 Good afternoon everyone. Thank you. Wait one more minute and then we can get started. Alright, I think we can get started. So welcome everyone. And the airsoft JavaScript working group call of It is May 25th. I need to remember you to about by the high budget code of comments and antitrust policy. Is there anyone new here today that would like to introduce themselves or share what they're working on. Cool, I think also recognize all names in the call so good to have you all here today. If you want to add yourself to the pennies list, you're free to do so can share the meeting notes again. So, for the agenda today. Curious if people have specific topics they would like to discuss. We'll get to the status updates in a minute. We have future of arise which is a bit from like the areas working group call maybe we can also shortly discuss here and see what people think about the ongoing discussions and in the airsoft group call. Maybe we can reiterate a bit on the presentation cream case last week and the future architecture of our son just script, and maybe also how it relates to the future of arise. I want to quickly reiterate the 040 release but I think we can also do that maybe in the status updates with the shared related to the shared components. And I've added that comfy to I think there's probably some things to discuss about it. I know a lot of progress has been made by Artem. And, yeah, we hope to get it merged soon so maybe we can look at what's left what's good enough to to get it merged now there are some changes we want to make to the wallet. In the API but I think we can do that after like we have merged hope that complete to stuff. So I also added this one the wallet API has been there for a while. But I mainly wanted Ariel to drive that but I don't think he's here today. Are there any other topics people would like to add to the agenda for today. Nothing to the agenda. But you probably see me picking the discord a bunch. It's been kind of frustrating with the demo and the, I guess the changes to 040 actually using a job for framework coming in as a beginner. Yeah. I don't know if if I can just vote for maybe if someone can help me focus on that. That's that's my own as well not really added to the agenda but just wanted to note it in the meeting. Yeah, I think maybe we can spend some time with it I think we can maybe improve some things to make it easier. I agree we're currently in a bit of like a rough situation where we're in between versions and everything and maybe that isn't. Working the nicest and I was also thinking like I saw your messages yesterday I was thinking like yeah we haven't had a lot of like good examples setups and repos. I think we are also very up to date and I think maybe we should spend more time on, like, having some resources to easily get started and have like preset of projects that you can just start from so you don't have to do like the, the, the, yeah, complex process of setting everything up, I think. Yeah, so I think we should spend some time with that. Getting started. Yeah, because I had experience with Agapai right and, and, and then coming to this I remember I was preparing at one point being everything was in a row, I guess just maybe the changes, it's got a little rougher. And I got by full Jason leads to much work and by full now works so that's good. I just wanted to mention it, just because you know, the demo is hard and then weird errors and all that stuff. Yeah, yeah, no that makes sense so yeah I think we can iterate them and see if we can maybe make some, some quick fixes to make that easier, or get some documentation out. Yeah. All right, any other topics, would like to discuss or want to have questions about. I think I have a question team. Hello everyone. I saw that we have a really good pull request for individual, which is also fixes iris version compatibility. And I saw it was approved already and I just I'm just wondering, do we have any blockers here and we're approximately it will be merged. Yeah, so I think we're talking about these two PRs. No, this is for for Android. Yeah, I think it was 186 or something like this. Yeah, I did a PR to have lower iOS version compatibility and to from a test slide. This is still open. Oh yeah I think we can just merge this. Oh, yeah. Don't you just have to create a new release should be good. Yeah, maybe we can also merge the. Yeah, that's still that's still failing. Yeah. Okay, so. But yeah, maybe we can get this in and otherwise we'll just make a new new release and get this one in afterwards. Yeah, maybe if we're now on it, parents can you give a short update on the shared components and all the work that you're doing and what's still left of it like all the different repose and iOS Android tips is. Yeah. So, basically for no jazz nothing has really changed. Still the same state, basically working, but there were some performance issues, which I think are resolved in note 18. For react native. We for a long time we didn't really have support for version 70 and most 71 I think and 72 in the future. But the PR that I think Timo just showed at support for react native 66 up until the latest for Anna credits in the VR area Oscar. And we also have support for expo now. There's still some very weird registration issues with expo. But I believe that they are working. But multiple times and in some apps they, they work in a song up stay, they don't work but I think Timo created the PR for to fix that where we have the shared packages as a peer dependency. So, expo support is there or is coming. And I think, yeah, if we when we release a j zero four zero I think we do like a stable release of other credits in VR and as far as well. Yeah, it's quite a bit of work but it's it's it's getting it's getting close. Yeah, so I was typing so maybe I missed some things did you also talk about the lower Android version support with customer service. So, so we with there are some weird things with rust and if you want to build for Android we basically have to do cross compilation which is always a bit annoying. So we use a tool called cross RS which uses like Docker to build for other targets. So here I can build for Android for example, but they, they do some weird things and with that we only support Android 11. So I think with API 30, which is quite high and we want also to support lower versions of Android. So, Clay showed it quite a bit of work, getting those images working with lower version of Android. And, yeah, this is the the repo that they created. And now I tested on anocrates a couple hours ago. And that works with, I think the lowest I tested was API 24 with Android seven still have to test it for escar and if they are. But yeah that is looking quite good. So we have which which version. The lowest I test was Android seven, but I think the cross images specified Android five even, but I don't think that react native supports that so that would be a bit useless. Yeah, so Android seven at least an iOS 12, I think, or 13. It also depends on which for a native. What react native supports, because I think the binaries go up to iOS seven which is extremely low. So yeah somewhere 12 or 13. Depends on where native. Now I think I covered everything. Yeah, I think so. So I'm here for request open for all of them right and this one we can do so hopefully we can like, yeah we have like a working. Like we have everything fixed now right that that were issues it's just we need to get it merged and released. Yeah we still have to test the escar and any video after they've been built because they're also. I think there was some issue that Jason ran into on a simulator with x86 64 versus x86. So we also have to look into that. But yeah that's just a lot of testing and yeah. We'll see. Okay. Thank you for that update that's helpful. Yeah. Okay. I just this answer your question sounds great guys thank you for the update and for your work. Cool. Okay. Other status updates. One by fault I don't know if the call was this week any updates on the project. So, on a by fault call guys were talking about goal of making the app more accessible in the next sprint, I believe. Okay, and then like adding and adding custom like it's called it know like in the web world area labels and these kinds of things. Yeah, so Jason was talking about better support for people with vision problems and so on. Okay, that sounds interesting. Cool. Sorry, additional few words about by fault. So this is testing by fault and this from JavaScript in comparing and to provide you test results. So maybe create new issues. Sorry. Yeah, no that's that's nice that's. Yeah, and like test. What, what specific features are you testing. So, right now we're testing just issue credentials, usual flow, and for errors from framework JavaScript in addition, credentialification. So, and you are a part of these for my fault. Appreciate it. Awesome. Okay. Alright, so I can do a quick update there was, like, it's now a two week discussion already, but about the future of high pressure arise and whether it's like there's discussion about the potential move of the high pressure arise and it's a lot of discussion, and everything to the open wallet foundation. Because that can. Well, maybe that can provide new opportunities or put a pledge errors in a, and in a better spot related to marketing or others. There's a lot of discussions and people have a lot of different points but we can add the notes here because they're, I think quite interesting to read through. Let me see. This one was yesterday. Yeah, so as you can see a lot of participants. And there's just a lot of points being raised about okay what do we want. And about the potential move. Sam has shared a lot of things of like okay we need to have continuity continuity of brands. Well, and a lot of things what we could do to improve from high pressure arise itself. I think. One thing that was also discussed which is, for me, an interesting topic related to a potential move is, like, what is the scope of high pressure arise, because currently we are adding a lot of new features to high pressure areas that are not specifically related to the RSR sees or errors into a profiles. And he also, like from the discussion or the presentation cream gave last week on what should the future architecture be and it's like this cool part of the core and is there a room for openly for fission, I think an interesting thing for me that that came out of it because my opinion on what it was like it's as I built on top of the difficult primarily using high pressure in the end that's what it's now. I'm not saying that it should be. John mentioned john Jordan that it's also like more it's mentioned here somewhere I think let me see. Sure, that's. Yeah. A set of frameworks that can work with protocols credentials type crypto wide variety of sources and if you see it like that I think then adding all these things to the framework like I assume to ask it does make a lot of sense. So. Yeah, I think we have to see how that evolves. People here in the call have a specific like that weren't involved in that discussion if they have specific opinions on that like, do you, do you have an opinion on what happens do you feel like it could help or it could not help or anything Do you think it's fine either way or yeah would be curious what's a. I think Arizona JavaScript is a is a is a big project from there is project so I think it's important that we make sure. Yeah, we get the best out of this. I'm still processing because I, I still don't completely understand why this initiative. I mean, where did it came from actually right. I think this is something that that other people were were asking I like Helen I think was was asking. I think it in, at least to what is concerned about this, this, this project in the, the particular, the area is pretty much a script. It probably will make sense to somehow included into the open world foundation. But I'm not sure why they are. They are proposing to move the whole areas project there because something that was or they made clear from the beginning is that open wallet foundation will not. I mean, we, it will, it will focus on code implementation. And not on the specification so I'm basically right now what what what areas is is mostly a bunch of RFCs or specifications to achieve some goals. So, I don't know exactly what's the debate, the best fit for for that. Yeah, another, another issue I see. I know the open world foundation is a very, very recent project but or initiative. But when I go to the to their to the to get have. I see almost nothing. I mean, there is no. There are not other projects involved there right now, at least. So, I don't know why it's, it's quite confusing for me. But of course, I have no problem if everybody wants to go to the open wallet, it's, it's fine for me. It's not a problem. Even if areas is mostly my, my first name but but but I can, I can change. You can change. My middle name is Osvaldo so it starts with all maybe it's it's fine. I think with the standards. One of the options out there is the is they go to deaf. I mean already a lot of a lot of with what did come v2. I mean all the protocols are already going to go there. I know there's others obviously other rfcs but a lot of it already is already going to go under diff so maybe one option is to look at at moving the areas rfcs into more into into into into the decentralized any foundation. I think that makes sense I think that could maybe also help in making arise more of a really focused on okay this is agent implementations and I think yeah I should say what did come being moved to diff already. I think a lot of the current areas rfcs can be deprecated. They are now covered by the did come spec for example and that become that it becomes a much more like the light the lightweight intro profile in itself where then the code is separated from the specifications. Yeah, I think that that would be a potential solution. I think one thing that I think someone mentioned that two weeks ago the area skull was that I think it was right or something that like with hyper ledger we get quite a bit of stuff like our get up organization. That's for our credits I think also rfj and 100% sure, but we have exclusive runners which are way faster than like the free runners and get a lot of marketing and the workshops that are hosted by them and promoted by them. I'm not sure if open models foundation can do all of those things for us. So I do think that it would be better for the identity or are we want to call it off of areas to to move there. But yeah if then we we can do anything anymore, because we don't have hyper ledger behind it with all their resources and everything. So that might be a bit of an issue I think. But yeah I don't really know the entire infrastructure of open wallet foundation and if they can provide with everything that we are used to with under hyper ledger. Yeah, but by the way, I think we can, we can maybe, maybe start thinking on what, what are the problems of being part of hyper ledger. Is there any drawback something that we, we don't like about that. The foundation will somehow be deprecated in the short term. I mean, is there any problem to to be in part of hyper ledger for areas. I think it's just that we do not necessarily want to be associated with blockchain. And that is mainly the thing, and that it's still like the big connection with Indy and Anacrets and everything well. Well, at least we're going towards that's not really the case anymore and I think there are still a lot of misconceptions about areas and if we stay with hyper ledger I don't think that they will go away, or we have to do a lot of rebranding and marketing. And I think it will be fine but I think moving to another organization might make it a little easier to say like, hey, we are just an identity framework and not specifically a Anacrets Indy that confi one framework. That's, I think, for me the main thing. So we don't, we don't want to be related to or associated to a blockchain but we do want to be associated to a wallet. I don't think that we. You see the name and it's not good that it neither. No, no, that's. I see your point. I think it's not necessarily that we don't want to be associated with blockchain I think we want to be associated with more than just blockchain, because I don't think that there is necessarily an issue that we use some debts or financial definitions or whatever that are anchored on the blockchain. I think we do more than that and hyper ledger is the blockchain. I don't know I forgot their official title but like a, it's a blockchain thing. Yeah, actually if we if you see the release notes or the launch notes for areas. It clearly states that it's a blockchain route, blockchain route, I don't know agent or something like that. Maybe that that's not because at the moment the idea of areas was to to not be tied to India specifically, but they still thought that any other blockchain would be always there. So, maybe that that's not the case anymore. Maybe now, right now we need areas community we we don't even want to be tied to the to the blockchain technology. Yeah. And I think I mean it for me, I mean it can stay under hyper ledger but I think the effort in rebranding it and making sure that everyone wants to use it knows that it's not only blockchain or not only in the is. So much effort that it might be easier to move to WWF and yeah have it easier there with the rebranding because then we're under WWF and no one I think in association with WWF and a blockchain. So that that might be the easiest route, but I don't know if it's the best route because now hyper ledger they do provide quite a bit of things, which are very nice and we use them a lot so. Yeah, I wanted to add that. All of the independence efforts that were like we did that was done technically. I think having us going to the open one foundation will make that more public thinking. So we're not tied to Indie, because like we know that like we're like quote unquote independent like we're not dependent on the Indie ledger, but I don't think other people outside would know that and us just trying to buckle somewhere. I don't think it's going to change the perception that's been around for years. So from a marketing perspective, I think it's good. However, I think we need to weigh all the support they can provide because I've been in several of those meetings. And, yeah, like Ariel said, the majority of the meetings are pretty much just them talking and having other open source group present to them like they're building libraries. So there was several other companies like the website page that presented them and they're just kind of like wanting to pretty much fork a bunch of SDKs and put them in one place. That's in my understanding of what they're trying to achieve. So I'm not sure the level of support that they can provide and if they talk about having like the technical structure and whatnot. Because like you mentioned the repository, there's very little action going on. There was a little bit at the beginning from like an architectural perspective. Okay. So just throw in my two cents as somebody who's not, who's been monitoring this stuff for about the last year but isn't heavily invested in any technology stack. I think that the circles that I end up intersecting with outside of the Aries community. Very much view Aries as not just blockchain and indie, but as a non creds and CL signatures. Yeah, so and did come. And so while the work is going on to make the technology that the stack much more kind of agnostic to what the registry is and what the format is and what the signature set is and you know and what the communication protocols are. That is the perception and that is very difficult to change. And so I think part of the, the benefit of, of moving somewhere new whether, and I'm not in a position to say whether I think moving to the old wall foundation or is a good place or not. But the rebranding that needs to happen to get over that perception, if, if in fact that is what the Aries community wants would be beneficial to like start with a somewhat clean slate in terms of the branding, so that that perception would move away if that's what the community wants. If the community is saying, yeah we're supporting these other things but really we are about, you know, first and foremost and non creds and did calm and, you know, and ledger based. Then maybe that branding is not where you want to go. So, but that is the perception and, and although I've tried to preach to some people that hey that this is, you know, it's changing and it's supporting these other things. You know the perception is there. Yeah, thanks for the input I think that I think that's something we keep hearing more and more and I agree like changing a perception is, is very difficult. I have a brand. Yeah, and I think a move to the open wall foundation. Yeah, could maybe help with that question is if we're going to do the same thing with like the point Ariel raised with wallet. But yeah, I think these are really good inputs. I think one thing, as much as I hate the fact that it always comes down to the wallet, if you're outside of the core people working on this, the wall is first thing everyone goes to it is the anchor in most people's mental model of digital trust and digital identity. I'm not really right but it is what, you know, marketing wise is what it is. I've also posted a in the chat reread the quote from this is from Fido Alliance obviously incredibly technical group who knows their stuff. This is their interpretation of areas and indie, some kind of mismatch of different different ideas so again marketing where definitely areas is getting is getting blurred in terms of, of what it is under because of the history and the issues. So, it's, it's actually a great paper otherwise but that quote really struck struck me as being misguided. Yeah. And if you were to, because I believe we can divide this question to two different parts. First of them we discussed blockchain part. And so of course we want to make areas from work more agnostic ledger agnostic. There are a lot of new blocks of checks and mostly a lot of new blockchains that we have and already can use with areas framework JavaScript, for example. And another question it's a wallet because we don't want to have indie wallet, like a just in the ledger connection. And we think about open wallet for all formats sale and not only. We just maybe discuss it in two ways. First of them connection with different blockchains and do we really. Is it really required. And another part it's wallet that we already try to make like video, like a scar tools to make it not in the not just India wallet, but for other system too. I mean, if we can say that areas is not connected only with Indie, and we don't need to make a strict dependence on the blockchain part. Yeah, I think also make sense like we have for very long time at the industry and I think. Yeah, all implementations used in the SDK and that doesn't help probably because even then if you don't want to use the indie ledger, you're still using the SDK, which can be confusing. Yeah, so I think what comes out of this is that maybe there's something in the open wallet foundation but I think there's also just a lot of misconception so maybe branding or like marketing could help with that. I think probably cleaning up a lot of the old stuff with an arise, maybe rebranding the purpose, making some videos about or like tutorials about like what is really the scope of arise I think maybe those things could already really help. But not a point could be like isn't it easier to move. Yeah, and it's anyone that wants to add something to this I'm planning on like there's discussion here. And there's more meetings I think that's going to happen so I want to write up a bit of my own perspective I think in the discussion I also want to take into these points are there any other points people feel like haven't been raised yet for like why this should be done or not or. Cool, well thanks for all the input this is. This is really helpful. And cool let's see okay we have around 20 minutes left and maybe we can very quickly do the 040 release because I think that's that's just about a minute is. It has been really way longer than we expected to have this released and I think basically everything is in place to release it. If we have those shared component stuff fixed which I think we're getting really close, a lot of movement here. Yeah, that's ongoing. It's about the state of the verification area L and what you think. Yeah, I couldn't I couldn't work on on that in the last weeks, but I'm just returning to the AFC development so I will, I will review. I mean, I will, I will check your comments on the PR and probably I will. I will address all the feedback. During this this weekend I think. But I'm. I don't know if we should wait until it is merged before the 040 I don't know, maybe we can we can do it in the 041. I agree I think we shouldn't wait to hold off the release any longer so I think if we have these shared components ready, we should make the release and then we can just add it to a 041 or maybe a 050 like there's not. I don't think if there's, it's really a big issue also if we make a 050 very soon. Like, I don't think people currently have a problem with too much like releases rather to feel. So. Okay. Cool. Yeah, I think then that's that's okay I do think like having the release be delayed this much have given us the chance to test it out a bit more because there's been really a lot of changes. There's been really a lot of changes with all the upgrades changes and the generalization like this is a really big architectural change. And we've been using it for, like we've updated the few wallets to the new for your version, some cloud stuff. There's a lot of time to work with it now which I think that is great that we can be sure that the zero for zero release that we release has been like already tested out before being released. Okay. Hopefully more updates on this soon. There's. I think, maybe, are them. Do you have a lot on the did concrete to stuff that you want to discuss or what's what would you like to approach that. I just wondered to know what the next steps should I do what changes I needed to get it much quickly what like I took the base did come with two branches the basis and changed crypto implementation from SIGPA to just use areas as car methods as expected everything what is needed. It provides and implementation passes test vectors from give specification and this is good news. And the not good point that we need did resolve your inside of the wallet and for now the implementation is limited to get key and get peer methods only button the best we need to rework it and for me. It looks like we need to move it to move we need to move it to core and construct JVA and handle it there but and expose just crypto operations like you see, you see dash one P you keep wrapping or encryption out of the wallet. I believe. From get coffee one perspective in these decay also provides an encrypt and our script methods, which are pieces of this JVA version. So, we should be able to implement it as well, and skill support in your word, but it just more work, and this now just would like to get current implementation merged in main and after after that continue improve it. So, appreciate any feedback, any comments, any major issues which need to be resolved to get it merged. Okay, that sounds good. I think I'm fine with. Like, having it in the wallet because that's also what we do for did come be one now. And as I mentioned, I do think we should not call the dissolver directly in the wallet but extracted to a higher layer and I think from my perspective, then we're good to merge it now. And when we're going to do the wallet API refactoring. We, we can like extracted into a separate Jason weapon encryption servers and, and yeah remove the pack and pack that's very did come to one specific from the, from the wallet and just have to like the more lower level crypto operations. So I think that that makes sense. And, yeah, would be good to have this merged soon into the main branch because feature branches are. Yeah, not, not so nice. Okay. Thanks for the updates I left some more comments on the PR. But yeah, most of it looks good. Yeah, I'll work on this comments and get them resolved. Okay. And then I want to ask Ariel, it has been on like the, the wallet API refactoring has been on the agenda for like a few times we've, like we don't get to it, could you maybe for next week, prepare some things for this. Yeah, yeah, sure, I will. Yeah, I will. I will, I'm, I chose to review the, the work done done by my art team, which is somehow related because there will be some changes in the on the wallet. And so I will, I will look at it and I'm prepared something about the, what are they paying in general for the next week. Okay, cool. Then we'll add a top of agenda next week. Yeah, I think we probably want some time for that and I think it's, yeah, with that did come stuff and also what we now notice with JWT verify credentials and that there's some current limitations in the wallet API that. Yeah, that makes sense. So yeah, okay, that would be good. And then maybe we can spend the last 10 minutes on the of the meeting on like the point Charles raised on like getting started with AFJ and that it can be quite complex. And what we can maybe do in the short term to make this easier. And I think one point I have noticed is that difficult to keep up with versions. Alpha versus stable. What you have to use and install instructions are sometimes incorrect if in alpha stages, I think that's one thing I've noticed are there specific things people see and like how what's currently difficult and everything's we could easily solve I know Charles you raised this so even just keeping the demo working would be a starting point. And the demo kind of works now until they give some I mean, it's kind of you guys it's kind of like given errors and fix it and errors and different error. But even just keeping the demo, you know the Alice Faber walk through working would be would be a huge help. I think one suggestion I had on that and that is like, you like to air some JavaScript repo supports, or as Oscar in the SDK and there's like quite a lot of dependencies needed to get it to work. I think one of my thoughts to make it a lot easier to have it working is by extracting it into a separate repo, because then we can keep the set of minimal, which is if you get started is nice because currently, you need to have the whole repo setup, which brings dependencies in the checked and Oscar in the SDK, like, do you think that's good help with making it easier. That would, or even when occupied as I'm just putting in a Docker container would be a starting point right. Yeah, just because just because that's that's that's hard. You know as a beginner is coming to something and not understanding if it was like my mistake or if it was the demos, you know bug right. That's, that's a good, good suggestion. Yes. And then, and then yeah mostly because I tried it I mean the two main things I tried were I tried running for the demo and you know we've already a couple times on a couple bugs in the demo and then in the set of instructions. And definitely the alpha and even, but even the old release, the stable version didn't didn't build for weird reasons that I think we're doing like ask our. Yeah, you know what I mean. So, so yeah, those are the two main ones. And documentation it's not clear what the, what the release cycle is like, especially now that things moved off to ask our and all that other stuff. Something something about ask our doesn't, you know, I couldn't even find a main, I think I was one of the threads we had on that discord but one of the askers didn't even have like an entry point that that areas, you know, ask your framework assumed it would have and I'm not a good job for developers may was my mistake but it's just a confusing error that I think was just due to versions changing or something. Yeah, yeah, that's basically done an issue of we release on every commit so then we have like in the main branch then we start working on the escort module but it's not ready for us it's yet so it's confusing and wanting. And that's a bit annoying about MPM juice. And I've run into it myself, a lot of times as well is if you go to, for example, Erich and Rick Oscar, we've never had a stable release for it because we started working on this in the zero for zero work branch and if you look at the latest version. If the if you have a first version of this alpha release then it will be tagged as the latest so there's like if you just install at air streamer Oscar, you will get like a very old alpha version, which doesn't work. Because I think that the first year probably also installed because then you have like no entry point and that's an issue. Yeah, we have to fix so I'm not sure what the best approaches to because you can't release something under only the alpha you have to, you need to when you first release it even if it's an alpha it will be published on the latest I think one thing we can do in that is better documentation in like install instructions and good adding text to install script so you also always install the correct version based on the documentation I think that that helps. Yeah, so I made a PR yesterday to the docs, which I hope will help a bit with this and maybe we can make more improvement but is. If you go to the getting started guide and now for example, there is Oscar, I have now added like in the next branch added like at alpha installs to all the install comments and if we go to 030 installation for the setup I now added like 030 if you look at all documentation you run the install script you would never get like the version that is not relevant for the like what you're currently setting up so you don't get hopefully as much version errors. This is of course just one small thing but yeah, hope we can get more of these. So, thanks people mentioned I think you also had issues a lot with like the react native setup right. Plugging the demos. There is definitely lack of the documentation for plugin plugins because like there are powerful feature just on LD credentials and bbs signatures but they're not covered at all, and you can cannot run any demo and see them in action. The current favor it is demo just reflects on crates regular flow with issues and presentations are plugins for checked for questions for but I do not have an idea how to test them. And the same for open ID connect I quite trendy nowadays and maybe good tagging search and we get a FJ implementation but I cannot see it cannot test it apart just from seeing unit tests. I think this makes sense. I think it's not probably for plugins. It's just like lack of documentation and the demo not things not being included in the demo. That makes sense as well. I think we can. We should add tutorials for all these kinds of things like we have. I think the we have for the next branch we have like documentation for all the setup so there's like on how you set up checks and then there's the tutorials of like for example in the check did module how you can create it but it's very like it's still just some pieces are there and a lot of things aren't there yet so yeah we really need to extend over this we can create a connection. We have to check with our credits schema and credential definition credentials mediation but we don't even have a tutorial on proof request. For example, which is a very complex thing to implement if you don't know how. I don't crash proof work and even if you know how it works it's still like very complex. If you have to implement that so I think yeah better documentation. I, if I can add one is I think probably example repos setup with the latest version and having simple flows implemented. Like, if we can have an example. React Native project that has just everything set up minimally but like not more so it also like doesn't become too complex and also have simple flows implemented. I think that can help in getting started and looking at a reference implementation for how certain things are done. So I think maybe we should just create like to repose one. An example error screen JavaScript server and one example error screen JavaScript mobile agents, and this will have a different purpose from like the Bible project which I think is a really good reference project for. But as like it's more of like a fully implemented what I think some simple demos, I think can help. Yeah, yeah, in light of the earlier conversation about what the areas product is. Even as an example of not using any in the SDK components, if that's possible, like you guys mentioned the discord. That would be super cool just to have. Here's areas running with the peer and no no in the SDK stuff at all. Yeah, I am. I'm always really a fan of like the the next just examples is they have like a lot of examples and they're all like setting up the next project with this specific library or doing it in this way or in this way and they have like or if you want to do it with it. This content management system on this one and like whatever your use case is they have an example for it so you can always look at, like, how it works and it's also for them so they can like always have like alright how does it work if you actually use this for certain use case. So maybe we can create like an examples repo where we can create simple example flows. I think that that could already really help. See where's the note. Okay. We don't have any time now anymore, but then I will probably bring it up next week again, but yeah, some help from people if we can also maybe pick up some of these things that would be really appreciated. And maybe we can do some planning on it next week to see your rights, which can some people maybe talk rise to the demo and these kind of things. But yeah, okay, and of end of meeting. Thank you all. Good discussion and I'll see you next week. Thanks. Thanks. Goodbye. All right. Goodbye.