 Good morning, everyone. So just a quick review of the agenda we've got planning for the HackFest, a brief update on where we are with Rocket Chat, a discussion of the – there's somebody in a room with a lot of background noise, if they could mute, please. Continuing discussion of the security badging, I don't know if Brian is on and going to join. I know he has a cold and he's on the road. He's not joining. Okay, so maybe we want to defer that or – probably, I suspect, because I'm not sure what Brian had in mind, to be honest. Yeah, we can defer. Not a problem. Okay. A reminder that there is hiring. Hart has requested time to review the white paper, skeleton draft document, which I think we need to link to in the chat, since I don't see it in the note here. And then we will then continue our discussion of the working group charters. And I think we have – I can't remember now which ones were attached and which ones we need to discuss, because I wasn't on last week, so – Todd, could you remind me, please? Yep. So we have Google Docs for the technical working group China Identity and Architecture. Hart sent over the charter for the white paper working group as a PDF, so that was attached in what went out last night, as well as the skeleton outline for the white paper work group was a PDF attached as well. And then when we get to the work group charter section, we're still waiting for something from the requirements work group, the protocol working group and fabric SDK working group. Okay. Thanks. And then there's one other topic that I'd like to add, and that's something that came out. We just had the governing board meeting ended about four minutes ago, and Rob Palatnik of DTCC brought up the discussion that some of us were having back in December when digital assets published the white paper on the global synchronization log. And so we just had a brief discussion in the governing board that was then tasked to me to sort of raise the discussion back in the context of where the discussion really belongs and the TSC in terms of is there anything we should be doing about the GSL, what should we do, and so forth. So I think I'd like to tack that on the end if we have any time. Anything else? Okay. So, Todd, Hackfest, where are we? Yep. So plan for February 1st and 2nd in San Francisco, there's roughly 50 people that have registered as of now, which is fantastic. If you're planning to attend, please get registered as soon as possible, dropping the link into the chat window now. We also have a draft agenda going for that. If there's topics that you want to see, please get those slotted in. We will run this on conference format, as we typically do, and map out the agenda at the morning of day one. So any topics, please get those added. Otherwise, we're still looking tentatively to have a Hackfest in Shanghai in March, piggybacking on the Hackathon, as well as New York in May. I've been chatting with a few people on those, but if you do have venue space, please get in touch so we can see what we get planned. Any questions there? All right. That sounds good. I think it's really great that we're seeing the numbers up this early. That's a really good sign, so I'm enthusiastic about that. I'd like to make sure that when we do get together in San Francisco that we try and focus a little bit less on talking a little bit more on actually engaging and doing some collaboration, especially between the projects, I think that would be important. Okay, is Ryan or who's giving the update on Wreck-a-Check? I'm not sure if Ryan's on, so I'll just give a quick update. The IT team is working on this. It does support the use of your Linux Foundation ID, LFID, if you have one, which is great. And it looks like this will be up before the Hackfest on February 1st and 2nd. So, while people are face-to-face there, we can kick the tires with it in real time. Great. I think that's going to be important because I keep getting feedback mostly in Slack, actually. People saying, oh, I was looking for something and it's not there and how come? So the sooner that we can get to a point where we have archived, where we are having to archive and drop off the edge of the world, all these conversations will be a good thing. So, okay, and then you want to send a reminder then about the hiring. I know that there's already been some people putting in for the different positions, but maybe you can remind everybody what the positions are and where they can go. Yeah, certainly. So I just dropped a link in. This was a blog post just summarizing everything we're looking for. But essentially, we're looking to bring on four full-time hires, two community architects to work very closely with the technical community here, as well as a security maven, just to make sure that the community is implementing best practices for secure software development, et cetera. And then lastly would be a director of ecosystem development. Really a company, a person working with a various member companies and non-members just weaving together the overall strategy, helping them further engage in the technical activity as well as the business and marketing activity. But there's job descriptions in the link that I sent for all of those. If you have any questions, you can reach out to me directly. Otherwise, there's a link for how to apply for those. So if you know anyone in your network that would be a good fit, please send them our way. Great, thank you. Any questions on that? OK, then next up is Hart. Hey, everybody. I just wanted to mention that the White Paper Working Group is progressing. We have come up with what we're calling a skeleton White Paper, which is essentially an outline with a lot of points we want to cover in the White Paper. And we wanted to do this before we committed a bunch of time to actually writing the White Paper so that we wouldn't have to make a ton of changes later on and kind of get stuck in a vicious cycle of writing and then having to repeat a bunch of effort. We would like the TSC to hopefully approve this document, perhaps next week. So if anyone really, but especially TSC members, if you could go over this document in the coming week, give us feedback or comments, and then we can go from there. Does anyone have any questions? So Hart, let me just sort of ask, who hasn't had a chance to review the White Paper skeleton? I know it's been out for a while. I know some people have given feedback. I'm just curious who hasn't yet felt that they've had a chance to review this. Chris, this is Greg. I haven't had a chance to, I apologize. This is Dan. I also haven't gotten around to that yet. Any others? Yeah. This is Zano. Do you hear me? I actually had read the previous paper, but not the skeleton, so I need to do that. But so I just wanted to clarify, Hart, I mean, I know you struggle with this, you know, that there was kind of a moving target, which I can understand is not sustainable. And so my understanding is the goal is to now, you know, set the direction and be able to stick to that, right? Did you also clarify which audience you're trying to address? Because that was part of the question. That's in the skeleton. So we have an outline and we also have a couple of paragraphs about what we're trying to address, who we're trying to address points to, and sort of what we're trying to say to who, I guess. So we have a couple of paragraphs on that in the document. And if you have comments on that, you know, obviously please feel free to let us know. Sounds good. Thank you. Okay. So everybody has homework who hasn't already reviewed and provided feedback to Hart and the white paper working group on the skeleton and Todd lets tee up a decision for next week. We'll do it in the agenda. So for those of you who need to, please, please try to carve out half an hour. It's not a lengthy read and so carve out a half an hour to review it and provide Hart with any feedback. And then I'd like to, you know, at least, you know, get agreement on, you know, from a purpose and the general outline, is this the direction that we're trying to, you know, that we all agree is where the white paper should head for next week? Okay. Next up, working group charters. And again, I apologize, I wasn't around last week and I'm not actually sure which ones we've done yet, Todd. So help me. Yeah, certainly. So we hadn't received most of them last week. So Brian's suggestion was that these get sent over email over the last week. We would have a discussion this week in the TSC call, make sure that we get the remaining few and then look for formal adoption in next week's TSC call. So I think this call is really just focused on a questions, comments on the four that have already come in, and then a reminder to the requirements working group protocol working group and fabric SDK working group to get theirs over. Okay. All right. Fair enough. So let's go in alphabetical order. I see architecture is Ramang. Hi, Chris. Yes, I'm on. All right. So let's review this one. All right. Everybody have the Google Docs link that was sent over in the email. So the architecture working group, it's fairly straightforward, and we have a clear charter from the beginning. We are focused on developing an architectural framework for enterprise class ledgers and ideally converging on a modular architecture. We realize that that's not an easy task, that everybody will converge exactly on that modular architecture, but we think it's a goal that we should be shooting for anyway. So the main work involved in developing that architectural framework is identifying common components, providing the functional decomposition, focus more on what those functions are rather than how. The how would be the implementation details and the design that's associated with the individual projects. And then providing the interface definitions between the components. The other important aspect that we want to cover and haven't covered yet is the aspect of interoperability. What does interoperability mean between ledgers, between different versions of ledgers and different stacks themselves. And that's something that we would like to address as well. So besides that, the workgroup serves as a cross-project forum for architects and technologists across the project. We exchange ideas and explore alternate architectural options. We discuss trade-offs and capture the reasoning behind the choices that we make, both in general for the ideal architecture and for the individual choices that the project have made. And we provide recommendations and guidance to the projects under the hyperledger umbrella, hoping to encourage them to converge on a model of architecture. Obviously we invite the projects to come to the workgroup and we provide design review and guidance back on trying to move towards the converged architecture. Any questions there? So Ram, I think the only thing that I think this is fine, the only one comment that I might make is that under work products that you also include the offer to do design reviews. I think I mentioned it there in the last line, Chris. So if you look at work product. Oh, yeah, okay, yes, fine, thanks. I was looking for the word design, never mind. You had me worried for a minute, Chris, because we specifically talked about that yesterday. Yeah, so we leave most of the design to the individual projects, there's more architecture review if you will, but you know, we're open to providing design guidance as well if you and we can explicitly include that if you think that's a good idea. Yep. No, I think this is fine. Any other feedback? So this is, I have one comment, it's a very small thing, but in the collaboration section, you say ideally it collaborates with the use cases, requirements, blah, blah, blah. Do we really want to have this ideally? I mean, I understand, you know, I think I understand what this is about, but I would think that from a charter point of view, you probably should say it collaborates, that's the goal, right? That's the ideal, that's so what you're shooting for. Yeah, I think it's, I take your point. The reason I put it there, that's what we wanted to start with, but it hasn't happened, that's why I stuck the idea in. But this is why I'm pointing this out, in fact, because if it's something we feel that it should be, you know, maybe we need to change this and make it an actual goal. And then I understand practically it may not quite happen as much as you would like, but I think it might make sense to remove the word there to make it for a strong commitment. Sure. I would go ahead and do that right now. Thanks. Done. Any other, any other feedback? Okay, then I would suggest we take a quick vote, and rather than doing a role, I would suggest that we just sort of do the opposite and say, does anybody object to, you know, approving this as the architecture working group charter? Okay, here are no objections, I think it's approved. Next up, I'm looking for my email here. Next up, identity, I guess it's identity, I guess. And as somebody just posted that in the chat, I know. Thank you. Is Vipinon? I will tell you that WebEx is really annoying. Or go to meeting whatever this is. Is Vipinon? He's not in the list of attendees. Okay, maybe we'll defer this until next week then. I would encourage people to review it and provide Vipinon with any feedback during the week. But since he's not here to hear it, then I think we should just move to the next working group then, which is the white paper working group. Yeah, hey Chris, the document went out in the email about the meeting that Todd sent out last night. Yes. I think this is an extremely simple charter, it's probably massively over rewarded. As you might guess, the purpose of the white paper working group is to write the white paper. And that's basically what the charter says in probably more words than necessary. But if anyone has any comments on the wording, we'd love to hear suggestions. Has everybody got access to the email? No, if people could just post it in the chat window, that'd be great. It's a PDF, it was attached to the agenda that Todd sent out yesterday. I need to get on that mailing list, sorry I've just recently joined sorry about that. Which is the right mailing list? Hyperledger-tsc.hyperledger.org, I'm sorry, was there a comment in there? You may have talked over somebody, sorry. So thoughts on the working group charter for identity? For the white paper working group I've dropped the message archive in from the list so you should be able to get the PDF from the bottom of that called white paper charter. So I would have one comment which is that document really doesn't say what the white paper is really about except in the introduction where it says it reflects the philosophy of the Hyperledger project. And I understand it may be a bit of a challenge to have a very descriptive kind of expansion of what the document is about. It's kind of a catch-22. Yes, but it seems like the charter really doesn't say anything other than well we'll do some white paper without saying what it is. I understand the challenge in going further than that, but maybe if we have a, you know, I assume that Haught has a pretty good sense of where he's going with the paper now and maybe can they expand a little bit on what this document is supposed to be about. So I agree with you Arnaud that the first, I think it's the first two paragraphs on the skeleton that are sort of the introduction to the skeleton is something we might want to just drop in here as the charter. Yeah, I looked at this and maybe that's too much. So maybe something in between at a high level, what do you expect to cover with the white paper? I don't know. So that's sort of what that first two paragraphs cover. Right, that's what I thought. Yeah, so here's what I would suggest. I think this is a good point and so assuming that as people review the skeleton and if we approve the skeleton that we update the charter with that preamble in terms of the scope of the white paper, does that make sense? That makes sense to me. Yeah, I think that works. That might be a good way to get out of the sketch 22 we're in right now. Yeah, that sounds like a good plan. So regarding that, one of the things that that brings, one of the points that that brings out about the white paper working group is that it has a finite duration as opposed to the architecture group where the facility of providing architectural and design reviews is something I think we continue on in perpetuity. The white paper group, especially as we hone in on the specific characteristics of the deliverable becomes terminal when we deliver that, it's done. Is that our intention or would we like this group to be something that continues to provide documentation facilities? That's a good question, Mick. I would think that we should sort of lay that if other things come up that this group could then be working on, we can expand the scope to include that over time. But I would think that it would be mostly, as is described, which is the working group will exist until there's no apparent need to continue to maintain the white paper. And then it can disband and we can bring it back if we need to do a rethink on our sort of purpose here. We can create another one, but I think generally because each project has its own sort of documentation and so forth that once we establish this, once we finish the white paper that basically we should all focus on doing other good works, architecture and so forth. I agree with you, Chris. I just want to make sure we were understanding the implications of this specificity that we're talking about for this. So I would suggest that we take a quick vote then here that we accept the white paper working group charter to be amended with the preamble from the skeleton that we approve next week. Any objections? If not, I think Vipin has joined. Vipin, are you there? Yeah, just take a minute. What's that? Can you hear me? Vipin, we can, but there's a lot of background noise. I don't know if it's yours or somebody's. Yeah, there could be. Okay. We were doing the work group charter reviews and yours is next. Yeah, basically it is still the same state as it was last week. It's nothing but a very draft version. We did not have a meeting last week. So we defer it to the next meeting which is going to happen next week. I have not received much input except from Thomas Harjono who suggested adding some collaborators to the list. And yesterday's architecture working group, we had a sort of discussion about the interactions between architecture and identity. I don't know that we came to a conclusion. But it was felt that the identity working group would confine itself to questions of identity and security, which are different from those that would be the concern of the architecture working group because that is going to be mainly the separation of the various layers and the APIs to those layers. So I will add those to the charter document in terms of the scope. Again, it is all sort of in vague terms in terms of the work product to be delivered. Mainly a list of what should the ideal identity solution look like and how can it be externalized and how can that component interact with the others and provide some clarity on that. Of course, we cannot enforce any of this stuff, but we can only gently cage all people into doing this. And I noticed that you have changed the name of Fabric Cop to Fabric CA. I applaud that decision by the way. Me too. I was really upset with the name. And I did express it a couple of times to them. Thank you, Vipin. So I guess Vipin will defer this to next week. Yeah. I mean, how should we proceed in terms of the review of the charter? We go section by section. Well, I mean, we could do a quick review now for what you have in draft and get any feedback and factor that into any revisions that you do in the working group. Yeah, are there any specific comments on the structure of the document or are there any specific comments on any of the contracts? Mainly, I put the document out there to be commented on or to be somebody to even make changes. I think the link provides for both. Yeah. So should I be going over each section or how should this work? What would people like to do? Would people want to wait or review this now? How long is it? One and a half pages. Not even. I have no feedback. Yeah, if it's quick, then let's go ahead. Okay. Why don't you sort of take a section by section and then if you know of a specific area that's going to be worked, then you can write like that as you go through. Okay, hold on a second because right now I'm inside the firewall and I cannot access this. I'll take one. Why don't we just do this? I would encourage people to provide comments and put them back on the document. And then we'll take it up and form it next week that way. Because I think if you're struggling to get a bit and so forth, I think it's probably best that we just sort of take up the next charter. Especially given that I think you need to distill to that. Okay, thank you. Okay, thanks, Lepin. So next up is... Chris, maybe... I mean, I have a kind of a general question about the scope of the working group, which I think maybe might answer and you know, maybe it's just me. So I'd like some clarity as to the scope in the, you know, I admit that I have not been following the identity working group. So I don't exactly know what they do today. I did attend the very first meeting and I remember being surprised because they were in fact in the meeting, you know, I went there thinking, okay, these are the people who are actually looking into solving the identity problem, the context of the hyperledger project, specifically like in blockchain implementations. And then there were people in the room, we were more in the camp of, hey, we want to use blockchain to solve identity problems in general. And so I thought, oh yeah, this is interesting. So there are actually two sides to this story. And then when I read the document now, I still don't know which way it is. In the beginning and the traditions, it seems to be talking about identity issues related to blockchain implementations and frameworks, if you will. And then somewhere down in the work products or something, it talks about identity solutions. And so I'm not sure which one it is now. Have you guys evolved towards just one? Or do you still look into both of these sides of the coin kind of thing? Okay, here's the short answer to that. You know that Chris has been leading this group. And his situation is that he's for permission less blockchains and for identity in general, you know, like self-solving identity, those kind of things. So that's where the group was. But I think this dichotomy exists, meaning what is identity for natural persons and how it can be shared among not only in hyperlature, how can it be made broader in scope. The other is, of course, the identity connected to the functioning of the blockchain, which is the identity of the various nodes, the identity of the endorsers, the identity of the validators and so on. And then added to that would be the identity of the IoT devices that also participate in the blockchain. So, you know, there is a natural split between these two kinds of identity. And it is not clear that the identity working group has to focus on one or the other. But I would say that I agree with you, Arnold, that it has to be more focused towards what we can do within the hyperlature umbrella in terms of the actual DLTs available here. And, of course, touch upon, a little bit, touch upon the other parts, like the business of identity for natural persons that have to be then distributed or somehow made available to other blockchains or taken from, bootstrapped from other blockchains. This is, you know, always a question that arises whenever we talk about KYC, any of the identity for natural or even institutions that participate in business, I'm not talking about the blockchain itself. So, this dichotomy exists and that's why I think you see it in the document. I'll try to make it a little clearer and separate out those concerns a little bit. I hear you though, Arnold, and it's the same thing that I'm struggling with myself. Hi guys, it's Jonathan. If I can say something. So, maybe the separation should be solutions that we have within hyperlature, like under the hyperlature umbrella project. Okay, then we look at, you know, if it's Fabric CA or whatever solutions we are having or we want to have or we plan on having or we need, you know, internally. And we should also look at the others, what's out there, right? So, if we need to kind of interoperate with any other system, you know, that should be another part of the working, I think, the working group. So, I wouldn't separate it to this guy. So, blockchain, they have their own identity solution, right? So, there are a few companies here that have their own solution. But they all, most of the people around the table kind of want to interoperate. So, I would do like internal interoperability and something this external. I don't know that. I would kind of try to separate this. Yeah, yeah, I mean, I wasn't saying ditch one of them. I was saying, yeah, saying have both, but be very clear about the scope because, I mean, this is just a charter document. It's not the real output of the working group. So, that's where I am at right now. I've been attending the identity working group since the beginning, I think, but only in the last couple of three, four meetings have I, you know, I'm focusing on the general direction. Because I do, to agree, for most of the working groups, I mean, architecture is pretty good, but other, you know, many of the others are too diffuse and sometimes vague. And we're not even sure of the effects that we might have on the different incubation projects. And identity is a very vast topic. And it's very, you know, it's one of the two fundamental atomic particles on the blockchain. One is identity, the other is an asset. I mean, and then you have identity, in fact, even comes before the asset because the asset is either created by the identity and then exchanged between identities, you know, all that stuff. Plus, you have the other problem, which is the one of identity participating in the consensus, in the various operations of the blockchain. I think we have to address both of these aspects, like Jonathan said. All right. That's good. Thank you, Amin, for clarifying. I think that the charter would be improved if you highlighted a little bit those two aspects. And I agree. It doesn't have to be about rejecting one. It's really more about documenting the fact that there are two different aspects that we are dealing with here. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, Pippin. Any other comments on this? If not, then I would suggest we move to the China Working Group. The other aspect which I want to bring up is Brian had suggested that the Identity Working Group would be a natural place where external identity providers or solutions would come and give presentations and we would do some kind of evaluation. He had mentioned sovereign and a couple of other providers who are, you know... So I tried to touch upon them in the charter, but not in a very good way, I think. I mean, I may have to work on it a little more. Okay. Thank you. China Working Group. So we have Baohua or Charles on who wants to go. Somebody needs to come up for me. Hi, Ryan. This is Baohua. Hi. Somehow, most of the candidates just follow Brian's suggestion and also the advice from the GSE. And the China is mainly a bridge to the global community and help build the local community. And we hopefully have several work products like to guide and drive the technical developments and promote the technical collaborations and the adoptions. And also we would like to promote and drive the communications and the discussions and also those technical events. And this group would be very relative with other groups. And also we want to make all the processes into everyone. So the group just started and everything is new. So we would like to welcome for an extension of the charter. Thanks. So thanks, Baohua. Anybody have any comments or suggestions? This charter is more or less the one that we voted on in December, right? I don't see any substantial changes to it. It's basically just been put into the same template that the others were. The only comment that I had was that under the collaborators you have all projects in incubation. Actually, it should just be all projects. Yeah, sure, thanks. Any other comments, questions, concerns? Maybe, I don't know. Go ahead, sorry. Let's say we're not happy with the Fabric Cup name in the past. It's already done. We changed it. We merged it this morning, right? But just in general, I just don't want people to feel that they don't have how to add their concerns. Where should it be? Should we vote? I don't know. I know a few people that didn't like the name. I didn't really like it. It was like VP and Telling Bean. I don't know. I don't want people to be bitter. So what's the channel? I don't know. No, no, no. I'm not about you. In general. In general. If people are not happy with something, can we agree to disagree or can we agree to... I don't know how to summarize. I want to push a nice kind of summary of what we did with the move, why we did it, et cetera, et cetera. But that's it, so that we have some reference. But just in general, I'm wondering, if people want to say stuff, where is the best channel? So each project is basically its own, you know... Yeah, governance. Yes. You know, sort of technical governance and so forth. The TSE sets the standards for, you know, what tools we use and guidelines as a broader community and, you know, the code of conduct and things like that. The TSE is also, though, sort of, you know, a body that can be used to bring, you know, disputes that can't seem to be reconciled, you know, within a given project or between projects, as the case may be. And so, you know, we can leverage that and, you know... So if you're not happy with an answer, you can bring it to the TSE for discussion. But I would, you know, strongly encourage that people try to work things out, you know, amongst themselves. And, you know, I mean, I think we all just have to recognize that, you know, if you have a concern, you know, each project has a set of maintainers. And those maintainers are the ones that are, you know, sort of responsible for oversight over their projects. And, you know, again, if, you know, there's typically ways of reaching them. And again, if you're not happy with the answer you get, you can bring it, you know, forward to the TSE and we can discuss it and we can tell people to go and grab a beer and work it out. Oh, I mean, ultimately that's, you know, I think we want to sort of build a community in an environment where, you know, people are encouraged to sort of work things out and not, you know, let things fester unnecessarily. Yes, yes, yes. Okay. Yeah, just... Yeah, so let's just talk to the maintainers so we can bring it up. And yes, that's fine. So back to the China working group charter just, I think, very briefly. Since I didn't hear any other feedback or any other comments and since we did really approve pretty much everything that it says previously, I take and ask, is there anybody who objects to approving this hearing none? The charter is approved. Noah and Charles and Victor in absentia for doing that. And so the last item was something I brought up at the, you know, as we were doing the review and is Tamash on? Tamash, are you there? I'm sorry, I'm here. What's the question? Ah, so we, so back in December, the digital assets published the global synchronization log circulated it to, you know, the hyper ledger community and, you know, we had a discussion. I think you guys presented the paper and so forth. I think the question that was raised in the governing board this morning by Robert Platnick from DCCC is, so what is to become of that? Right. Is this a request to begin work on something like delivering a global synchronization log? Is it something that we can do in the context of one of the existing projects as a, you know, from an implementation perspective? I guess, you know, the real question that came up in the governing board this morning was, so what's next? And so I thought it'd be worthwhile to have that conversation here. Well, actually the board said we should have the conversation in the TSC, but I figured we could start that now. We don't have to come to resolution in the next nine minutes, but I think it would be worthwhile for, you know, to hear your perspective on what you and digital assets think we should be doing here. Well, as the paper also stated, we would want to follow up on this paper. We promised a more technical detail, divide paper as an X follow-up. And the paper, I think the interaction also said that the reason we published this is to articulate what we think would be a useful component. This is an input to the architecture discussions. And the aim was also to influence the development of products, projects that are under the Aipologe umbrella, and see if they would fit with this vision and work towards an implementation, which we would be interested using since this is a component we think that is useful and this is a component we explained is a part of the digital asset stack. Does this answer the question? Well, I guess, you know, so then the question, do you want, or, you know, do you think you want to sort of propose a specific project or a sub-project of an existing project that will be undertaken to affect this? Well, we evaluated both fabric and the core of the projects, if they are able to implement such a component, and we have our own experience with them. I think we also provided feedback to those groups, but yes, we did not yet push it into the open or explained or declared how we think this should work. I think this was not just our decision. It is really, the question is what is the reception of this paper within the community and whether others would want to work on a GSL buy-in to this idea and would want to work on a GSL on the basis of either of the projects. Right. Well, I can let Morali speak for DTCC, but I know that what Robert was suggesting was they found it interesting and somewhat compelling and they were wondering, so what's next? And so I don't know, Morali, if you have any insights into what Robert was thinking. And Ben, if you want to comment on the suitability or the ability for fabric, I don't see Richard on, but I'd ask him the suitability of being able to implement something like the GSL in the current fabric architecture. So the question I think really sort of, well, let me just sort of ask Morali to sort of, if he can, to sort of articulate what DTCC is thinking. So I'll talk to, I want to say that I think let me touch base with Rob as to when he said that, what is his perspective? But with that said, I could imagine that, I think where DTCC is coming from is, I think we always supported, like Ram brought up, an architectural framework which is comprising of these components and all these components have interfaces. And if we have components which are something like GSL which can interoperate or which can, a module which can work with other general ledger platforms, other distributed ledger platforms, that's the ideal state that DTCC and companies like DTCC would like the industry or would like Hyperledger to go towards. So I think from that principle perspective, I think that's where we are going after is to, I think interoperability between ledgers is a higher goal, but before that, can we have components, something like GSL which can a module which can work with other distributed ledgers and that'll be a start. But I'll touch base with Rob in making sure that that is his perspective, but I would imagine that this is what DTCC would like to see in the market. Fair enough. So we have one minute left and let me just sort of wrap up by saying this. If you could touch base with Rob and then sort of start a discussion thread in the mailing list on the TSC list on where this is coming from. Again, I think what you're intimating here is that indeed there is interest in a component such as this and so then the question becomes, okay, so what are we going to do about that? DAH has proposed this from an architectural perspective. The next step would be, so collectively, how are we going to address this? Are we going to go build something? Is this something that we can use, you can configure one of the existing things in such a way that it accomplishes the objective or we can all try and implement it in our respective platforms and so forth. But I do think that we want to start that discussion. So I would encourage you, Morali, to sort of just post the interest in this because I think, you know, Tomas from the DAH perspective, you guys are trying to figure out, is anybody interested in something like this? And I think the answer is, I think yes. And so let's start a conversation in the mailing list about so where do we go with this, right? What can we do? Could it be implemented and so forth? And it would be useful, I think, to share some of the experiments and so forth that you've been doing, Tomas, to understand, you know, what are the limitations of what the existing technologies can achieve? Where, you know, do things need to be changed and so forth so that we can actually start thinking about, well, if we were to come up with a component as Morali was describing, how would we do that? So I think with that, I think we are at the end of the job. And I'll thank everybody and talk to you all next week. Good luck. Thanks, Tomas.