 Hey, folks, we'll get started in one minute. All right, my friends. All right, Thomas has got a bit of a cold. No worries. Glad to have you anyways. And all right, so I posted the link for our meeting today. And let me share. Okay, let's see here. All right, welcome to the ARIES-DECOM V2 working group for February 27th, 2023. We's abide by the hyperledger anti-trust policy and hyperledger code of conduct. And I'll post the link one more time. I think everybody was here when I posted it, but we've lost my chat now that I'm presenting. There we go. We already had the same folks from last week, so I think you're all filled in there. And we can do a little bit of Nessus-DECOM follow-up. That was a great demo last week. And anything else that we'd like to add? We could talk about the comparison chart that the DWN folks have posted regarding Kerry and DECOM, AIP3, ARIES-Agent Test Harness. Anything else that we wanna add? Okay, no worries. And if you think of something, we'll add it as we go. Okay, quick announcements. I don't have anything for ARIES-Agent Test Harness, nor for ASCAR. I don't have any update. Yeah, go ahead. Last question, what was the hybrid? What was the? The ASCAR thing there? Oh. It's on the agenda, but I don't know what we're looking on ASCAR. It's not on the agenda necessarily. This is, well, I guess we call it the announcements. So I mean for it to be the status section, you know, where we go through for status things. I guess ARIES-Ascar has been, you know, connected for AFJ and probably for Occupy too, I've forgotten now, but I guess the point is, you know, there's cryptographic support and storage support. So it's somewhat related to DECOM, but yeah, we don't have to necessarily keep tracking that. I can't remember when we put it on there. Yeah, no, I guess because I've been working with the AFJ last week, so I used the ASCAR as a wallet and also, yeah, Ariel also mentioned that he's working on DECOM-B2 based on ASCAR, so yeah, but I don't know if ASCAR itself needs something specific or is the framework using ASCAR to provide DECOM-B2 implementation? Yeah, I'm not aware of any DECOM-B2 specific ASCAR things, but yeah, because the frameworks want to support DECOM-B2 and they want to use ASCAR. There's some passing of keys issue that I think, Alex, and maybe the rest of us have talked about before. A little fuzzy if anybody wants to fill in. Okay. Yeah, anything for that? Yeah, plan understanding? ASCAR, is there a key management service? So that's how it works. Yeah, key management and storage, yeah, key management and storage, yeah. Which some people consider literally the wallet, so some people just say like, ASCAR wallet, right? I used to look at it as secure storage, but I guess if you're talking about storing things then, yeah, so then people make distinctions between let's say an AFJ agent that uses ASCAR versus something else. Yeah, that's because ASCAR itself does not provide the storage, you can plug in Postgres SQLite, whatever you want, but provide all the functional that could then use the storage database or whatever you want to use there. So would you consider that then the wallet? You know, I know that term is super overloaded term, but that's the way that I'm hearing it talked about in ARI's meetings that essentially that whatever that, yeah, they talk about ASCAR as the wallet because an agent is something different and then the mobile app or whatever it might be is also something different. So yeah, I think we're still working through kind of that discussion, but okay. And then, Roto, do you wanna talk about your ARI's framework JavaScript stuff at all? Or, I mean, you had said that Ariel is thinking that there will be did come V2 in AFJ? Yeah, but it wasn't like a gossip, so I don't know. I don't know what is the actual nut. I just use my first hands on the AFJ with the Anon Quetz, so just the little ones to start understanding the framework, only that. Well, I'm sure with, especially if you're starting to get involved in AFJ, I'm sure you and Ariel, your powers combined, some did come V2, could certainly happen. And it wouldn't be nice to show at IW, yeah, an AFJ-based agent. Yeah, maybe with the root wallet UI and I'm sure Ariel's gonna show with his UI as well, this chat, that would be really cool to show some interrupt there. Yeah, it would be nice. Okay, good, how about Pico's, any updates there? No news this week, I'll be meeting with Phil and his students tomorrow. Great. We'll have him for the next time. Cool, and Phil has a book, I don't know if it's quite released yet or about to release, but I think he's doing a tour now of podcasts and whatnot. I saw an SSI orbit podcast, I think with him, which I started to listen to, but haven't made it through yet. Cool, yeah, yeah, I went on Amazon and read through the part of his book that's available there, the first few chapters. Great, all right, good stuff. Let's see, nothing on the framework that I've seen. Varamo, how about anything, Alex, do you know? Yeah, so I was able to create like a deep peer plugin for the resolvers, so I'm able to create deep peers. I'm still trying to resolve them properly, so once I get the peer resolver, have the document flashback, but yeah, that's the only update I have there. Great, oh, I'm trying to edit it. I'm trying to edit the document without it having it in edit mode. Oh, it's Monday, you know. Okay, so yeah, that's great, so did peer support. So that was this here, using Brian's, did peer info, but adapting it as a plugin. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I saw they started to respond on that to give some guidance, but that seems like that's moving forward. Yep, yep, yep. Yeah, okay, peer submitted. And in review, I guess. Okay, great. Okay, let's see, I don't know of anything for mobile. Nothing for that. Anything, have we seen anything on the aviary tech side? I haven't seen anything lately. Yeah, no movement there. Okay, cool. How about carry working group stuff? Rodolfo had done his demonstration, I think, ah, the last AFJ meeting, wasn't that when you demoed as well, Rodolfo, for the carry did and peer did comparison? I think that was on the Aries call. Right, well, was that the Aries working group or AFJ? Aries, Aries working group. Oh, Aries working group. Okay, yeah, that ended up being more than I thought it would be in terms of significance. Yeah, I think that the final, that there wasn't a final conclusion, but Stephen called to make a spreadsheet with all the pros and cons on different formats. So we're talking about deep peer one, deep peer two, the legacy peers and deep carry. And see, yeah, first the pros and cons on each one and then analyze them and make a final conclusion on what is the recommended idea. Some are shorter, some are longer, some depends on other frameworks. So it's not gonna be an easy or straightforward decision, I think. And was it algo two that you were comparing with deep peer? I compare with algo two. Yeah, there's also algo one that probably, I think algo one is being used in AFJ. So that's why they had another, yeah, another features I think. Aroto, how long do you think figuring this out is gonna take, in your opinion? I don't know. No, I think the comparison should be, yeah, I need to spend some time on doing that, yeah. From my side, I gonna raise that to the carry working group and do something shouldn't be that much. Okay, so yeah, that might take some time, but I think it was an important conversation and certainly there is some resistance to carry instead of did peer, which is an interesting dynamic just because, well, I guess there were several people who contributed to did peer. So Daniel Hardman, who is advocating for a transition to did carry, he's not the only voice. And so, yeah, there's certainly a sense of, well, there's already some support for did peer, so do we really need did carry? And that's to be expected. I do think that some things that I'd like to see is maybe some discussion about, well, certainly why, why is this simpler form of did carry that doesn't support key rotation if I misspeak, you know, stop me, but from what I learned from Roto in that meeting is yeah, this version doesn't support key rotation. And so that is interesting because that's kind of the, one of the founding principles for carry that makes it so attractive. And so is this support for a non key rotation version like a nice stepping stone to the broader did carry method that would support key rotation? Like is that important to the community? Yeah. Yeah, so all discussions that need to happen, I'm not quite sure how best to handle it or if we need to, you know, talk too much about that here as the did come folks, but yeah, those are my thoughts. Okay, yeah, anything else on that? No, yeah, I was gonna say, yeah, to me, when picking technology sounds more like a politics game, then in this case, then like an actual like technology problem. So yeah, that's a, I would like for, like you said, like I would like the discussion to be geared more towards like the differences like technically speaking, and then we can talk about like support and all that stuff. And I think like talking too much about like support and adoption now it's like already very early on to where like, I don't think we should just like there are two libraries, we should make a decision just based on that now. But yeah, those are like my thoughts, yeah. Yeah, fair and I have no strength in the political zone at all, no strategy, no mind for it, I'm with you. I just wanna see a spreadsheet and talk it through and yeah, weigh the pros and cons that way, but yeah. But I do think on the bright side, a lot of the Aries people, well, most of the Aries people are very technically gifted. So even if there is kind of maybe a political and struggle of sorts, I do think that if strong cases are made that for a proper technical solution, I feel like they would go the right way. So that's encouraging. Yeah, Thomas, I see your hand. Yeah, so while working, if you're working on on this company too, this is actually the very first roadblock that you're going to hit, right? So you have the core specification talking about out of band, and then you have the external specification, which is only just, I think it's just one line also talking of out of band invitation and it references the core specification and it stops there, right? So there's no recommendation how to even make the first, the very first contact to another did come be too agent. So I would say, whatever it's going to be and a simple solution does not preclude a more complex and complete solution, whatever it's gonna be, it ought to be there in the spec or in an external spec, at least something that two parties can look at and agree on and make the first contact. Because as it stands now, you would have proprietary solutions, a different one for every single agent trying to do did come be too. Well, if you use the out of band, you have the way of doing that initial contact, right? Is that true? Well, in the out of band, you send your DID to the other party. The other party send you a message with the did it come into the DID. How about the endpoint for your wallet? The endpoint should be resolved on the DID that you send. That's the basic of the routine in did come. In the out of band, you receive the DID. So you resolve that DID from the DID document, you get the endpoint and you send the message. So would that preclude a did key because you can't resolve it? Right, yeah. So did key is out? This key is out. Okay, so it needs to be a did that can be resolved and then that's good enough. Is that what you're saying? Yes. Okay. Yeah. That's it. I think the discussion of deciding which DID method that supports the service endpoint would work. Uh-huh, okay. That's a replacement of DID key, right? Did key. Okay. Yeah, Thomas, when you did your demonstration, I did see that you used DID key and I asked Roto and Alex about it because well, I hadn't known that you could do that but they explained to me how you use the attachment for the DID document, which I thought was cool. And I think that that would then, through our discussions, if I understand right, then to do it that way would be like a new protocol. Yeah. Yeah. But, yeah. But the root- I'm sorry. If that's the case, then it's easy enough to implement and I can do this. Yeah, yeah, fair enough. Yeah, I figured you would. Yeah. Yeah, because I saw that you added did peer support, but maybe for a different algo. Yeah, it's only just algo zero. So it's no different to- Okay, right. But if you, Thomas, if you want to use the SIGBA, SIGBA has a peer, did it peer library? Yeah, I thought that already. Yeah, I thought that already. And also thinking about it, the way the resolver works, you know, it's after the agent, isn't it? So it could even for a very simple scenario, the proprietary thing could be in the resolver and it could resolve that key, right? In theory. But maybe it's a bit of a hack, but I'm just talking out loud. Yeah, yeah, but you need to make both parties know how to do it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay, thanks. Yeah. Good. So to kind of connect all those threads back together, we're saying that there needs to be the hope is that AAP three with an Aries provides the list of did methods that will enable did conv V2 communication as well as, you know, what other features are needed out there. So, you know, we would expect things like did key to also be on that list. But we're hoping also, I think, for, yeah, did methods like, like did peer Namao go to that carry that provide the deduct for a normal, we'll call it a normal establishment using an out of band invitation and then being able to resolve the service endpoint from the deduct. Okay. Anything else on that? I mean, you're, you're right, Thomas, that this is super important for, for adoption of did calm, but also just, I think the, the interop profile in general. Is there anything else that we can do as a group? Do you think the maybe Roto or Alex that we should be creating that spreadsheet? Or did somebody say that they're going to create it? Maybe somebody said Stephen was going to create it. Well, we can help for sure. Yeah. Yeah. Well, at least push and push everybody to get that. There's a, there's a message in there on the list score. On the 80s. This core channel. Oh, okay. Yeah. Is it that is quite a bit of discussion or was it just Stephen saying? No, no, no. So Stephen saying and team one me. Let me find it. So I can place the link. Okay. I opened it. So it's here. And I think. You know, by doing that. From a did comp side. I think having that kind of comparison and documenting it. Yeah. It just will help more people as they come into. As they become did come V2 aware. It will help them to. Understand that initial mechanism. I still think that that's one of the biggest confusion points. And I, you know, I, you know, I don't even. I definitely would not say that I'm fully clear on. The comparisons of the company one did exchange and. Did come V2. Other than the points that we've already talked about. But. Yeah. I just think that that's going to be a repeated. Difficulty. You know, for. You know, Yeah, I just think that that's going to be a repeated. Difficulty, you know, for. Yeah, people who are becoming did come V2 aware and want to adopt it. And understand, you know, how this works. So anyways. I paste the link there. I wanted that to open in my. Yeah, I don't know why. I hate that. All right. Well, let's see. How do I. Well, I was hoping it would maybe resolve it like in my discord. Yep. If you have any discourse. Let's. You're not finding. Yeah. Okay. Anyways, all right, that's good. Thanks for providing link. Well, I should be able to let's see here. Yeah. Okay. Open up. Oh, there we go. All I had to do is. Let the, the web resolve it and then click open up. All right. So. Yes. We are not seeing your disc, right? No, no, you're not. I'm just going through it real quick. Okay. So basically Stephen current says, yes, we have candidates for. Did's did peer one did peer two. Did carry did legacy peer. Roto, do we have a better name yet for did carry light? Since I mean that distinction is really important. No, yeah. Not yet. Do we want to call it maybe. No, no, I didn't want to be called. I think it's going to be called. Oh, well, but did carry is going to have key rotation and things like that. Right. If you did carry you are talking about has that. That's it. Yeah. I think. Oh, but what we were discussing at the areas working group was that did carry without. Keep rotation. Yeah, yeah. But then the method itself did carry. Yeah. It's going to provide like a ID, right at the end. So the ID can be, can have can be rotation. I can maybe non-transfer. The one that has no rotation, right? So for did come we are going to use. AID that has no rotation. But the method is still be the same. Did carry on the idea. Okay. I think I understand, but does that mean that there's like a, like an algo. You know, in all the method you, because you know how I did on the, on the demo. We provide the inception event. Initially, right? As a query parameter. So an inception event, you, you check, you know, that it's not, not going to be a key rotation. By looking at the inception event, you know what type of ideas. Okay. Because there's no next key. So there's no next key. There's no way to rotate. Yeah, fair enough. Just to restate that you're saying the inception event. Yeah. It doesn't have the pre-rotation key. And so, yeah, right away, you know that this is it. Right. It's just, okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. That makes it clearer for me. Okay. So then you don't, you don't kind of have to distinguish with an actual, like, well, I don't know what to call it a prefix part of the, part of the prefix or. There is that actually part of the. Method specific identifier. I don't know, but anyways, we, we don't have to give no Malgos to, for people to know what, what they're, what they're dealing with. They'll discover that. Yeah. And Alex asking how we passed inception event. That's what I did in the, in the demo is we passed the DIG URL with a query parameter and the query parameters inception event. And if you go to the spec on the PRD ID, you might go one, you're going to find something similar. I think it's called initial state. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I guess like what I was wondering is like, can we change? Right. Like right now, like we're passing it that the next, the next keys or no, can we change that eventually to create, like you say, like, no, like transferables at ease. Because if you can pass anything to the inception event, you can just pass whatever keys are next, right? Right now, but now if you do that, you need to provide a movie or something extra to, to resolve the full key event. And that's, that's going to be so the same DIG method, but because you have another function, the query parameter is going to be different. You instead providing the inception event, you're actually going to pass an movie, right? Or a watcher so you can get everything from that. I see. So instead of like my mom goes in peers, we have queries, like the query parameters in the, the URL that pass into distinguish the different types of ideas. Okay. That makes sense. So will that be an even longer identifier then? Do you think, Roto? Yeah. The device is going to be only short. The device is going to be only short, but the DIG URL. It's going to be longer because you may have another parameters, but then you can get rid of, get rid of the, the parameters and use the, the, the short identifier. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, it's amazing how complex. Well, maybe I'm, maybe it seems complex to me, but it's a, yeah, it is. If you put them all, all the options is going to, it's going complex, but that's why the carry light. Yeah. Terminology is just go with the non-transferability, use that short one definition and don't talk about the, the transferally one. The ones that can be related. I'll start with that and then move. Yeah. The latter up here. Right. Okay. I don't see a spreadsheet. Okay. Basically, Sam's, I'm sorry, Stephen says verifying. I'm just trying to glean if there's anything else we should discuss. Okay. It would be, from a technical perspective, it'd be worth doing the following verifying and documenting that the transformation can be made in each case from qualifier, unqualified did and related to doc to new format. I think that maybe he's talking about the legacy. Peer stuff for that to create a spreadsheet of the properties that we get from each so that we have a comparison, the size of the did, the key rotation, ease of transformation. I'm glad they put the key rotation in their future path, multi key support, et cetera. Some will be subjective, but I think we have them in one place. It might be easier to see differences. Okay. And the added roto and said, he wants you to cover the verification for did key. Yeah. So a lot of what's happening here is the legacy support. You know, has some. Bearing on this. Maybe what lands what we can do is on the hack and the profile, or maybe we can do another document and provide the, like the framework. So we can fill in. Even with those questions. And team or one. Okay. Yeah. So did they, so I don't see any links to any documents. Is that a hack MD that we need to start? No, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. There's nothing. Okay. All right. Fair enough. All right. So do we want to do that here? You know, in our time, we have about 20 more minutes. We can. We can say this would be something that we'll start next week. I mean, timing is important here, but I also don't want to absorb all of our time on this, but I think we all agree that it is pretty important for us. So. Thoughts, opinions. What, I mean, I guess what I'm asking is, is there anything else that we need to cover before we start creating a hack MD for this? We could do any Nessus updates or. Let's see ecosystem of, ah, yes, any news about local agents that are services that have been stood up. I don't think we have anything new there. Okay. Well, well, let's do it. Is everybody, everybody okay with starting a hack MD for this? Let's see here. I don't know if I've ever started a hack MD. Oh, well, we do have the Aries in our profile three. Maybe we should put it there. Yeah, I think so. Right. Isn't that what all this discussion is about? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Let's. Yeah. Here I'll post the link here. And I'll pull it down to our presentation window. If I can. Okay. So yeah, that's probably best for us to be getting back. Sorry. I stretched everything on everybody here. It looks best maybe here. Okay. So. Okay. So this is, we did talk a little bit about the dead method here that we would support. So. I think we're talking base requirements here. So let's. Modify it with a split view. How does that look for everybody? Can you actually read it? Okay. Okay. Yeah. As long as you can read it. I don't want to be. Okay. So now let me find it. I think. Yeah. No. Feature. Feature update. Discover. Features. Sorry. Just trying to find my spot here. Maybe there's an easy way to do this. Then I know problem report. Where the heck is this thing? Also. Okay. Okay. Wacky. That's here. Okay. Okay. So. I, yeah, we can, we can just put in another row for now. Yeah. Well, I guess we need a table that shows the pros and cons. So. Maybe it's best that I create a whole new one. What is the. Yeah. Maybe just deciding what this looks like. Is. Important here. We'll fill in. Okay. Good. We'll fill in some of the features that. Steven asked for in his. In his post. Okay. So he said size of did key rotation. So did method. Nice. Rotation. These of transformation. And let's see if you have. Those. Okay. So let's try to fill something in here. We can add more properties here in a second. All right. So if I just type. A method here, then let's say. Did peer. One. Size of a did peer one. That's basically like a did key. Right. So the size would be small. The peer one. The peer stereo is. Oh, okay. So did peer one is the very. Oh, yes. It's the very complex one. So this is going to be large. Right. I don't, I don't know if it's large or not. Let's. Because I think it's short, but then you have. Have to put a query parameter. I don't know. Yeah, we'll let somebody else fill that in. Okay. Fair enough. I'll just. TBD. TBD. Rotation. I think that it supports rotation, right? But. Yeah. Yeah, we'll just. Okay. Maybe other column could be available frameworks. Or libraries. Libraries. Okay. So you're saying. Yeah. I don't know if. That's kind of like saying support, right? The amount of support. I screwed us up here. Is that because I need to add. This year. Let's see. One, two, three, four. Five. One, two, three, four. So look. One, two, three. I need one more. And. Okay. Yeah, there we go. All right. So then if I put a ditch, yeah. Did Carrie. Here. Okay. So size. It's initially large. As query parameters or something like that. We want to say. Then the size reduces. All. Yeah. On the court, the size is short. Except for the initial, yeah, for the initial handling of the URL. Okay. But the size is short. Okay. So start with. Usually short, I guess. But initially. Large. Need to pass. Yeah. The inception event. Okay. Would it be helpful if the size invites rather than doing like T-shirt sizing. Sorry. What did you say? Yeah, would it be helpful to measure like the size of the, of the method of the IDs in bites rather than doing like T-shirt sizing. Right. Okay. Need. Need bites. I think it carries like 44. The identifiers 44. Because then we can. Yeah, it's like, okay, then we can. Maybe. Yeah. See like a different trade-offs, right? Because like with Carrie, like you have to have like a big payload at first and then it's small later. With number two, you always have to send the service endpoint. For example. So yeah, stuff like that can, I think can be easily measurable. And you can just put it in there as well. Okay. Yeah. I mean, certainly I like providing specifics more. Yeah. The specific number of bites. Okay. So rotation. We're going to say. No rotation. Or we're saying. It depends on. It depends if it's transferable or non-transferable. What would you like me to put? No, for that case. No rotation. But in on the method. Maybe you can put in parentheses. Light. Okay. So then we would have another row for. Carrie in the future. Yeah. Fair enough. Okay. One quick question. Why are we trying to figure out rotation? Aren't this. Period is ephemeral. By their nature. Stephen had asked. Yeah, but maybe one. Did it. One allows rotation. Sorry. They have that feature. It may be nice for the future. So we can, we can say, we can say no rotation for life, but in the future we can use. Yeah. Does that make sense, Alex? Or you agree with that? Is that, is that an okay strategy to start with? For the, for, for did it come. V2. It's Alex says no need, right? Because you can rotate the. Yeah, like you can already do it. Yeah. Yeah. Like you do. Did come rotation. Not did rotation. Yeah. Yeah. Right. For the, for the analysis of did it come V2. But I think for Stephen, maybe you want to see some other. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. My intention is for this list to be for AIP three. So that's not necessarily just did come V2 specific use cases. But we could, if we want to keep it to base requirements for did come V2. I mean, we can, we can do that too. I'm flexible, but. No, no, you just, yeah, I was just kind of like wondering. Yeah. Yeah. The rotation since this are like usually uses a femoral. But yeah, that makes sense. Okay. Just like compare it. Okay, cool. All right. Let's see. Ease of transformation. What is he asking there? When Steven saying. To document ease of transformation. Is that the legacy? You think he's just thinking about legacy. It's, I don't know what understand all the details, but I know they're trying also to solve the legacy peers. There's something on the, on the frameworks. For the, in the. Connections. They use like, not, not the idea. Use it like this legacy that is just the ID. Yeah. And they, they try to, to find a way to. Yeah. To move to the correct the ID and maybe using some. Yeah. Fair. I don't know the answer. Yeah. Yeah, we don't have to worry about that for now. And we can, the good thing is we'll be able to show this at the next Aries working group meeting or, or some meeting soon. And, you know, ask people to fill it in. Okay. Good. All right, Libs. What do we want to fill in for that? I guess is this where we're talking about language support like libraries that support certain languages or. Yeah, here. I think Roto, you had it suggested that we have a Libs column. So. Yeah. I didn't. Okay. Maybe. For example, for key, we have plenty of libraries for. We have the sick, maybe others and check that maybe for, for Kerry, I would say we only right now we only have Python. But we may have. Shout out. That's Kerry pie specifically. Yeah. Okay. But maybe others. Let's see. Can I put. Okay. I do we know the sick. Libraries. We don't even know. Maybe if their implementation has did peer one, we know did peer two though, right? Well, the sick bike covers. All of them. Yeah. Okay. All right. Do we want to add more fields to, to provide more information? Let's see what else did he ask for? Let me just copy this. This for now. Okay. He had asked for. Future path. I'll just put it in there since he asked for it. And multi key support. Probably they want delegation then too, right? Yeah. Feel free to, to push back. This part. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Seven. Eight. Okay. Good. Okay. Anything else we want to fill in on this. If I'm. Wishing us. Good enough for now. Just to launch a conversation. We have five minutes. Yeah. Okay. Anything else anyone wants to see on here? That would be helpful. They think. Maybe a title actually. Let's see base requirements is for that level. Let's see if we can go another level. Base. Did method support. With another. All right. Cool. At least we have something to continue the conversation with. All right. We have about four more minutes. Anything else we want to cover? Talk about. Things that you'd like to see for next week. Can I put this in our sheet here? Okay. Yeah. Anything else. Did I miss anything? Looking into no mago. Alex says he's looking into no mago one seems very similar to a question from Carrie. Yes. I agree Alex that. Yeah. There was a problem with no mago one that base. You can. There's not clear definition of how you. Resolve the same. Maybe. I would say you can get different answers. From the same. Identifier. Because the order of the, I think that is not clear. How the order of the key should be on the document. I think that's something that is correct for one. Implementation. You can try to resolve on the second one and you're going to pay. That's, I think there is a problem there. Got it. Um, I was actually surprised that no mago one is what was supported in FJ. I mean, I don't know the history of that. Um, But yeah, I mean. I, I was under the impression that basically nobody uses zero. Did peer zero because it's dead key. So just use the key. Uh, and then I didn't know anyone who's used. No mago one. From did peer, but then we find out AFJ has an implementation. Which I don't know how often they use that. And then, yeah, I guess. So they want to start supporting the peer. So they. They implemented new mago zero, but it's really simple. It's just copied the key. I didn't go to implement new mago one and they found that problem. And I don't know if the, I think you already implemented normal. Okay. Yeah. I guess I don't love the naming schemes for did peer as well. I don't know the history on that, but yeah, it would have seemed to me that it should have been that zero should be zero as did key and one should have been. What is to, because it's. Simpler, right? But instead it's kind of like. Yeah. And then some middle ground. Yeah, I think that Daniel. Create the zero and one. And then. Some. Say, okay, but it should have something. Different maybe easy for development. And they provided you after that. Yeah. It's an addition to the spec. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. All right. Well, we're learning a ton. This is good. I'm glad that they're discussing it. I think that does it for today. Any last words. Okay. Yeah. Great to have you guys. And we'll see you next time. Thank you. Thank you.