 Hey, Lance. Mordo, how are you? Good. I was a trip back. Yeah, good. No problem. I was tired, though, by the time I got home. How about you? Yeah, yeah, really tired. Yeah. The flight was like, I spent like a day in the flight. Yeah. Where did you have to go? How'd you go back? From San Francisco to? No, from San Francisco, the SFO to JFK, and then JFK Buenos Aires. JFK. Oh, wow. Yes, I guess. Holy moly, OK. Yeah. That was what I wanted from you. Yeah. Well, let's see. I guess maybe nobody's going to show up. Maybe we've overcooked everyone, I don't know. Yeah, so are we going to still be having that one, or? I don't remember if we did that for the Harkaton or for the regular meeting, right, before that. Oh, are you talking about the Aries meeting? No, this call, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The Aries for the IAP. I mean, I guess the Connect-a-thon grew up out of this meeting, so I was expecting this meeting to continue, but I guess we'll see. Maybe it's just us for now. I'm just going to post that we're meeting. I usually do that, and I didn't do that this time. I should also post some photos from our Connect-a-thon. So I was interested, actually, since it's just you and me. You had mentioned the onion routing and mediation forced back. And I remember that the way, well, I'm trying to remember the way that Sam described it. He says it's not onion routing that he's describing, but I do feel like what he's describing with the embedded contexts inside of each other is like the enveloping that we do with the mediators. And I guess he was saying that it's ideal not to, or the fewer hops, the better, because that's less exposure to the internal network. So do you have the same kind of understanding? Yeah, I think what they, I relate to the things. When you created, when we created DIDPIA, we created this new PR DIDP that I know, and maybe somebody, the mediator or other part from the network can see we are talking about. But they don't see what is inside the message, right? And in the message, we can say, OK, let's give me a credential, but give me a credential to this specific DIDPIA. That is not the DIDPIA, right? So nobody knows what is inside that. Right. And that's the way that you create another internal kind of communication inside the other one. And I think that's similar to what Sam is explaining there, right? You create a second DID to do some transaction, and nobody knows, right? Yes. Yeah, fair. Yeah, on your router, it's just wrapping to pass around. But I think that's inside your own communication, with one PR, you put another one, right? Yeah, yeah. OK, cool. Anything that you can think of as coming out of the connect-a-thon, that I mean, certainly we were hoping that we can kind of move into a phase where we start to produce a test harness for did-com V2? What are your thoughts, your sense on that? Is that something we want to push or? Yeah, yeah, it would be nice, at least to. Yeah, the same, probably this having a simple test harness to start, maybe alterations to keep doing what we did on the IAW. Yeah. Just test it against some online harness. Yeah, yeah. For example, with the Veramo, I think the Veramo didn't work completely with our ancient, so we need to keep on that and maybe, yeah. How do you think, so essentially a test harness is like an agent implementation? So the mediators that we have out there are kind of like test harness, except for they don't really have the test harness features, but they, so I guess what I'm saying is how do you think we can settle on taking something like one of the mediators and just growing it into a test harness? Yeah, that's something. You think that going into the 80s test harness is not another, because the 80s test harness is already there. Yeah, I mean, I guess there's some complexities in terms of that, because that's more like, well, OK, pros and cons. So I was thinking that our simple version of a test harness for Didcom V2 would be a service that exists out there that you don't have to run locally, but maybe that's actually worse. I was thinking that that was better, because it's more convenient to have something sitting out there. But maybe people want to be testing locally with the test harness. I don't know. What are your thoughts? I feel like, so starting like the Aries agent test harness, well, OK, the Aries agent test harness part of what makes it so powerful is because it has the agents there, like the multiple agents that you want. They're baked into the test harness, but that also makes it more complex for using it. I wasn't thinking that Didcom V2 test harness would have the agents baked into it so that you can do a bunch of cross-agent interop things. I was thinking more like it's a centralized service that if you work with the test harness, you work with everybody. And we just claim that. Yeah. So I feel like. The thing that I think we have realized is that there's no correct or perfect Didcom agent, right? Because we are using, this is something probably also fine, right? Maybe the Siegby library is not the correct one. So we said, if we put something that I say, OK, you should be testing against that and try to make it work against that. Is that Didcom or not? I don't know if that's the correct one. Maybe we should say, right? This is testing into Siegby, whatever. And the other way in the harness, you put this in my mediator, your agent, whatever agent, you test and you say, OK, this work with that and it's like this matrix. But it's not saying, OK, everybody will agree on that. Yeah, I kind of want to avoid the matrix because it's far more complex to kind of maintain and keeping it up to date is hard. I think we've seen that with the Aries agent test harness. Again, I think it's really cool. It's a really cool idea, but it's much heavier weight. I feel like if we say, OK, here's the test harness. Let's say it's using some Siegby library. And if we find something, let's say Fabio says, no, this is wrong. That's not how the spec says to do it. Well, then we focus on just getting the test harness up to date so that everyone can agree. Like, yeah, OK, that was wrong. We've patched it and now it's more right, right? It should just be the most right implementation. I think the one that gets the most care and feeding. But I don't know if that's being idealistic about it. I don't know. Yeah, I'm not sure either. OK, we can start with that. We're going to start with that. Maybe say, OK, let's connect with this mediator. The mediator use only the PRDITs and this maybe basic message ping and start with that. Maybe we can say that. Yeah. OK. Well, we'll see what everybody else thinks. Yeah, certainly, we're going to be doing, we, RootsID, are going to be doing a bunch of carry things. But I would still like to keep the did come stuff pushing forward. And I feel like with the TSP work that kind of it, hopefully it'll all converge over time. So yeah, OK, cool. OK, anything else? Did come be too? No, maybe we should. Yeah, re-engage on the AIP 3. Yes. Yes. And that's because that was a pending thing there. Yeah. Maybe we try to start right in there. Yeah, this is the profile. I'm really putting an RFP from MADIS. OK. Because I don't, what was the final, the last status on that? We have the, we say we're going to go with the PR, bunch of protocols. I think it's a question to put it down, right? Maybe we need to finish the PRDIT, the new model go free spec. And maybe put everything together, right? So with that spec, that's essentially trying to leverage the idea that we had with carry light, which is that you can use a shorter identifier once you establish with a longer identifier. OK. Yeah, good. All right. So I'm just going to put in the, the discord notes that post connectathon, we want to focus on establishing a lightweight test harness. We need to agree on the Rex. Like, is it live on? Is it a live service that we connect to? And how to maintain it? Then we'd also like to continue pushing the AIP 3.0 did come. The two specs forward, including. You said an RF, an RFC, right? Including the necessary RFCs. This might include. Did pier, no, I'll go three. Definition. OK, cool. All right. Anything else to come be to you think? I think, yeah, that'll probably keep us busy all the way to, if we get both of those things done by IW, all then we will have done well. OK, and then I guess probably we should come out, like you said, since we had some issues, we should come out of the connectathon with some more lessons learned that kind of captures that. So, I guess let's put that in the connectathon. Like debrief. Maybe a conclusion on the hack. Yeah, we should put that something like that. Also pictures. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I guess you could probably put pictures in a HackMD. All right. Update the HackMD. Can we, I don't know if they accept it. Or maybe a reference. Yeah. How to be hosted. Anyway. Okay. All right, cool. All right. That sounds good. Very good. Good to see you. So see you later. Yeah. Yeah, let's meet later. How's it going to go? We can talk later. How's it going to be your agenda? Yeah, good. Okay. I'll see you then. See you. Bye-bye.