Secure Asset Transfer Protocol
charter-ietf-satp-01

As already noted in Éric Vyncke’s ballot, this work seems misplaced in Security.  There are few or no security elements specified in the scope of this charter.  During the BoF, most security considerations were deemed out of scope.  The crux of the standardization appears to be an application protocol.  The ART area will likely have more expertise on this topic.  Their engagement will be essential for success.

** It would be helpful to explicit state that SATP is agnostic to the which digital asset network can carry, or if there are any prerequisites for the asset networks, what they might be in very broad strokes.

** Objective
There is currently an interoperability problem in many digital asset networks,
where assets in one network cannot be moved easily to another network

Is the key issue that there is a lack of standardize protocol?  It isn’t clear if the ease of movement across network is a technical, operational or policy problem.

** Objective
The
problem is more acute in the case of private asset networks, where external
entities have no visibility into the state of an asset in the private network.

Is this a problem the WG will be solving?  Is visibility defined as auditing the transfer of assets?

** Problem space and architecture
Each gateway represents one network or system ...

The text in the objective used “digital asset network” or “network”.  In this section, text is using "network or system”, please be consistent.

** Problem space and architecture
... and the SAT protocol performs a
voluntary transfer of a digital asset from the origin network to a destination
network in such a way that evidence of the transfer can be verified by a
third-party audit in the case of disputes.

-- is it “SAT protocol” or “SATP”?  The rest of the text uses SATP

-- It’s the gateway that performs the transfer using SATP.

** Problem space and architecture

A key requirement for transferring assets is ensuring that the digital asset is
valid in one network only at any given time. This means that SATP must ensure
that the properties of atomicity, consistency, isolation, and durability (ACID)
of the underlying networks are satisfied in an asset transfer. Commitments and
rollbacks must be supported in the case of an asset mid-transfer failure.

As I understood the discussion at the BoF, guaranteeing these ACID and rollback properties will require cooperation from the digital asset network.  The means to realize this cooperation is out of scope.  Please be clear on the dependency that SATP might have on the asset network.

The text should be better formed (like noted by Lars).

More important in "among the above three protocol modes", I am unable to find the related three protocol modes in the text above.

Wouldn't this WG better fit the ART area ? (baring workload balancing)

Is a 'broker' gateway (acting as a proxy between gateways) in scope ?

-éric

# GEN AD review of charter-ietf-satp-00-02

CC @larseggert

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Bad line-wrapping?

#### Paragraph 2
```
- network to a beneficiary in destination network. Problem space and architecture
-                                                 -------------------------------
```

#### "A", paragraph 0
```
- rollbacks must be supported in the case of an asset mid-transfer failure. Scope
-                                                                          ------
```

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool