 Welcome folks to the 27th of September is working group call or apparently in the northern hemisphere falls upon us. This is a hyper ledger call and so the antitrust policy and the conduct are in effect. Please speak up or reach out if you have any concerns there. And we will help get them resolved. Thanks in the chat. You're free to add yourself to the attendees list or make any other adjustments to the agenda that are useful for the community. Is there anyone new today that would like to introduce themselves. Maybe somebody can add me to the list. They don't mind. Definitely. Although I don't know your email address off top my head. Just John George. Yeah. Can you guys hear me. Yes. Yeah, all right hi. As for as far as newcomers ago, my name is came a hobby. And I'm a solution architect with Fendi. I'm a colleague of Samuels. I just joined Fendi last week. So, welcome first time here. Glad you're here. John what's the tail part of your email address. Fendi.ca. I should have guessed that but I didn't. Welcome Kimo. Thank you. Any other folks want to introduce themselves today. All right announcements we have two big ones on the list we have October 10th and through the 12th is IW coming up and they're sure to be lots of great conversation about all the things related. We will not be having our regularly scheduled areas called during that time. Unless someone is super excited to host it in or to wants one enough to host it. And so the 11th we have one more week before then but the but the 11th we will we will we will have an off week or the call. And then there's also the hyper ledger member summit is in October 23rd in San Francisco and Tokyo. And I have to resist saying San Fran Tokyo. Out of big hero six. But those are simultaneous events going on there, which is, which is pretty great. Any other announcements we should have on the list but don't. All right, any projects want to share a release status or a work update. There's an eagerness for the agenda today. So Sam. On on the acrobar front. We are going to do a zero, zero 10 to has been released we are going to do as well a zero 10 three for one other tweak. We did for a particular deployment and we're going to accommodate that. Again just one change main has a lot of new things in it so we're beginning the process of getting 011, which might be one zero. Probably just 011 again but we're very close to having one zero zero release put out. So things are going well, the SW jot support is in main and will be included in 01011 or. And we do have the did rotate. It's still a work in progress, but it is there and looking good until we really like to see it moved into the RFC itself approved and move forward. Yes, so lots of stuff happening that's for sure. Indeed. Excellent. Any other updates. Here's what I have on the agenda and I suspect that we will not get all the way through it and that's okay. I've tried to order it. Patrick are you here today? I don't actually see Patrick. Okay, we may need to rearrange. He's he's gotten put by the side twice on his topic and so I put him first, we may need to shift around do this little lot of order if he's able to join us later today. But he had some topics you want to talk about for the critical protocols. There's besides Patrick's topic. We have the areas marketing update if there's anything to add there from Alex or Helen. The, there's an AFJ proposal that they've requested time to speak of. And then we have an update on the unqualified. We've included some minor updates there, but overall not a ton of movement, but not any decrease in urgency as for, you know, approving and reaching comfort level with with the various elements of this so that we can move forward as rapidly as we can. Any, and then any other, any other topics that we want to get on the agenda today. All right. Helen or Alex. Anything to add nothing that I think that would pertain to this group just another encouragement for folks to join us in the marketing call. We do have some good discussion we had a great discussion yesterday about sort of the, the goals of the areas marketing effort and kind of what we hope to kind of get out of it and trying what would be kind of a successful outcome. So good conversation yesterday, but we'd love to have more input. And I'm sure we'll have more to talk about after today. So, yep, please mark it on your calendar for the last Tuesday of every month. If you don't already have on there, and it is on the groups IO areas, count community calendar so if you can grab all the information from there as well. Hey, Sam, do you want to talk about some of the stuff that we talked about in the did com user group meeting Monday. For the demo you mean. Yeah, the demo and the beta. Do you have a link for the beta release. I do. Okay. Will you add that to the agenda here. Yep, we may not get to that today given what we've got to do but well I'm going to add it to the list so that it's there in the in the links are present. Awesome. Any other adjustments. And thanks for calling for bring that up. We may not have time for the demo today but that would be really cool. We have a we have a really cool did copy to in browser demo. But we'll see what we have time for today. Okay, I think we're on to the AFJ proposal. Who wants to is it Kareem is that you speaking up about that. I guess I'm the only one I expected more people to be here. I'm the only one. Yeah, I just wanted to bring this proposal up because I don't know if everyone looks at this word and I just want to bring it into attention. So, um, we, well, it's actually the main thing is that they have discussed for a while now. The discussions that we had in this work group, a few weeks ago or months, even moving of moving to WF is a good idea. Yes or no. And we came to the conclusion that we would like to try it. Therefore, this proposal, which you can find in the tickets in the meeting house. I think that's right there. There's a link in the meeting notes as and I've got it on the screen as well. So not that we need to like read the whole thing right now but Exactly. Um, so yeah, I was, I just wanted to announce this and see if there are what people think of it if there are any concerns or objections or questions I can answer. And if not, then perfect. We can keep it very short. But the main motivation behind it is basically that we animal is a European based company and we see a lot of other like the European Commission when for standards like ID and as jobs and stuff. And we've been also trying to get some funding here and there are the last weeks and it's difficult to convince our audience, at least, that a framework carrying the name every framework is more than just while the difficult identity star. So that's, I think the branding issue there is the main reason. Yeah, I don't know what to say more about it actually. There's also this discussion in the AFJ repo as well and that that's what I link to here if folks are curious. So definitely folks that want to, to, you know, share opinions there also good but we're here to meeting and that's a useful place to have a discussion. Are there any comments or questions about about this topic that we can discuss here today. Well, I think. Oh, sorry, John, you're next. Okay. Yeah, it's not a new idea, but I think it brings up some various conversations. There are other areas, you know, there are other components, you know, components in areas right now that could potentially be also an interesting fit there like I'm thinking about bifold I'm thinking about ascar. You know, I don't know what I think about I could buy it yet just yet myself. I think there are techno political things to think about, you know, coming under the governance of Google and Microsoft and other big companies that aren't clear with their alignment on the sort of confidentiality and privacy features that did come offers, you know, whatever the protocol is for exchange, you know, open ID doesn't offer anything other than transferring a token really at this point. So I think, you know, from the BC government point of view, we're still committed to that capability for our people. So that's, that's a few comments anyways. Just answer that quickly as we are not learning to drop support for the phone. We are like, it's not that we want to change the current stack per se. I mean, over time, there might be changes just as there have been changes over the last, well, a couple of years, but we are not planning to drop support for that per se. If there is room, you know, WF or that those kind of libraries or more low level libraries have to be, well, replaced elsewhere, maybe under different things, but just to be clear, we are planning to keep support for this phone. Yeah, sure. And we contribute as well. So it's not like we'll stop contributing or participating. It's just, just to be aware that in the big big picture. There may be some strategic goals that are different with corporations and, for example, governments. Yeah, I think that's very useful advice. Thank you. Thank you, John. Samuel, your hands up. Yeah, thanks. My first comment is the same with Jones. That's okay. There are many areas components. So whether it is suggestion only considers the JavaScript framework, what will happen to the Python and go on Oscar and components john already mentioned, I think that's a good topic for discussion in this meeting. And for the second issue, maybe if Johnny's worried about if open world foundation takes control of this and they they want to drop the support for did come or privacy preserving attributes of areas then as opposed, it's still open source and you could still fork it and put it somewhere else and continue somewhere else if it leads to that but I wouldn't be too worried about that I think it would be better to have this discussion together with the tech giants within that open world foundation and to have some convergence of frameworks there. So I'm hopeful but of course there are no guarantees. Thank you, Samuel, Steven. Yeah, a couple of thoughts on some things one is agree with john and think, you know, moving by folding AFJ extensions would be totally necessary as a part of this what other ones would go as well Oscar I think is a good idea. The other ones is to be determined but I would think those would be just a given, I would hope the, I, there was a comment made by author about is this a fork or a, or a move with a follow up from Timo saying that's whatever the community wants. Oh my God I hope we don't do a fork, please don't do a fork that would be a disaster for everybody. I think we don't need to have these things so either move it or don't move it but don't leave one behind and then move the other and moving a copy of it I think that would be terrible. I think we think would stress. Hopefully there would be, you know, as you say, current continued involvement in areas protocols I mean a big question as as we think about these things is where does areas are fcs go. Because that's the blue that's holding everything together and makes it work. I mean, I think what happens when, you know, dot net and afgo sort of disappear from the community in that we haven't, I haven't seen anyone around for quite a while from those communities and, and as a result their compatibility. They're not being maintained shall we say afgo is definitely being actively work I see, you know, commits and PR is all the time, but it's just it's being done in, in a totally different environment that that I can't see what, what, what's going on and they're certainly participating here to have discussions and maintain that so I hope we do figure out where the errors are if see goes that the test harness remains an important element because it's been really, really good although you know it, it could always use more than really good at being able to test things and make sure, you know, take a look every every second day to make sure we haven't digressed in any way, or when we digress that we that we raise it and and try to address it. Those are my thoughts on it. No, you're right. I talked to Sebastian from Lizzie, they are in charge of moving the dot net framework and he I asked like what are you planning to do and they said well they were considering a fork, but I agree with you. It's also the case is like what our attention would move to the fork. I wish that are maintaining the repo right now then I think the activity will be very low on the old one. So it doesn't make sense indeed. So definitely that is the, that is the idea by the way that the long term goal sort of is to then start modularizing AFJ even more into lower level libraries that and also I don't read related libraries for instance and also the things we need to stay in control with all the internal processes. The plan is definitely through them. They have in this community as well. Yeah, I think the AFJ situation and the dot net situation are different in that the dot net library hasn't been touched in quite a long time. And so it doesn't really matter. It gets moved. My suggestion was just take the latest and the latest I don't think is is in in hyper ledger so the idea was just to just to archive it here because you know it's not the 10, you know, through that it's like six, six commits in the last two years, something like that. So, yeah, the dot net is a different entirely from from areas framework JavaScript which is extremely active has extremely active development. And it's completely awesome I should. Tracy, your hands up. I think this is a great discussion around what components to move over what to keep in hyper ledger. I am glad that you guys are aware that the dot net proposal has already happened within the open wallet foundation. The, the one thing that I did want to address was the governance question around. So these big companies take over the way in which we're running the open wallet foundation is similar to the hyper ledger foundation in that the maintainers are in control of the source code. So, the main tears will be the one is taking it forward and making decisions as far as the roadmap and features and things like that. So, I wouldn't be so concerned about the governance per se. But yeah, I mean obviously you have to be aware that there are a different set of people member companies that are involved in the open wallet foundation and the hyper ledger foundation so. But, you know, as far as, you know, the TAC, which is the equivalent to the TOC and hyper ledger coming in and saying this is the way it has to be done that's not going to happen. You know, it's just not a good way to operate in the open source fashion so that's all I wanted to say. If you allow me an interject here real quick I think the concern there is not so much that, well, it may be that they tell us we can't. But the other thing is is what becomes sort of blessed within the community and what doesn't become blessed within the community. We've seen hyper ledger promote areas quite well. And there's with the politics involved in various protocols and everything else that will be, it's a little unknown to see how much, you know, whether the project is allowed but but but not really championed, or whether it is indeed, you know, alongside other projects. That's that's a little bit of an open question and of course there's no real answer to that. I think probably the await and see approaches is is will reveal the most as it relates there. I understood I didn't get that side of the equation but you know I would see a various framework JavaScript or to come over to the open bullet foundation it's probably either in a growth state or impact state beyond what any of the other projects are currently in the open foundation so in my mind, you know, at least at the moment, that's, that's where marketing should probably end up going. I really, I really think it's important to for the kind of modularization to happen, because I think in the end, you know, we're going to need pieces that can be used across many different wallets. Be it did come be it open ID for VC, be it SD jobs being fair problem credentials right I just I think that there's going to be a lot of optionality that's going to have to exist. And that's where I personally would like to see things go but you know, I'm not a maintainer. You guys can decide what the what the right things. Yeah, that's exactly that's exactly what what what our idea, and also to hopefully bridge the between those two ecosystems because if we look at AFJ right now it is actually we are starting to implement support for open ID. And so it is, it has the potential to bridge ecosystems but not as one monolith for the framework for that we need to modularize. I think a couple of follow on comments just thanks for everybody's comments. One is, you know, from my point of view, I can see, you know, like a strategic value to this is not I'm not trying to say my comments are not supportive I think I support this, I would really like to see the group that Steven mentioned you know the extensions and the bifold potentially Oscar as well because from me from the saying what we're doing as BC government and in our, and I can't speak for my colleagues and provinces but it might be helpful for our jurisdictions to be able to have conversations with European jurisdictions at that level and say, we're using components that are available to you and, you know, that sort of higher level stuff. So modularization of course we have contributed I don't know, millions maybe to that effort. I mean we did the effort to break in the SDK into rust components and so, and we also helped create the non creds project thanks to Steven's leadership, and we'll be having some code with us is that further the idea of modularization and interoperability for credential formats signature format so we'll obviously continue to to contribute to that that idea. Similarly, I think appropriately granular rust libraries that can be, you know, included in projects, few more comments. Thanks john. Helen. Yeah, just kind of putting on my, my marketing hat here. I think it's important also to acknowledge the, the amount of effort and coordination and support that the areas community that the areas staff. The hyper ledger staff puts into supporting the community tools that support the areas community so the staff, you know, and this is stuff that is actually baked into the governance of hyper ledger which is quite nice because, you know, there's no kind of getting around some of the, you know, bug bounty stuff the CI CD stuff the, you know, the different chat functions that are paid services that the hyper ledger staff maintains supports and helps onboard folks I know that there's, I think, three different community support folks at the hyper ledger that's that do a lot of this sort of background work. It keeps things going so I want to just put a link in the chat here, just to see if if there have part of this conversation has anybody in this conversation has looked at the, the amount of support that and the types of support that hyper ledger has done is that same type of support is there an equivalent of these types of supports at wf currently and if so, are they in part of the governance of the labs it's a it's going to be a labs project right so are, are they going to get this I would hate to see the community have to overcome, you know, some kind of technical hurdles in this process and, you know, get, you know, I don't know have have issues that that could be mitigated if you know we didn't identify these things in advance. Yeah, that's a good point. Very good point and I think it's a point that also came up during the conversations we had during this working group a month or two back. And I'm very aware of the support. I've been in contact with the show, shut up, you are there. Yeah, a lot over the last month. And no that's something we really appreciate and we have, we have talked to all the way about this, and they went as far as to say that they were even willing to hire the same people. For those purposes, if needed. So, because I think because they're both within a foundation in the end, they were hinting towards sort of a collaboration thing. So I don't know the details about that but we have definitely asked about it. I mentioned on as a representative of the Hyperledger Foundation, Ry Jones, who's one of the other community, I can't answer everything Helen just said and it was a great comment Helen, but Ry Jones has been tasked with supporting wf in the near term. That may change over time, they may get their own community architects but for for right now. This team is, you know, we would be involved. We're not we're not leaving wf hanging for lack of a better phrase. That's awesome. Helen mentioned labs is that the plan or how does it work at wf. Is there anyone can speak to that I guess Tracy you're probably the best. Yeah, I can speak to it. So, we have a similar sort of like cycle to type the ledger. So, I'll find the link and I'll send it, but the idea is that there is a labs space, just like in hyperledger has a lab space. The other two life cycles are called growth and impact, which would be similar to our incubation and graduated. The difference is obviously that we're a little bit more specific about what that means. It's hard for people to jump directly to impact if they don't have adopters if they don't have, you know, the diverse community that we would expect to have. And that sort of thing so, you know, I personally think, you know, I don't know what the diversity is for AFJ currently. I would say that I would skip labs as a stage, given the maturity of the project, given the fact that I know obviously there are adopters. You know, whether it's growth or impact, I think we would have to specifically look at the requirements for each of those stages and determine what the what the right places. And like I said, as soon as I'm done talking, I'll switch my hat, my brain and go do the Google search to get the project life cycle and stick it in the, in the chat here but yeah, that's hopefully that gives some sort of response to that. As far as Ellen, the project services that exist within the open wallet foundation, we obviously do have mailing lists, we have the discord channels that we set up for each project that gets accepted, whether it's a project or a lab. And we, you know, I think are still early stages and things like webinars and things like blog posts and things like that right I think there's still a bit around the marketing side that still has to be hashed out. And when it comes to the open wallet foundation. I do know that if anybody's interested pre IW we are having a face to face in Mountain View for the OWF and I'll find that link to and send it out but if anybody's interested in joining. I want to talk to people about, you know, the direction that open wallet foundation is heading and things that might be of interest. I think that could be a useful place to start to have those conversations as well. Yeah, I think labs would be the ideal message. I want to highlight a couple things here is that particularly if a repository moves that my my primary interest as a community leader is that number one the work can continue, and also that it can continue to be used. In a disruptive way that we can do that is is ideal. I in because of that and compatible licenses, etc. And hopefully as cream mentioned an intent to be involved still within this community. Then I think the need to transfer more than one thing that may be associated at the same time is not necessarily important. I think it's worth allowing a project that has the desire to sort of forge new ground and figure things out to do so. And that and that can inform, you know, potential later moves that. And I think that that approach would be good. I think the I think that being in a hurry is necessarily a requirement for this. And there's certainly stuff to be figured out. So, that's sort of my general thoughts there specifically mentioned by you john was was AFJ and bifold which uses AFJ as a dependency. I believe that it should be, if we do this right it should be disruptive or hard to continue to work on bifold here in the meantime, while we see what the transition process is like and then can make some decisions that are a little bit more informed by, by how things have gone and what things are now ready. Given that perspective, given that this is a more mature project than than than exists in o wf now that I think there is likely to be a little bit of growing pains as they accommodate the needs of that of the AFJ developer community and users as they as they, you know, absorb that. What I thought generally as a community leader is that not pushing too fast too hard is likely to produce the least amount of disruption to the actual, you know, creation of the project and and use of the project. I can certainly live with that. Just wanted to bring up the, you know, the conversation. Absolutely. AFJ clearly is volunteering themselves to go try it out. And so I think that this is this is good. And I think is likely to going to help, you know, all the all those situations involved in the sense that they can, you know, figure out and with wf, you know, what's required and what things look like there, etc. And from a membership perspective or attending meetings perspective or seeing agendas perspective, or even, you know, the same folks, not everyone from AFJ attends here, for example, but several do and and continuing that up. For example, would also, you know, help things align as we as we move forward there. And that that I think was was clear in what in what Karim was was writing here is that they intend to to remain involved over here. And I think that that is a, you know, I appreciate that my my goal is to not let that go areas is a handful of things we've been talking mostly about code at the moment. But it also, of course, is the development of our profiles testing that's associated with interoperability. And also just coordination from projects as we talk and discuss things here and identify goals that people have within the community generally. And I think it's important that in addition to the code that we figure out both in the short term and in the long term, how to maintain the useful bits of what we're doing that we can continue to make them happen as the community moves forward. They exist now because they have been created by need, which is a good signal that they need to continue existing. Yeah, I guess one just kind of mechanical comment, which is figuring out whether anything different has to happen or to ensure that things like areas communicate coordinated community updates will continue to be able to happen. Well, I have to have certainly been a big part of that so far. And so ensuring that, you know, those kinds of processes, which are, you know, part of the areas initiative, along with interop profiles are able to succeed. I fully fully agree. Yeah, I think our, our folks will. We will definitely make sure to stay interoperable to follow all the intro process and therefore it also makes sense to visit these kind of working groups and work updates. I agree. So, I will highlight that this issue is open up and they anticipate a, you know, a common period with 14 days started 2 days ago. And so, you know, voicing issues and being involved in the discussion here on. On this particular issue is the right place to focus that discussion. And then, and then the, you know, the, the AFJ, you know, maintainers and contributors can can can make a decision based on that. I think the overwhelming thing is that is to plan ahead so that you can have the support necessary when you arrive. And to, and I'm with Stephen on this. I think generally forks are problematic. And it would be far better to move the repository in order to preserve history and and have the, the most minimal impact on those using the projects as possible. I don't think that it's much of a conflict because of the similar nature of the organizations. I don't, you know, I don't anticipate a conflict where having a dependent project not in the same organization is going to be a significant problem. The biggest issue, and I think Warren, you highlighted this really well is the necessary sort of ongoing communication and coordination with the community to make that happen. I mean, we've also talked about, I think there's certainly some, some optics that that some folks may prefer from the side of things. Certainly, you know, the, I have, we've talked already and have development efforts underway for the adoption of, of the, you know, European identified protocols and confidential formats, et cetera. And so that's already happening. I think, but, but if the, if the developers find it valuable and want to execute such a move, then, then I think that the best thing to do is to, is to always, of course, support the developers and maintainers, you know, needs and goals as they, as they proceed for. I don't know who zoom user is, but the comment is, is there anyone in the call who can comment on whether acropi would follow or even move at the same time. I don't think it would move at the same time. No. I think if we, if we work work together like as a community, whether, or regardless of what legal structure we're inside of in Linux foundation, and we can make informed decisions as we move forward. It's not just on, you know, the afj folks to do things to stay compatible. I mean, folks from this, this world, we can also have a responsibility to contribute to that framework that meets our needs. I mean, we're using it. We have a deployed in production. So we have an interest in it, evolving, you know, in ways to meet our business needs. So not, not at this time. But it's, it's something we can consider. Thank you, John. And a thumbs up from the question asker. So excellent. Any other discussion on this topic that we need to have today. Thanks, cream for bringing the topic up and getting the conversation started today. And we have some, some open conversations. Some of these are, you know, a little bit beyond the scope of just the afj move, but it's definitely stuff to keep in mind. And I think the keeping an eye on the circumstances and and observing how how afj affairs and its efforts. I think it will be instructive for, for potential future discussions in the community. Really quickly on the unqualified did rotation or the unqualified did and handling of that. And again, I have listed the things here. One thing that I will mention is that there have been some minor updates to did peer for per Steven suggestions. And I'll open the issue instead of the PR. So, but, but it largely remains the same. There was just some wording clarifications that actually happened there. And so this actually happened and there was some discussion that the Daniel Bloom brought over that was that was mentioned over on, you know, on the white to identities situation and address that. So there's a plea here in that all of these things. So did rotation did peer for the did exchange update with with no didn't document signature in the community coordinated update as well as the airs agent test harness anticipated, you know, use for testing this are really important issues. There is an urgency to both make this change and to migrate on to did come be to in a way that can can expand support far more broadly outside the areas community. But also allow us as the areas community to stop addressing issues that have already been solved and did come be to and so please consider that from your development timelines. With there's been a request to to leave some PR is open without merging just yet in order to gather feedback from implementations and while there have been implementations that's that's wonderful. And, and then I think we want to move on this fast. So despite the fact that there are no changes or anything to announce today, which is actually a good thing that the calling attention to the fact that we hope to execute this rapidly. So, in the next coming weeks, I anticipate both the merging of all of the, all the relevant PRs and discussion and choosing of dates for the community coordinated update for the adoption of these things. This will be closely followed on by an effort to add did come be to support and deprecate did come be one support so that we can, so that we can migrate away from that as a community and lose the historical issues that it has as well. So I'll answer questions on then qualify did stuff. We have just 10 minutes left. There is a DC runs a public did come mediator. And this was brought up and discussed not the announcement of the of the new beta but there is a new code base driving a public mediator. And so this is the page with the new mediator invitation to to begin using that we would love it if folks we've had a lot of use of the public mediator that we had previously hosted we would love to folks tested their stuff with our mediator and helped report any issues solved any any problems that you found we've done a lot of internal testing, including load testing on this, but we want to make sure that that we before we take the beta stamp off of it that that's there. This will, after a suitable beta period. This will replace the other in DC, a public mediator that we have and will retire that this one is specifically designed to to scale quite large. It does have WebSocket support, which means you can open up a WebSocket and turn on live delivery mode when you're connected and messages will live deliver to your application over as they arrive. And so, there's some there's some some stuff in there coldness is correct. Are these two protocols the ones that we supported that not get updated. I'm not Colton, but this is not correct. This page needs some updates. Okay, we'll fix this. There are there's new versions of the protocols that are that are supported here. We just took a copy of the page and fix the invitation. So, we'll go ahead and correct the the appropriate versions of the protocols necessary to use the mediator. But that's there. Any questions about this, it's go ahead and use this will just correct the documentation here about which protocols are involved. And please reach out with questions any questions about this public mediator. This is open for use. We do not recommend building a production product on it. But what the reason we initially put up a public mediator and the mission continues is that we didn't want we wanted to reduce the burden of the number of things that folks had to run in order to, you know, like test an agent. And mediators are useful. Of course, not only for mobile devices, but also devices that exist behind firewalls or other other things that that make it a little bit more difficult to use. And so this is available for, you know, development and testing of all of those things or demos. We do recommend a different solution for a production service. We always recommend that you have a use a mediator that has a judicial responsibility to you when you're when you're running into production with things. But, but this is open for all of those early tests so that so that those can be a streamlined and as easy as possible. Any any questions about the public mediator. I think we have just barely enough time, maybe to do a quick did come demo. Okay, no questions. Colton, can I pass a screen share to you for the demo. I'm not so sure how the screen share will work on my on the laptop that I'm using right now. Okay, hang on a sec. Let me see a demo. We want to see a demo. It's really cool. Actually, let me. Okay, I haven't had time to pull the new version yet, but so I posted in there is the GitHub pages one. The only problem with it right now is that the WebSocket is not live per se because it's not a SL encrypted. I don't know what that means practically for the demo. The web browser does not like doing a PS to unencrypted WebSockets. Oh, because it's coming from a from a secure page. Yep. Okay, we will we can fix that. But in the meantime, here's what we've built and all the credit here goes to Daniel and Colton and Micah who built this. When you load this page, it automatically generates a pure did and notice we're using a pure did mostly for the sake of the expediency and creating the demo. This was the demo that I used last Friday with the Onyx hackathon. It also just gives you a name of course, which you can just click the edit button to change. But the idea here is that you can copy this did and if someone else actually loads this up does this work Colton or does it not work off the GitHub pages. Oh yeah, it should work it. You just have to click the refresh button to get a new message in the top right there. Copy that. Okay. Add a or actually if you if you send me my contact I'll send you a message or your did. So here's here's the one that I have. And what I did is I copy this and it just pays in the zoom chat you folks can see this. You can also load this up yourself. What it's doing is it creates is it is it loads up creates an internal dude did for use contacting the mediator. It sets up mediation and then generates a did and coordinates that using mediator coordination protocols and all of these messages the unencrypted forms can actually be found within the log here. And then what it allows is for is for the the messages to be sent back and forth between any two tabs doing this whether it's on your own computer or whether it's on different computers as well. So I'm going to refresh Colton and I haven't seen a message from you yet. I'm going to add your contact. We have a reverse. Did I do it the wrong way. Yep. And now I broke the universe. Refresh a couple times. Well I just refreshed everything. Then the did change there. It did change. Okay let's see. Let's see how fast we can do this. I just sent you my new did. So copy the did. Go to my page. New contact. Paste the did. We have the audible version of screen share by Colton. Thank you for that. So Colton's going to on his system is going to do the same thing and then we'll send me a message. This is a this repository right now is hosted within DCO but the did come users group has expressed interest in it living within the diff and so this repo would transfer to them as it's a primarily just a did come oriented demo. So a contact showed up here. There's a couple of times there. Because there's an exchange that happens to get that to be shorter. Okay. It isn't happening yet. Well, hit it a couple more times. Weird. Okay. But if I click in here. There's a there's a message in the did is, you know, demos as they are in progress but. It allows for the setting of messages back and forth between those two parties. This is normally. So here's the response from Colton. And this is this is normally happens over live Web sockets and we'll fix the Web socket issue so that it's not upset about that. But the, but then messages can arrive back and forth in the cool part and I'm going to have to, I apologize for the stretchy of the window. The entire log of what actually happens. You know, of course, appears in this in this log on the side. This is useful as a as a demonstration of did come what the messages like how it works and how useful this can be, but also provides a way that this works anywhere regardless of firewalls or any other considerations. And so it's a pretty simple way to make that happen. And so we'll we'll smooth out the demo and and and everything else we we we heard and added some stuff which which makes it which makes it really nicer but you know of course we're in the middle of doing that and demos as they are. But we'll have another link and this is something that will be public and posted. Right now it is using the the mediator than a DC runs. It's using a public mediator that we can fix the demo later so that it can be reassigned to use a different mediator or pick one of the community ones at random. But but this is that that's running it up and so and pretty cool. The point here too is to sort of help people understand. You know how simple and easy did come can be but also there's some couple of boxes here that you know don't really do anything yet. The idea is to allow you to craft a message and then transmit it to the other party. Without necessarily having you know built in protocol support. And so so very cool. We did. We demoed this both on Friday and in the Mondays did come user group call and this will get a little bit cleaner as well. But but wanted to kind of show it here because of how cool it is and the credit here goes squarely to Daniel and Colton and Micah for the creation of this and the in the back end. You know mediation support that allows us to happen turns out I hadn't updated so if you go back to the contacts list and refresh a couple times. Click back to contacts. Oh, you have another one. So if I send you a message here, and you'll notice that the Colton Wilkins came from Colton via a protocol to exchange of simple profile information that exists in the community to make that happen. Yep. Using the user profile protocol. Right. And so we have a response here as well. So this is so this starts from the new inbound did, but then, but then, you know, gets replaced using the profile protocol. So. Anyway, that we're out of time and that's the demo. It'll be a little smoother next time, but we're pretty darn close and we'll get the web sockets working with with SSL. And, and we'll show everyone that another time and it'll be available at a public this URL. It's also in the meeting notes. You can grab and play with it's there's also a few if you go to the obvious GitHub repository behind this, you'll be able to see the open source code that does this too. This is all and it runs entirely in the browser except of course the use of the mediator, which happens in a normal did come manner. And so it's a good example of this. This there's limitations on this demo where intentionally doesn't don't really have a wallet in the traditional sense. There's no support for credential protocols. This is not intended to be used as a as a wallet or something, but it makes for a really good tool and a fantastic demo to make this happen. Also, right now it only supports did peer to, but that will work. We have ideas on how to expand that to other resolvable methods as well to allow the demo to be even that much cooler. And with that, thanks folks for coming. Thanks for letting us squeeze in a demo here right at the end. Being tolerant of our of our demos as we make that work. Excellent work. Producing the demo for those that did it and thanks for the conversation today. We will we will follow back up with Patrick's discussion of protocol stuff next week. And we will see you all later and hope your week is a great one. Thanks everyone. Have a good week.