Chair Introduction (Wes)

General questions: Is this pb needs to be solving, right place to solve
it?

Problem and Proposed Starting Solution

SATP problem space and goals (Thomas Hardjono)

IETF is the place where most of current internet standards were created.
SATP is an engineering-driven group addressing interoperability of
digital asset networks.

"Asset": value-bearing data-object

"Interoperability protocol": protocol that permits secure transfer of
assets across networks.

SATP: protocol Gateways implementing asset transfer among networks.

Assumptions:

• Networks are opaque
• Networks share common semantics about assets
• Gateways implementing SAT are trusted
• Information subsets (views) of assets maybe shared with authorised
  external parties

Q (Alissa Cooper): what trust means
A: We assume gateways on both sides have negotiated and agreed to
proceed with asset transfer. Agreement among gateways is outside of
scope of SATP. SATP assumes legal agreements also exist

Q (Eric Rescorla): What audit guarantees are defined in SATP?
A: Gateway providers should be able to provide information about
specific transactions. Different types of verifiability

Q (?): clarification of the scope of SATP
A: Asset move from one network to another guaranteeing that double
spending, crash recovery, global ACID properties are respected during
the transfer.

Comment (?): The financial industry requires more rigor in the transfer
of assets. Intersting to explore synergies with other IETF activities
(do we do this in other IETF groups?)

Comment (Girbert Verdian): ISO standard on blockchains (ref?) created in
2016 has now 57 countries working with it. SATP is addresses engineering
issues and IETF is the place to discuss such issues. Tokenisation of
assets in a $16tn market and SATP addresses key issues in that domain

Q (?): What is the log scope of SATP? (enablers/guarantees offered by
SATP)
A: Crash recovery and additional information that could be used for
specific needs (e.g. related to consistency)

Use case: Supply Chain Trade (Venkatraman Ramakrishna)

Global Trade are highly inefficient

• paper-based
• slow clearance
• high cost
• little ability to forecast supply chain disruptions
• unable to share correct information

Sharing trustworthy information (Bill of Lading B/L, LEtter of Credit)
over the internet is an important part of the supply chain efficiency
(short term loan, B/L used as collateral, B/L reporting)

Q: Is it a transparancy problem? How B/L is a transfer problem?
A: 3 types of flows are defined. This use case is asset-related data
sharing. Common issue addressed by SCITT

Comment (?): SCITT scope is software supply chain.

Comment (John Robotham): One key aspect is the ownership of the asset,
not entirely a transparency issue

Supply Chain - Financial Institution data sharing related ot the B/L

Q: B/L value bearing?
A: Yes. In this use case SATP is used for the data sharing related to
the B/L

Use case: Regulated CBDC and Finance (Martin Hargreaves)

Tokenisation creates new tokens that are traded in new marketplaces. Key
issue: currently marketplaces are "walled gardens" -> potential
liquidity problem. Private market networks connectivity is not yet
standardised.

Q: Is this only for assets related to smart contract?
A: Not necessarily, SATP ensures a minimal set of properties of assets
and related networks (via their Gateway).

The industry is building interoperability bottom-up. Standards are
needed.

Status Report on SATP Activities (Thomas Hardjono)

Since IETF 114 there are many interactions in the SATP mailing list on
the SAT message flow (15 versions). Since IETF114 SATP setup weekly
meetings with people from America/Europe/Asia. Average attendance: 10.

Why IETF?: IETF is the home of interoperability. Some W3C define
specific specifications that could be used in SATP (e.g. DID). ISO is
high level.

Open discussion (Wes)

Leif Johansson: SATP fairly well scoped, issues: how far can we go in
letting gateways having access to the networks?

Q: Are people willing to do the work?
A: Developers/Users are there, asking for enagement to create an IETF
working group is a chicken and egg pb.

Q: Is there any MVP that could be defined? Can we defer B/L for later?
A: B/L can be defered, MVP has been already be implemented (see use case
"Regulated CBDC and Finance")

Q: Add threat model in the charter
A: That could be an action of the working group

Comment: people involved in the definition of SATP shall be
representative of the industry

Q: Validation of the MVP?
A: The current definition defines the scope of the MVP

Q: WHen creating a group do we create a gap analysis to define an IETF
working group
A: ISO, ITUT, IEEE, W3C have been considered before IETF.

Comment: Charter needs to list institutions/other groups

Comment: IETF has a process to liaise with other groups

Wes: Is this a problem worth to be solved?

BOF questions and AD comments/questions (Wes/Paul)

POLL: I BELIEVE THAT THE PROBLEM OF DATA ASSET TRANSFERS IS A PROBLEM
THAT NEEDS TO BE SOLVED SOMEWHERE
Raised Hand (yes): 36
Not raised hand (no): 2

POLL: IS THE IETF THE RIGHT PLACE TO CREATE THE DIGITAL ASSET TRANSFER
PROTOCOL
Raised Hand (yes): 35
Not raised hand (no): 3

POLL: I AM A PARTICIPANT THAT WILL ACTIVELY IMPLEMENT OR DEPLOY THE
RESULTS
Raised Hand (yes): 12
Others: 19

POLL: I AM AN OPERATOR OF AN ASSET NETWORK THAT WILL USE THE SAT
PROTOCOL
Raised Hand (yes): 4
Others: 14

POLL: I AM WILLING TO HELP REVIEW DOCUMENTS
Raised Hand (yes): 28
Not raised hand (no): 0

POLL: I WILL HELP EDIT/AUTHOR DOCUMENTS
Raised Hand (yes): 12
Not raised hand (no): ?