Re: [EAT] Scope, Goals & Background for RATS

Michael Richardson <> Tue, 18 September 2018 18:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A0B3130E8E; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 11:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KNekR1oQ4Zdw; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 11:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 832C9130E70; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 11:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FE7020496; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:27:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id 9F26CA0; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:08:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C0D588; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:08:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Henk Birkholz <>
cc: "rats\" <>, "eat\" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:08:26 -0400
Message-ID: <17674.1537294106@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [EAT] Scope, Goals & Background for RATS
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: EAT - Entity Attestation Token <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 18:08:32 -0000

Henk Birkholz <> wrote:
    > we pushed an initial document to the RATS github in order to focus the
    > discussion about remote attestation procedures a bit.


    > We included a background section to better highlight the meaning of the
    > term "attestation" in general. Hence, there is a trade-off between
    > clarity and conciseness, which is one of the things we would like to
    > get feedback about.

1) RATS is not expanded anywhere near the top of the document!
2) I think that this document is okay as a working document going towards a
   BOF,  but in general it is too big.
   Bulky things like the Terminology and most of the problem statement
   probably need to go into IDs.

I understand why you have put them here at this point.
As Mark Twain(%) was alleged to have said, "I didn't have time to write a
shorter letter"... thus the length of your document.
Statements like:

    (4) The lack of generic models and commonly understood terminology that
    would allow for semantic interoperability and a...

absolutely go into the charter to explain what the goals are.
This needs to be reworded into a positive action.... i.e. "We will develop
generic models with commonly understood terminology..."

    > Naturally, we are also very interested in feedback about the
    > illustrated difference between explicit attestation and implicit
    > attestation.

(%) apparently, he didn't say that first, and may never have said it.
But I think he would have liked to have said it.

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-