2024-05-02 Blockchain Public Address - Meeting Minutes

 

Community Attendees:

@Pedro Díez García @Georgios Papadopoulos (Unlicensed) @Krzysztof Sielski 

Community Attendees:

LF Staff:

Date

2024-05-02

 

Status: FINAL

Final Date for Comments: 2024-05-14


Agenda

Antitrust Policy

  • Management of new meetings

  • WG status

  • Review of current Issues and PRs

  • Next Meetings

Minutes

Discussion Items

Time

Item

Who

Notes

Time

Item

Who

Notes

--

Management of New Meetings

@Pedro Díez García 

Meetings information are being moved to LF Tools:

  • Meeting minutes to Confluence CAMARA site for this Subproject

  • Meeting calls to Zoom. Pending link

 

 --

 WG status

@Georgios Papadopoulos (Unlicensed) @Krzysztof Sielski 

From DT it is raised the doubt about how much the work done and agreed within the WG implies a wide consensus.
Telefonica indicates that participation within different Subprojects is not the same from Telco Operators. However, this does not mean specification work cannot be progressed. Any case it will comment internally, in case something makes sense to comment to TSC. 

-- 

PR#49

@Pedro Díez García 

Need to update the root link for the new meetings hosting (CAMARA confluence) and advise for review in order to be merged. DONE

--

PR#50

@Pedro Díez García 

Update information of root `README.md` file by LF. Some comments received by Markus and Herbert (DT). Make a ping to Casey to consider comments so can be deeply reviewed. DONE

--

API Enhancement due to Consent Management - Issue#16

@Pedro Díez García 

ON-HOLD No feeback received yet from Business side.

  • Consent Management topic is set undefinitely on-hold until input from TEF Business

  • Regarding the topic to avoid the use of phoneNumber as query param in GET endpoint, TEF will prepare a proposal within an issue linked to this to be discussed further

--

Enforcement about blockchainPublicAddress really belongs to the phoneNumber indicated (i.e, the user that owns the phoneNumber)

@Georgios Papadopoulos (Unlicensed) 

Topic raised by DT, thinking about the case when performing a binding ensure that the blockchainPublicAddress really belongs to the phoneNumber indicated. 
TEF will check internally how this case is deal (initially indicated that thinks this is performed by OOB process, will be checked anyway). In any case, it makes sense to open an issue and discuss over it. In principle, an exception could be required.

--

Next Meetings

@Pedro Díez García 

Meetings will be held by a monthly basis so far.
Next meeting will be held on 30th May (13:00 - 14:00 CEST Time)

 

 

Action items

AI#1: @Pedro Díez García Generate Issue to manage avoidance of indicating phoneNumber as queryParam in GET endpoint.
AI#2: @Pedro Díez García Generate an Issue to track the point about the enforcement of blockchainPublicAddress belonging to the user that owns the phoneNumber