idnits 2.17.1 draft-sardon-blockchain-gateways-usecases-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (October 30, 2020) is 1267 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 143, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Engineering Task Force A. Sardon 3 Internet-Draft Swisscom 4 Intended status: Informational T. Hardjono 5 Expires: May 3, 2021 MIT 6 October 30, 2020 8 Blockchain Gateways: Use-Cases 9 draft-sardon-blockchain-gateways-usecases-00 11 Abstract 13 In the past five years there has been a growing interest in using 14 blockchains and DLT systems as a means to create a new mechanism to 15 issue, distribute and manage virtual assets. However, as DLT systems 16 consisting of peer-to-peer (P2P) network of nodes increase in number, 17 there is an increasing need to interconnect these networks to permit 18 virtual assets to flow into and out of them. This document captures 19 a number of use-cases driving the need for interoperability between 20 DLT systems. 22 Status of This Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 30 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2021. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 46 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 47 publication of this document. Please review these documents 48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 52 described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 Table of Contents 56 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 57 2. Use-Case: CBDC interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 58 3. Use-Case: Application and Data Portability . . . . . . . . . 3 59 4. Use-Case: Interconnection of Supply-Chains . . . . . . . . . 3 60 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 1. Introduction 67 In the past five years there has been a growing interest in using 68 blockchains and DLT systems as a means to create a new mechanism to 69 issue, distribute and manage virtual assets. 71 However, as DLT systems consisting of peer-to-peer (P2P) network of 72 nodes increase in number, there is an increasing need to interconnect 73 these networks to permit virtual assets to flow into and out of them. 75 This document captures a number of use-cases driving the need for 76 interoperability between DLT systems. 78 2. Use-Case: CBDC interoperability 80 A Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) is a digital version of the 81 sovereign currency within a nation. The CBDC is distinct from other 82 types of digital currencies because (a) its sole issuer is a central 83 bank, and (b) like paper sovereign currencies the issuance of a CBDC 84 represents a claim that the holder has upon the central bank. 86 Many central banks are considering the use of DLT systems for CBDCs. 87 For example, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Bank 88 of Canada (BOC) have been experimenting with private blockchains and 89 have been exploring methods used to settle CBDCs (see project Ubin 90 and Jasper) [MAS19]. Since different central banks might be using 91 different private DLT systems, interoperability of these systems will 92 be crucial for facilitating cross-border payments. 94 The MAS and BOC have carried out a joint pilot project in 2019 to 95 evaluate how transactions between a Quorum-based and Corda-based 96 systems can be performed [MAS19]. While their HTLC based proof-of- 97 concept with direct node-to-node connectivity was conducted 98 successfully, they point out that such a network model may have poor 99 resiliency and suggest testing alternative models, in particular 100 using gateway nodes that would act as service nodes for the network 101 participants. 103 3. Use-Case: Application and Data Portability 105 Portability has been described as a desirable property for 106 applications on private blockchains and DLT systems [SKS18]. For 107 example, applications with poor portability may suffer from vendor 108 lock-in effects, potentially preventing users to benefit from better 109 middleware platforms. 111 Moreover, regulations like the GDPR even explicitly require data 112 portability. For private blockchains, where the network members may 113 be subject to such regulations, interoperability shall be encouraged 114 [STOA19]. The use case would be to migrate either the application 115 (e.g. a token smart contract) and/or the associated state (e.g. token 116 balances) from one private blockchain to another. 118 4. Use-Case: Interconnection of Supply-Chains 120 Blockchains and DLT systems are currently being deployed for 121 augmenting the supply-chains of good and services [Scot19]. The 122 notion of a shared ledger has significant appeal among the 123 participants of a supply-chain network (e.g. suppliers, vendors, 124 buyers, etc.) because: (i) it permits all participants with equal 125 visibility into the state of the supply/demand of goods; (ii) 126 permitting suppliers (e.g. manufacturers) to increase their 127 efficiency in maintaining the supply of goods in warehouses, leading 128 to the freeing-up of capital, and (iii) allowing participants to 129 improve the tracking of deliveries and payments settlements. 131 A key challenge for of a supply-chain network based on DLT systems is 132 its ability to interoperate with another supply-chain network. 133 Interoperability across blockchains and DLT systems allows a 134 participant (e.g. manufacturer, buyer) to participate at a single 135 end-point in the network, while giving them access to all other 136 blockchains that are connected. Without interoperability, the 137 participant would need to join each and every supply-chain DLT, 138 something that is cumbersome, costly and does not scale. 140 5. References 141 5.1. Normative References 143 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 144 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 145 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 146 . 148 5.2. Informative References 150 [MAS19] MAS, "Jasper-Ubin Design Paper, Enabling Cross-Border High 151 Value Transfer Using Distributed Ledger Technologies, 152 Monetary Authority of Singapore.", May 2019, 153 . 156 [Scot19] Scott, T., "TradeLens: How IBM and Maersk Are Sharing 157 Blockchain to Build a Global Trade Platform. IBM Report", 158 November 2018, . 162 [SKS18] Shudo, K., Kanda, R., and R. Saito, "Towards Application 163 Portability on Blockchains, Proc. IEEE HotICN 2018", 164 August 2018, . 166 [STOA19] STOA, "EU STOA, Blockchain and the GDPR: Can distributed 167 ledgers be squared with European data protection law?, EU 168 European Parliamentary Research Service, STOA, PE 169 634.445.", July 2019, 170 . 173 Authors' Addresses 175 Aetienne Sardon 176 Swisscom 178 Email: Aetienne.Sardon@swisscom.com 180 Thomas Hardjono 181 MIT 183 Email: hardjono@mit.edu