**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**:
1. **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.