 Hello. Hello. How are you doing? Good. Good. Hi. Hello. How you did? Hello. Do you know if Lance is going to join us today? I'm gonna ping him. He should. So we didn't response. Yeah. Here he is. Nice. Hi, Lance. Hey, sorry, folks. I have a bunch of workers at the house and well, let's just say nothing's going right with it. And yeah, I knew I had a meeting and then I forgot as they were telling me all my horror stories. All right. It's great to see you. Sorry for the delay. Okay. Let's see. Are we recording? I'll record, I guess. Hey, Judith. It's already recording. Already recording. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So let's see. Two things that I just added to the spreadsheet are just the PRs from the two different projects. So there's the big one for AFJ. Aries did come be to share my screen. Not that not that I'm showing you anything fantastic here, but it's always good to revisit the spreadsheet. Okay. So let's see. I had it there, but really, I'm changing. This interoperability page is going to have to change a bunch eventually, but under projects, I added these related PRs. So in Hakan and Judith, they're doing the Akapai stuff for issue credential and present proof v3. And then there's in the ongoing massive integration one PR for did company two in AFJ. And then they have also a PR related to like the mediator functionality in AFJ. So I added those to the spreadsheet. I guess I'll just post the link to this again, just in case for posterity. Yeah. Can you share this spreadsheet with us as well? I'm not sure if I was in the list. Yeah, sure. Oh, yeah, I could put you in the share and then also post the link. Let's see, do I have you? I might not have you or email. Let me post the link. Anyone with the link can can view it. All right. And comment. And if you end up wanting to be an editor, I can, if you just send me your email. Sorry, I just have to figure out how there we go. My chat always disappears as soon as I become the host here or go full screen. Okay. Yep. So there's the there's the sheet. Again, the idea just real quick is that we want to essentially document projects within Aries that have ongoing did come stuff. We want to track the implementations that are out there that could be related or could be used. So like we've even added Varamo, which nobody's using in Aries that I know of, but right, it could be something interesting and useful. And certainly we would want to eventually know kind of interoperability with those so that this page, the interoperability page should hopefully, you know, be refactored and kind of take into account the projects, the implementations. I added did methods just because without the corresponding did methods, we can't do like did peer together and things like that. This is the Aries agent test harness tests that are somewhat related. I'm still going through that stuff, although I've had to pause on it recently. And then obviously protocols that that that could be supported crypto issues references has the JFF stuff in it right now any other links that we want to add that that might give us some good information. And then I've forgotten about this questions one interrupt profiles, do we need lightweight alternative to like you did go that was something that that we had wanted to consider. So anyways, yeah, feel free, we can add more sheets or whatever, and then eventually come up with a nice interoperability tab. Yeah, that sounds very good. So I think during our last call, I also mentioned we would come up with a, yeah, a draft of any kind of an interoperability profile, the things that we will need to either include from the previous areas into our profiles or yeah, upgrade update from them basically. So yeah, yeah, I did that I didn't know that I mean, I knew that there was a spreadsheet, but I didn't know that we want to put the profile here as well. So I put it on a different sheet. If you guys want to review it or like have a conversation about it. Yeah, we can do so. And I'm, I'm 100% open to we could do it as a spreadsheet, we could do it as this document. Doesn't matter. I'm flexible if people have preferences of how best to track this. I think your spreadsheet is pretty good so far. So I guess we can put them in the spreadsheet. Okay. And then, yeah, let's go through this together. You can kind of guide us through it. So if you can go to the very bottom of the, yeah, so this is where it starts, basically, can you scroll up a bit further? A bit more, a little bit more. And that's a bit more. Yeah, perfect. So this is where it starts. So basically, I'm pretty sure you also came up with the areas into our profile page on, I think it's one of the features. I left a link there. Yeah, it's a concept 302 areas into our profile. So, well, I didn't put a lot of new things. I just put took the one that we had from the areas in top of the profile 2.0 and started commenting on them and like saying, like, are there going to be any necessities to change anything that are existing or are we going to need new protocols? Because this is exactly what happened with the upgrade from areas into our profile 1.0 to 2.0. So they basically took the list from 1.0, extended with the 2.0 stuff and took a look if they needed to change something, if they wanted to drop it, if they wanted to, yeah, update it basically. And yeah, so if you go down a bit lower, you will see the same structure, basically, so tutorials, sub-targets, no, no, no. Yeah, so this is where it starts. So basically, we have the AIPV1 and those were the sets of RFCs that were meant to be a part of it. So this made the Intel profile 1.0. And then what happened is basically they made an upgrade to it. So they said, okay, these were the ones coming from AIPV1.0 and basically the same features have been taken and taken into consideration how to, what are they going to be discontinued, upgraded or used as it were before, basically. And that comes a bit lower, that list. Yeah, so this is exactly it. So yeah, there are some notes that basically reformatted, minimally updated, updated, etc. So taking basically things that were a part of AIP1.0 came with a couple of upgrades, basically, and then added new stuff, like see, for example, GoalCode is new, DidExchange is new, DidConfile and MIME types are new, etc., etc. So I think it's more or less a visible step from what was AIP1.0, what is AIP2.0, then there are some other things like the mediators and encryption envelopes that have been added as well. So I just took basically this list and started to go through it one by one to see whether we're going to use them, update them or just drop them for AIP3.0. And that is the one that is visible in that Word document, Google Sheets basically. Yeah, so the question is whether it's going to call it AIP3.0 or not, but this is I think something that is going to, yeah, we can think about it. It seems to have strong support from Steven and Sam, so the currents that are unrelated, but yeah, I mean, you know, this is one of those things like, at what point do we just say, yes, we're doing AIP3.0. I would vote that we just go ahead at this point and say AIP3.0 is happening. I mean, this is fantastic, what you're doing. And then they seem to support that idea. It seems to be kind of like, well, what do you want to do? But I think at this point that would be because of the legacy and how much people know about it. And we've kind of floated the idea past our customers. And I just think that the community can really rally around the concept of a new AIP that's DidCom V2 related because anyone who's kind of thought like, oh, AIP2.0, does that include DidCom and they start digging or DidCom V2 and they start digging into it and then they're like, it's not really. And yeah, so I feel like this would be like some solid ground for the community to just say, yes, that's the point. AIP3.0, DidCom V2. Yeah. My question is if we support, for example, if we support AIP3.0, should we support the 2.0? So if we are in 3.0, do we need to support DidCom V1? That wasn't the case with AIP2.0 to 1.0, right? Because of the interdependency frameworks, such as Go, for example, before the Indie SDK binding of Go, they did not support anything related to Indie. That's why I don't think it's a necessity to support 1.0. But if there is a need of backwards compatibility, or if you're just moving on with, for example, Acapai or framework JavaScript, then in that case, it's just going to be an addition. And yeah, not necessarily. Yeah. So in that list, DidCom version 1 is not there, right? Or it is? Not in this one. That's why, for example, if you look at the feature, 0019 encryption envelope, I just noted that it is not required for AIP3.0, because that is the old encryption envelope used for DidCom V1. Okay, got it. And I really like that concept. I'm so glad you brought that up, Roto, because that is the problem with legacy, right? If you always have to carry all of the legacy into the new AIP, then I don't think it'll ever get done, right? Because it just becomes such a burden. And people are already complaining that DidCom V2 has quite a wide scope, and it takes a lot in order to implement it. So yeah, my preference is, honestly, I was not familiar with this process. How can I'm so glad that you kind of listed this out the way that you have? It's excellent. But yeah, my inclination is that if we can make AIP3 as light as possible, and then with people having the option to go support AIP2.0 if they want, that would be a major advantage for us. Yeah, because you can't support any. Because I think they accept message, you put AIP1, AIP2, AIP3, etc, right? Yeah, good, good. Got it. I have a quick question, guys. So I'm looking at the different proposals and the different RFCs in there. And I'm seeing that there are technical RFCs, as well as application-related RFCs, as well as sub-protocol RFCs. So I'm trying to figure out what's the purpose of a profile in this case? Because there's JSON-LD support, static peer-dids, presentation exchange, or if you support a specific context, the attachment. So I'm trying to figure out how can we scope this. So yeah, because I'm trying to figure out exactly what are we trying to put in a profile. Does that make sense? Yeah, totally. Yeah, go ahead. It makes sense. No, no, it's so I think you ask a legitimate question, because the thing is, we have Discom V2, and Discom V2 is basically for agents to communicate with each other. There is an encryption envelope. So in the most basic, we need to be able to do a did exchange. We need to be able to use the same encryption envelope, or key exchange with Diffie Herrmann, use the same message structure. But for example, things like, for example, the JSON-LD attachments, or BBS Plus, or NONCRES, or whatever. So this is something that we will have to talk about as well, because those are actually payloads in the did.com V2 message, and not necessarily related to did.com V2 as a protocol. Right, and you get to exchange that information and the presentation exchange. You can see what credentials you support, and all of that gets done at a different level than an interrupt profile. Yeah, but this is exactly what we will have to think about, because this has actually been solved with Vaki, right? They extended it more than to did.com V2. They said, okay, we're going to use it as the basic, but then on top of it, we're going to use BBS Plus as credentials, or instead of using the Diff Presentation Exchange protocol attachment type for present proof V3 that they also specified. So maybe the way forward is to call this Vaki profile. It's also possible, because just having the bare minimum is not going to cover, because we will need to find out whether we support the JSON-LD, whether we support NONCRES in these. Probably not. It's really on the air, basically. So this is the part that we will also come up with as well, I think. Got it, got it. Yeah, I guess something I was curious about. Right now, I see that we're using agents only for issue credential and presenting credential. So I was hoping that maybe with Diff.com V2 protocols, we can have more application-related protocols at the same issue present proof credential. And we can have group chat or chat messages and stuff like that. I'm interested in how we can communicate about exchanging those protocols as well. I think it would be something useful to do in the IP3. That's also a legit part. We do have the basic messaging, I think, if you scroll down a bit further. But I mean, you probably saw it anyway. So we will need to probably update it according to the... Yeah, and then I think routing is also almost big thing in Diff.com V2 as well. So maybe we can get rid of those. Yeah, thank you so much for all the work. I still need to look. Yeah, of course. I mean, it also needs a lot of discussions like what we want to include and what we don't want to include. For example, I did realize that I made a mistake with including indie attachments because do we really want the indie dependency coming into AIP 3.0 or not? I don't know. We need to be careful maybe about making that statement. If we can avoid it, I would love to. Yeah, because the way that you can... I think that we used to use the profile as incremental like IP1, IP2, and the latest is the best. But I think we can compose, like having a minimum or Diff.com V2 like this one, basic stuff. And then if you want to support indie or other, it can be another profile, right? And you can compose with several profiles. That's just... That could be a possibility to extend it. This is such an interesting moment because these AIPs have been the goal that these agents can just interop. But the variety of ways to interop is becoming so great that it's hard to imagine AIP 3 being all-encompassing, especially now that the ARIs world is untying itself from indie. Yeah. And yeah, so exactly what Hakan's saying, Roto's saying, Alex is saying, like, what is it that composes this thing? Because that's such a hard question to answer. I like what Hakan's saying about maybe calling it AIP wacky. But then I would just love to talk a little bit about that in terms of thoughts of then what is the AIP providing that the kind of wacky specification isn't providing? And does that kind of give us a hint at our scope thoughts? So my thought is wacky is a work that has been done in a collaboration between Diff and Hyperlegia, and the result was basically wacky as a specification. However, we need clear concepts and features that needs to be implemented by the ARIs frameworks to be compatible with wacky as a profile. And I think our goal in here is if we choose to go wacky. I mean, this is also still like on the air. But if we do so, and I think it looks very similar, but then we have to align with the credential type, which is BBS Plus, because it's a part of wacky. But if you say, yes, okay, this is the way forward. In that case, I think this working group can be a part of defining the features and concepts RFCs that are required to fulfill wacky as a spec. So how is wacky only tied to BBS Plus? I think it's support. Yeah, only tied. It is a part. Like in wacky, I'm going to check this again, but I remember in the in the attachment, you have three versions like Indy. Well, you can do Indy as well. Okay. I thought it was bound to the BBS Plus. I thought this is what they aligned on when choosing. I think you can use different like credential types. Yeah, I think Indy, yeah, Shazen LD and the other one was JWT. JWT. Okay. In that case, the LD, BP is LD, JWT is. Yeah. But then again, it's very important distinction because like Indy has one implementation. If you take Indy, you have to take the libraries that come with it. Yeah. I was going to say that in my opinion, like the wacky profile, like it's an extremely like complex like AIP, like, and there's a lot of things to implement at that level, like, like having tried to do that and having to support like all the different like message types, all the different like contacts of different credentials. It's like a piece of work in and of itself. And like they define like a lot of things on how to exchange credentials like in that specification. So I guess what I'm trying to figure out like with an AIP, like do we want to have similar protocols like that that you can exchange like other type of information like messages, group messages, or do we just want it to be focused on like credential exchange and like everything that's related with all of that? Or do we leave that at the wacky level? Because like, yeah, like, I think like even like the outcome interoperability with Brian and Diwala and Snor, like we try to like even do like a subset of all the features that were in there just because like there are so many. And we weren't like really using wacky, like we're using like a minimal viable like wacky, just because like everything was so cumbersome to implement from scratch. Okay. And I tried to bring that point up with Sam. And I don't think I did a good job with it. That is there some kind of simpler form? I mean, I guess that was our question, our spreadsheet. Is there some simpler form of wacky? Like, I don't, I wasn't there when they were defining wacky, right? So I don't know the discussions that they had in terms of, okay, we're going to define this back. And yes, it's going to have lots of steps to it and be complicated. But this is kind of this full implementation that covers as much as we can imagine that is needed. But yeah, is there this shortcut that can be developed that's more like, hey, you know, you want to get started in this, this did come world and you want to, you want to pass credentials, you don't need all of wacky. And yeah, I can't even say what his answer was. You know, I mean, it sounds like, yeah, like I said, I don't think I asked the question well enough to get a straight answer for that. I don't know, any thoughts on what Alex is saying in terms of the complexity of wacky? Okay, please go ahead. No, when someone say I'm supporting wacky, do you need to support all the spec or just because if you're supporting maybe Indy, why do you should care about the, the JSON and the VBS plus is how you define that in when you say I'm supporting wacky, I don't know that how it works or should work. Yeah, I think wacky just like specify the messages like within the wacky messages, like you define the credential types and everything like within the messages. So as long as like you support like exchanging those messages, right, you support the wacky spec like in my mind, but then like, do you implement like, do you have like an LD processor like for processing LD credentials, like do you have that's like the backend question though? Yeah. Okay, but if you support these proposals of request issue flow, are you okay? Because that's maybe simpler, right? I think that the complex part is when you read the credential, the presentation, all the stuff. Yeah, the thing is like, if you like, do you have like, do you have to support like the requesting of credential like in the like in the issuing of credential, all of that kind of stuff. So yeah. And then in some ways, does this dovetail with the discovery protocol? Because I mean, at least that's the way that at a high level, they talk about did come v2 is like, Oh, you know, well, at the very least, you know, you have this messaging layer that you can at least approach another agent and say, you know, hi, right, like you try to get started with each other and then you can discover what that that agent or mediator supports in order to figure out, you know, at what level you can do business, right? So but like, do you is is is the features of wacky would that fit within that discovery protocol? Or is that a different level or layer because, you know, a lot of times we've talked about the discovery protocol just in terms of like what application protocols do you support? But like, can you dive deep enough to say, I do wacky, but I don't do bbs plus? Yeah, it's not a testifier. So you can do whatever you want, but most parties should know what you're telling. Yeah, it's not that the protocol is flexible enough to do whatever you want to also extend that to other things. But I think we need this, this RFC to be included and really tell what what means for that. Anyway, because I guess my sense is, you know, I think we're saying like really important things here. My sense is that this scope is is widening or is wide enough. And even at the just the wacky level that yeah, there needs to be this negotiation that basically says like, there's a lot that we could all be supporting. This is what I support and and at least being able to transfer that amount of information so that two agents could know what they can do. Yeah, but I think that's the part of the profiles that are defined also in the DITCOM spec, right? We do have these three profiles right now, the DITCOM v1 or four in total. AIP1, AIP2 with encryption envelope old, AIP2 with encryption envelope new and DITCOM v2 basically. So I guess there would be a chance to actually increase the amount of profiles that that I've supported. Like I don't see why that would be a problem. Like I guess, for example, yeah, yes, sorry. I guess I'm worried that we are discovering that having a profile that's like, okay, this is the set of things that I support and I'm going to give it a label, right? It's sounding to me like that may not scale like that's not possible anymore that there's so many different elements that it's more like, how do I present to you everything that I can do and you can present to me everything you can do and then we can decide how we are going to interrupt, right? Like, you know, if you only speak indie and indie credentials, let's say, and I don't do that, then we know we can't get started. But maybe we find out, you know, I support indie and bbs plus and you support jsonld and bbs plus and now we can we can we can go ahead and negotiate to use bbs plus or something like that. Like if I'm talking crazy, you know, but I'm starting to get this sense that it's yeah, just this labeling of an AIP might be difficult. So then that the new AIP should be something more of like how do we discover how to interrupt with each other? But yeah, I might be getting too meta just just thoughts. Yeah, I think it's it's very, very like quite quite meta. Yeah. And which which I kind of hate by the way, but you know, the bottom line is I don't see a clear path yet, because you guys are bringing up such good nuanced questions. I mean, I think that JFF activity was so important to kind of expose the variety that that can occur. And so they chose this shortest path, right? And I guess, in my opinion, I see kind of like what you were saying is like you're trying to figure like what signatures you support, right? Like, hey, do we support the signature types? The same like low level cryptography. But in my experience, the low level cryptography like depends on a like use case basis like at the application level. And I don't think like you can exchange cryptography at maybe like an agent basis. Maybe you can because the agent but the question is like, now does the agent have to support like all the lower level cryptography? Like, can that be delegated to other parties? Right? Because I guess what I'm trying to say is that some some issuer like in the issue credential flow, they might support JWT, but they might not. So like walkie defined that's defined that format exchange, like whatever like signatures you support, like within the messages within walkie. So I think it's I'm not sure that we can exchange keys at the at the agent level, like key format, because you would exchange it at like a application, like use case level. Like another agent doesn't care what your agent does with key management. That's the way I think about it. Like whatever like your agent does with key management, what keys it supports, like an internal thing. And then you want to expose that at the application level. Hey, for this use case, this credential was signed with this key. Does that make sense? I'm not sure I can I'm wording it properly. To some degree, it makes sense to me having not implemented at the level that you have. I just basically take your word for it. But so so well, I guess what? Yeah, I'm still going back to based on what you're saying, I'm still going back to this concept of a discovery protocol. And if that's discovering application level protocols that you support, are you saying that there could be richer information, more detail about that application protocol, and some of the nuance of things that you would have to support within it? Right, exactly. Like, do you have to like some sub protocol like support, like within like walk is like, Hey, I don't do like the like the request proof. Like I don't I don't request for credential to issue a credential or like something like that for some whatever reason, right? Or hey, in this group chat, like I don't support having like an admin in my group chat protocol. But yeah, then like it becomes like, how do you define protocols? So yeah, it's so maybe one way to define this, how to work with this to cover discover features protocol, because I think it's generic and body form for this AIP three, we can define, okay, in discovery, you need to support at least this support with roles you you you can handle with protocols or some specific protocols on the way you should specify if there are nuances within each protocol, like the walkie SK, I support walkie or issue credential three in this format, something like that. And we specify how should be state on the on the discovery protocol. That can be one way. Yeah. I guess something that I saw like in the ACAPI meeting, they had like handshake protocols in the message for like showing, what's it called, working with the opener, the opener, not open API. Open Connect, which one? Yeah, open AD Connect. Yeah, like I saw that they had some like handshake protocols like in there. I wasn't sure like, what was their thought behind that. But yeah, something similar. Okay. But now you don't want to have like a new field. Okay. So on the on the table, how can you add them? Okay, this is the V2 protocol. I see that this is exchanged. Do we need that in this one? Did exchange? Yeah, I think so. I think so. I think so because I think it came from AIP 2.0 for did conv2 conformity. So we're exchanging, we're moving from connections protocol to did exchange protocol. And if it's a public did, it can be resolved via the did exchange. And if we are going for a, going for a period, for example, in that case, it can be done with using an out of band protocol, which which also is a part of, well, it's seen as a part of did exchange. But yeah, for my understanding, did exchange is how Aries deals with, I think threats from, from did conv2 specification. Okay, I need to check that. Yeah, that's part of Aries, the exchange. Yeah. So those are a bit old comments. I will need to go through this document again too. Yeah, I'm going to recheck what is in there in the did exchange because I normally use it, did it exchange with did it key? Sorry. So base to solve the did it key URL. Yeah. Yeah. So if you're going to use did it key, you need did it exchange. But if you use did it peer, you basically don't need it. It's just that we play back to the URL that is in the service endpoint. I'm not sure if I understood you. Sorry. Because I think if you are using did it peer, you can create an out of band. Yes. And just the other party can resolve the did it peer that's inside the out of band and we play back to you because in the did it peer, you're going to have the service endpoint and you're going to have the URL, how to communicate back. So you don't need the protocol to understand the did it, the DIDs from the two parties, right? The one who receives the out of band know the, which is the did it peer from the creator of the out of band. And when you replay back, you actually you send your DID. So yes, so it can create a connection. Exactly. But you still need the exchange because all of this stuff is based on protocols like basically defining how an agent should behave when something comes to them. And I think that's why whether it is like a peer did or a key did key or a public did, you still need the did exchange protocol to go through. First of all, what's it again? The first one is exchange requests that can be with the out of band. If it's, for example, should be broadcasted. The second thing is exchange response, how the counterparty is responding to it. And then there is the exchange complete as the last step. And all agents needs to go through this to get, create like internally in areas, clients a connection ID and the connection situation that are also established or completed. Okay, okay, well, yeah, that's, that's because, yeah, in the areas are probably on the frameworks to implement that way. So it's fine. But maybe we need to, to refine a little bit based on what did it come be to can provide if you are using like did the peer. Yeah, and you are not using areas, are you? Or I know we, we build like framework without, without Akapai, without, and we test it against Akapai. So we are playing with both, right? So, and that the way is when we, because we started, we did it come between playing the computer. So in that case, we didn't need the, the exchange protocol, because it's just one message. So it's easy in a way doing it, did it, did it exchange, but it's just so plain, we didn't come between that we, we don't need a protocol, right? But if you, but we are right, because if you are using Akapai, you need this concept of connection and somehow to write it and establish that connection when you receive the message. So yeah, it's fine. So I guess how do we want to end all the concept of connections in did come be to write, because then I feel like this is like one of the biggest, biggest like breaking changes between V1 and V2 is this concept of like, there's no connection concept. And like this is like whole key agreement, Akapai is happening like on each message right now. And in my opinion, I think in the company three is going to change again, because you can scale encryption on each message if you want to do like group things with lots of people. So yeah, like we want to tackle it, or maybe just keep having this concept of connections and try to have the company to use the connection concept somehow, like using their like your rotation processes and maybe we can make a protocol that way. So from what I understood at least the time that I was Sam Sankern and Stephen Coran was in the call is that we want to keep connection ID as a as an abstract construct as a construct to keep these informations related to a connection. Yeah, I don't think so far the plan wasn't to make it disappear basically, but to work with it. Yeah, like I think like a person like makes sense like it makes like development a lot easier to have this like obstruction layers of like a connection concept to like keep track of like messages and like, like having like a thread and whatnot. So yeah, like I'm all for it. Like, like I myself haven't like figured out a way to resolve messages like if it changes and like the rotation like I haven't had to deal with all that. So yeah. Yeah. But speaking of this multi messaging, I think this is one of the parts that you are interested in if I understood you correctly because you mentioned a couple of times. We might need to extend the basic message protocol and like or create something like a multi messaging concept or as a feature as an RFC if you want to have it in the dit.com v2 profile basically. Yeah, I mean like I'm not yeah like I'm personally interested in like having like creating like a group chat app out of dit.com v2 like I think that's just like the like the like the like an easy thing like a low level lift in terms of like application that can be developed because right now I feel like a lot of interactions are one-to-ones like I'm interested into like one-to-many interaction just to see like what complexity it brings mainly in group like a group chat is the easiest implementation of that. Yeah. But I see dit.com as just being like a peer-to-peer protocol like in of its nature which is yeah like it's not one-to-many right. Yeah. But it can be extended as you said so. Yeah yeah yeah definitely definitely like I'm interested in like trying to do that work as well yeah. I'm just trying to fill in our meeting page real quick. I created it and posted a link for anybody who wants to put themselves on although I think we already have Pacen, Rodolfo, Alex. So I think we have everybody who's on Confluence on there and I'm just adding some of our notes. You don't have Hyperledger access right? So the Hyperledger foundation? Okay. Okay. So do we just want to maybe let's do a quick update on just people's dit.com v2 activities as well. It's always nice to keep up with each other and we haven't heard yeah from each person just what they're up to. So yeah for me what am I up to other than yeah this stuff specifically. Yeah I don't have any active dit.com v2 activities going. How about you? Anybody? I think this one is the main one. Yeah fair enough. Interrupt yeah. So for ACAPA there's an open pool request for issue credential and present proof protocols for dit.com version two and now there's like the question how to handle connections and then you get to get the information from connections and which message format is used and then to adapt the encryption but also then maybe to when you have the information about which dit.com version is used you can actually reuse some of dit.com of the like AIP one and two also but yeah the connection is the big issue also to continue. How's the level of support for that activity for you Judith is it basically that Hakan and then whatever meetings you guys attend in terms of like ACAPA or whatever is that is that where you're getting the most support or is there or like the currents supporting you or anybody else Daniel Hardman or I guess the the diff user group I'm just interested in terms of you know like are we it or is there more? I mean I got a feedback today for the pool request but also like yeah then there's this meeting and this is the V2 meeting and yeah like there's the other meeting for ACAPA which I cannot attend on Tuesdays because I'm not free on those days but yeah so Hakan attends that and then yeah and they have meetings with Hakan. So in terms of support I think we have a lot of I mean ideas and like for example there was some T-Board Glaster I made also a couple of comments on Judith's pool request. Oh good. So we are getting feedback but like in terms of muscle it's very limited and it's basically Judith so far for the Dipton V2 in ACAPA implementation. Yeah fair yeah yeah okay so so in terms of like talking about connections what is what are some ideas for how we can accelerate that conversation well in my opinion like one important step would be maybe to make out of band working for the message structure of Dipton V2 as well and then there would be a way to establish like Hakan already said like there would be a way to establish a Dipton V2 connection by having an out of band protocol working for Dipton V2 message structure and then yeah from there you would have the information okay we are using Dipton V2 and then you can basically use the protocols from Dipton V2 as well that would be one approach for example. Yeah and due to the limited site that we have because it's like a master's thesis as well like we will need to come up with some results like by end of February middle of March or something like that so that's why I personally would like to go for a more pragmatic approach of defining a profile saying that this is what it's supported and yeah tackle how we can just make it happen basically with Dipton V2 encryption envelope plus message structure for basic messaging, issuing credentials and presenting proofs and of course establishment of Aries connections. Okay yeah it's I guess well one thing that well whenever we get to kind of this place where you know we have some meta discussions and then you know we also have these actual implementations going on I think that's really good and it helps to constrain us we do have a customer you know not only RootsID itself doing Dipton V2 but we have customers who are interested in customers who are actually implementing Dipton V2 as well so hopefully we can use the intersection of these implementations to define to you know come to terms with you know being grounded not being so meta you know that's partly why I kind of started building the spreadsheet I wish that I was more you know a lot of times when I do these kinds of things like I have a very clear vision that I really want to drive on and in this case there's just more information to together so what am I trying to say I'm trying to say that I want to capture the actual details of these implementations in the spreadsheet so that we can properly discuss individual pieces and so I'm open to ideas and energy and thoughts you know I want to to help capture these things but it's hard right because I'm not doing the implementation other people are doing the implementation and there's multiple of them ongoing so I just want everyone to know that I'm trying to grapple with like how do we use this so valuable information of these implementations going on and I think it's honestly the Acapai work is unique at least from my point of view because like like Roto said you know we just started with Dipton V2 so we we kind of don't have that Dipton V1 constraint yeah the the back issue or the legacy of it as much weighing on us and our customer doesn't either and but that's why the Acapai stuff so valuable because there are going there you know these important implementations are do do have this legacy so yeah I said a lot of words yeah I think like even like bringing the Veramo guys that are like outside the hyperledger ecosystem they might have like a different total views on how to handle this and like how we can like interrupt with them as well and like they might have like an interesting thoughts to to say like how we can leverage different like profiles and from that perspective so yeah so maybe I I will take that as a a task or if if Alex you feel like you want to reach out to them and try to figure out how we can get them either in this meeting or at least capture their work yeah yeah go ahead I think like yeah maybe Nick can get here because like he's like on the east coast is like he's in New York so yeah I'll let him know about this although he has been attending the diff ones yeah he comes lately and and and by the way this meeting having this before the diff meeting I think is helping in terms of right capturing that audience as well so yeah maybe you can bring it up that all right okay yeah okay we have two minutes left so so a little update from my side um I will or we will talk of in the next akapai implementation group akapag about which encryption envelope to go for or like see whether yeah because there are so many different ones including like a native implementation of it on akapai the question comes to which one do we want to use and I think that would be also play a role in yeah what Alex was mentioning about like how to deal with key exchange and all those things around that encryption envelope level basically of this common implementation so yeah I will update you next time but I think we'll see each other next Monday anyway before that call that call happens on Tuesdays yeah fair any other thoughts I think I do I this is the first time that I'm thinking towards like a more detailed form of discovery it just seems to me to be so valuable if there really is a way to for agents to tell each other these are all the things that I support you know with much more detail than maybe what we've kind of thought of in the discovery protocol in the past I mean that's for me a big takeaway from this like is there a more detailed way for agents to you know talk about their encryption envelope and things like that so yeah any other thoughts I think it's really good okay all right we did it sorry that I was late I'll do better next time these contractor cabinet folks are killing me that's my that's my personal problem thank you all it's always great to see you I really appreciate this meeting yeah see you all my oh bye bye thank you thank you