Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Idemix MSP Folder Structure incompatible with what Fabric expects #303

Open
adecaro opened this issue Jun 20, 2022 · 7 comments
Open

Idemix MSP Folder Structure incompatible with what Fabric expects #303

adecaro opened this issue Jun 20, 2022 · 7 comments

Comments

@adecaro
Copy link
Contributor

adecaro commented Jun 20, 2022

Currently, Fabric-CA generates an Idemix MSP folder structure and file content that Fabric is not able to load.
Namely:

  • The content of SignerConfig is encoded in json, Fabric expected proto
  • Fabric expects the revocation public key to be stored in a file named RevocationPublicKey and IdemixRevocationPublicKey.

This git issue is to fix the above issues.

adecaro added a commit to adecaro/fabric-ca that referenced this issue Jun 20, 2022
adecaro added a commit to adecaro/fabric-ca that referenced this issue Jun 20, 2022
…cts hyperledger#303

Signed-off-by: Angelo De Caro <adc@zurich.ibm.com>
adecaro added a commit to adecaro/fabric-ca that referenced this issue Jun 28, 2022
adecaro added a commit to adecaro/fabric-ca that referenced this issue Jun 28, 2022
…cts hyperledger#303

Signed-off-by: Angelo De Caro <adc@zurich.ibm.com>
denyeart pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jun 28, 2022
Signed-off-by: Angelo De Caro <adc@zurich.ibm.com>
denyeart pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jun 28, 2022
…cts #303

Signed-off-by: Angelo De Caro <adc@zurich.ibm.com>
jkneubuh added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 7, 2022
jkneubuh added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 7, 2022
jkneubuh added a commit to jkneubuh/fabric-ca that referenced this issue Jul 7, 2022
…ric expects hyperledger#303"

This reverts commit 29e083e.

Signed-off-by: Josh Kneubuhl <jkneubuh@us.ibm.com>
jkneubuh added a commit to jkneubuh/fabric-ca that referenced this issue Jul 7, 2022
…ects hyperledger#303"

This reverts commit acea746.

Signed-off-by: Josh Kneubuhl <jkneubuh@us.ibm.com>
denyeart pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jul 8, 2022
…ric expects #303"

This reverts commit 29e083e.

Signed-off-by: Josh Kneubuhl <jkneubuh@us.ibm.com>
denyeart pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jul 8, 2022
…ects #303"

This reverts commit acea746.

Signed-off-by: Josh Kneubuhl <jkneubuh@us.ibm.com>
@arner
Copy link

arner commented Oct 22, 2022

Why was this change reverted?

@bestbeforetoday
Copy link
Member

Why was this change reverted?

It broke the Java client SDK.

@adecaro
Copy link
Contributor Author

adecaro commented Oct 24, 2022

Is anyone using the Idemix provided by Java client SDK's ? If no, I would suggest to drop it. No one is going to keep supporting that implementation.

@bestbeforetoday
Copy link
Member

Yes, people are using it. We already encourage people to use the Fabric Gateway client API instead of the legacy Java SDK, and plan to deprecate the legacy Java SDK once Fabric v2.5 LTS is released. Certainly for Fabric v3 we can break compatibility with the v2.x Idemix implementation.

Producing a new release (v2) of the CA without support for the old style Idemix to go along with Fabric v3 sounds perfectly reasonable. Breaking compatibility with existing client applications or removing capability in a patch release (or even a minor version release) does not seem reasonable.

@adecaro
Copy link
Contributor Author

adecaro commented Oct 25, 2022

But Gateway does not support Idemix yet, how are people using idemix moving there?

@bestbeforetoday
Copy link
Member

The identity credentials and signing implementation are pluggable in the Fabric Gateway client API. Anyone could use the Idemix implementation from the legacy Java SDK with the new client API. I suspect nobody has done that - certainly not that I've seen - and there is currently no Idemix signing implementation provided out-of-the-box with the Fabric Gateway client API so I don't think anyone is using Idemix with that client API.

I really don't understand how that impacts whether it's OK to make breaking changes to the CA in patch releases.

@adecaro
Copy link
Contributor Author

adecaro commented Oct 25, 2022

I pointed to that because there is no reason to consider this a breaking change if what gets broken should not be there anyway :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants