-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
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
Agenda Request - TEEs and MPC in the Threat Model #81
Comments
@eriktaubeneck Do you feel this needs to be for the upcoming meeting? We already have a pretty full plate so if you do, we'll lock it in at 30m if that's ok? |
My apologies, I missed #79. At quick glance, I only say #59 and #78, so thought maybe there would be room for another short one. It's not particularly important to make any decision, but it might be helpful for #78, if only to avoid focus on this particular dimension in that conversation. The only other consideration is that I personally am likely to be on parental leave at our next meeting, so that may push it out further. I can certainly fit it into a 30 min slot if you can find it. |
@csharrison that makes sense. Are you OK with me putting slides together and leading that part of the conversation? (cc @AramZS, no need for a stand alone slot in the agenda.) |
Yes, please go ahead. I will also try to review this PR of yours :) |
Agenda+: Private Computation Abstraction for TEEs and MPC in the Threat Model
Time: 30-45 min
I recently opened a PR on the docs-and-reports that attempts to create a higher level of abstraction for private computation, with both TEEs and MPC as ways in which private computation can be achieved within the assumptions of the threat model. The main idea is to shift this decision (along with two other related decisions, the privacy budget and aggregation threshold) onto the implementor, rather than requiring consensus in the standard.
I'd like to spend some time in our upcoming meeting to present this idea and get some initial feedback. (If you'd like to engage directly on the topic, please comment on the PR instead of this issue.)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: