Session Date/Time: 21 Jul 2025 15:00

SATP Working Group Meeting Minutes

Summary

The SATP (Secure Asset Transfer Protocol) working group held a meeting to discuss updates to the core protocol documents and plan for future work, particularly focusing on "stage zero" requirements and next steps for potential rechartering. The group reviewed the status of current drafts, discussed the need for clear layering models for protocol components, and prioritized future work items for the next charter.

Key Discussion Points

Core Document Status Update

Security considerations section has been added to the core protocol document
Focus on gateway behavior and gateway operator responsibilities
Known weak points identified where gateways could intentionally cause issues (e.g., dropping commit-final or prepare messages)
Gateway key protection and network identification remain challenges
Documents are ready for submission to IESG with shepherd reviews

Stage Zero Architecture Discussion

Problem identification: Confusion about interface layers between applications, gateways, and networks
Layer model proposal: Need for clear logical layers to prevent layer violations and ensure consistency
- Application layer with client apps holding private keys
- Gateway layer with gateway apps for network communication
- Network layer with wallet addresses, lock/unlock functions, and gateway contracts
- Consensus/hosting layer at the bottom
Three critical interfaces identified:
- Line A: Application to network communication
- Line B: Application to gateway communication (likely REST protocol + data structures)
- Line C: Gateway to network communication (requires standardization for interoperability)

Asset ID and Network Identification

32-byte asset ID structure discussed but not finalized
Need for globally unique identifiers combining network ID and local asset identifiers
Consideration for traditional banking systems (BIC numbers, routing numbers)
Extensibility concerns raised - fixed 32-byte field may not be sufficient for all future use cases
Suggestion to use more flexible encoding (TLV, CBOR) for future-proofing

Technical Implementation Concerns

API vs. Protocol distinction: Need clarity on what requires standardization
Gateway vendor requirements: Consistent abstraction model across different ledgers
Lock mechanisms: Different implementations (hash time locks, multi-sig) need clear semantic definitions
Transfer context: JSON structure definition needed for app-gateway communication

Decisions and Action Items

Immediate Actions

Thomas: Write 2-3 page document describing the layering model for terminology draft
Chairs (Claire/Wes):
- Upload shepherd reviews to datatracker this week
- Submit core documents to IESG
- Manually add missing drafts to working group document list
Thomas: Republish the asset network identification draft (previously expired)
Peter: Resend shepherd review documents to chairs

Document Submissions

Core protocol documents ready for IESG submission
Shepherd reviews to be posted to datatracker
Expected additional rounds of comments from area director and IETF-wide last call

Next Steps

Rechartering Priorities

Based on working group input, the following items were identified as highest priority for the next charter:

Top Priority:

Stage Zero - Transfer context and setup protocols (unanimous selection)

High Priority: 9. Registries - Storage of SATP-related artifacts and metadata 10. Network-level requirements - Asset lifecycle management implementation requirements 12. Threat model - Comprehensive security analysis and threat identification

Secondary Priority: 6. Bidirectional transfers 7. Data sharing - Private network asset state reporting 14. Discovery mechanisms

Future Planning

Summer break planned with potential interim meeting in late September/early October
Charter revision to be drafted by chairs and posted to mailing list for review
Use case analysis suggested - mapping existing use cases to required protocol elements
Rechartering process will involve working group and IESG review

Technical Work Continuation

Stage zero protocol design and layering model development
Asset identification and network addressing standards
Security considerations and threat modeling
Implementation guidelines and interoperability requirements

The working group demonstrated strong progress and collaboration, with chairs noting exemplary performance compared to other IETF working groups. The meeting concluded early, marking the first time the group didn't use the full two-hour session, indicating efficient progress on agenda items.