idnits 2.17.1 draft-sardon-blockchain-gateways-usecases-01.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 (February 2, 2021) is 1178 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 190, 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: August 6, 2021 MIT 6 M. McBride 7 Futurewei 8 February 2, 2021 10 Blockchain Gateways: Use-Cases 11 draft-sardon-blockchain-gateways-usecases-01 13 Abstract 15 In the past five years there has been a growing interest in using 16 blockchains and DLT systems as a means to create a new mechanism to 17 issue, distribute and manage virtual assets. However, as DLT systems 18 consisting of peer-to-peer (P2P) network of nodes increase in number, 19 there is an increasing need to interconnect these networks to permit 20 virtual assets to flow into and out of them. This document captures 21 a number of use-cases driving the need for interoperability between 22 DLT systems. 24 Status of This Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 6, 2021. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 2. Use-Case: CBDC interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 3. Use-Case: Application and Data Portability . . . . . . . . . 3 61 4. Use-Case: Interconnection of Supply-Chains . . . . . . . . . 3 62 4.1. Pharmaceuticals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 4.2. Farm to store . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 4.3. Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 1. Introduction 72 In the past five years there has been a growing interest in using 73 blockchains and DLT systems as a means to create a new mechanism to 74 issue, distribute and manage virtual assets. 76 However, as DLT systems consisting of peer-to-peer (P2P) network of 77 nodes increase in number, there is an increasing need to interconnect 78 these networks to permit virtual assets to flow into and out of them. 80 This document captures a number of use-cases driving the need for 81 interoperability between DLT systems. 83 2. Use-Case: CBDC interoperability 85 A Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) is a digital version of the 86 sovereign currency within a nation. The CBDC is distinct from other 87 types of digital currencies because (a) its sole issuer is a central 88 bank, and (b) like paper sovereign currencies the issuance of a CBDC 89 represents a claim that the holder has upon the central bank. 91 Many central banks are considering the use of DLT systems for CBDCs. 92 For example, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Bank 93 of Canada (BOC) have been experimenting with private blockchains and 94 have been exploring methods used to settle CBDCs (see project Ubin 95 and Jasper) [MAS19]. Since different central banks might be using 96 different private DLT systems, interoperability of these systems will 97 be crucial for facilitating cross-border payments. 99 The MAS and BOC have carried out a joint pilot project in 2019 to 100 evaluate how transactions between a Quorum-based and Corda-based 101 systems can be performed [MAS19]. While their HTLC based proof-of- 102 concept with direct node-to-node connectivity was conducted 103 successfully, they point out that such a network model may have poor 104 resiliency and suggest testing alternative models, in particular 105 using gateway nodes that would act as service nodes for the network 106 participants. 108 3. Use-Case: Application and Data Portability 110 Portability has been described as a desirable property for 111 applications on private blockchains and DLT systems [SKS18]. For 112 example, applications with poor portability may suffer from vendor 113 lock-in effects, potentially preventing users to benefit from better 114 middleware platforms. 116 Moreover, regulations like the GDPR even explicitly require data 117 portability. For private blockchains, where the network members may 118 be subject to such regulations, interoperability shall be encouraged 119 [STOA19]. The use case would be to migrate either the application 120 (e.g. a token smart contract) and/or the associated state (e.g. token 121 balances) from one private blockchain to another. 123 4. Use-Case: Interconnection of Supply-Chains 125 Blockchains and DLT systems are currently being deployed for 126 augmenting the supply-chains of good and services [Scot19]. The 127 notion of a shared ledger has significant appeal among the 128 participants of a supply-chain network (e.g. suppliers, vendors, 129 buyers, etc.) because: (i) it permits all participants with equal 130 visibility into the state of the supply/demand of goods; (ii) 131 permitting suppliers (e.g. manufacturers) to increase their 132 efficiency in maintaining the supply of goods in warehouses, leading 133 to the freeing-up of capital, and (iii) allowing participants to 134 improve the tracking of deliveries and payments settlements. 136 A key challenge for of a supply-chain network based on DLT systems is 137 its ability to interoperate with another supply-chain network. 138 Interoperability across blockchains and DLT systems allows a 139 participant (e.g. manufacturer, buyer) to participate at a single 140 end-point in the network, while giving them access to all other 141 blockchains that are connected. Without interoperability, the 142 participant would need to join each and every supply-chain DLT, 143 something that is cumbersome, costly and does not scale. 145 4.1. Pharmaceuticals 147 The prescription, and vaccination, supply chain involves many 148 partners and includes recording the change of ownership of these 149 medicinal assets. This supply chain also involves tracking data such 150 as the shipping container temperature since some medicines 151 (vaccinations) require specific, and sometimes extreme, low 152 temperatures. As the medicines are in route from manufacturer to end 153 user, the change in ownership, along with the container temperature, 154 may be stored in a DLT. It will then be vital to provide 155 interoperability between the DLT, or non-DLT, systems along this 156 supply chain in order to provide consistency, transferrability and 157 accountability. If it's determined, by looking at DLT data, that the 158 required temperature was not maintained at a certain point of time 159 then the pharmaceutical asset can be identified, removed and 160 insurance can be claimed. 162 4.2. Farm to store 164 DLT interoperability will provide much needed food traceability along 165 the farm to store supply chain. The change of asset ownership is 166 tracked as the shipping partners send the transportation data to a 167 DLT or general distributed database. The data tracked includes 168 temperature, humidity, time, capacity and any other variables used to 169 help with any insurance claims for spoiled produce. Tracking this 170 data, across DLTs, will also help prevent counterfeit goods from 171 being shipped. 173 4.3. Energy 175 Interoperability between energy producers will help secure energy 176 trading and delivery. The energy industry must be able to function 177 with increasingly complex transactions between big and small 178 producers, which now includes home, and corporate, consumers becoming 179 energy producers. Increased volumes of decentralized energy are 180 being produced. Home owners, companies and tradition energy 181 utilities will want to have accurate and secure accounting of their 182 energy assets by inputting the data onto a DLT. The new energy 183 partnering will become increasingly complex and it will be imperative 184 for the energy assets to be properly tracked and traded along an 185 interoperable ecosystem. 187 5. References 188 5.1. Normative References 190 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 191 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 192 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 193 . 195 5.2. Informative References 197 [MAS19] MAS, "Jasper-Ubin Design Paper, Enabling Cross-Border High 198 Value Transfer Using Distributed Ledger Technologies, 199 Monetary Authority of Singapore.", May 2019, 200 . 203 [Scot19] Scott, T., "TradeLens: How IBM and Maersk Are Sharing 204 Blockchain to Build a Global Trade Platform. IBM Report", 205 November 2018, . 209 [SKS18] Shudo, K., Kanda, R., and R. Saito, "Towards Application 210 Portability on Blockchains, Proc. IEEE HotICN 2018", 211 August 2018, . 213 [STOA19] STOA, "EU STOA, Blockchain and the GDPR: Can distributed 214 ledgers be squared with European data protection law?, EU 215 European Parliamentary Research Service, STOA, PE 216 634.445.", July 2019, 217 . 220 Authors' Addresses 222 Aetienne Sardon 223 Swisscom 225 Email: Aetienne.Sardon@swisscom.com 227 Thomas Hardjono 228 MIT 230 Email: hardjono@mit.edu 231 Mike McBride 232 Futurewei 234 Email: mmcbride@futurewei.com