I don't believe anyone should be an exception.
 
Secured
#27
@Colin Campbell I understand why you're defending BIF because they're a hardworking pillar of the community but I feel your statements about Matthias are misguided. Both Sam and Matthias have been questioning every grant that is overdue, seeking responses and treating everyone equally.
I share the temptation to let things slide, especially with such a trusted ANO who we all respect. The problem is that in doing so it risks creating a two-tier community and sends a signal that we're a community look after ourselves.
So what I'm trying to say is that although the work Sam and Matthias are doing can appear self-motivated I can see from the number of posts they've made across the grant tracking forum that this isn't the case and that they've treated each outstanding grant equally.
 
Secured
#30
This is an ugly game you’re playing Sam, and there are no winners.

You haven’t got your update, you are just pissing people off.

If you can’t understand the situation, then at least come to terms with it.

To that end, I urge you to reach out privately to the Grantee and spend your time more constructively.
Calm down and stop making personal attacks.
Please answer the question above.
Please and thank you.