Re: [EAT] [Rats] Attestation BoF charter updates?

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 11, 2018, at 22:07, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> re: "Information Elements (IE)"
> 
> If you have some wiggle room (i.e. you aren't trying to align with some other
> pre-existing standards work elsehwere), it might be worth using another term,
> as I think that this term is used for layer-2 extensions in 802.15.4
> networks.

I prefer “data item” (about half the number of syllables), but maybe this is too much of a CBOR term.

>> Deliverables
>> Attestation information flows, consolidated terminology and corresponding
>> taxonomies (overview/architecture to be developed in parallel with solution
>> documents; can be separate document or go into 2, 3, 4 below)
> 
> In a break from the waterfall method of requirements, use-cases and then
> protocols (or rather, in this case, artifact formats), I suggest that that
> each be worked on in parallel,

Absolutely!  (This may now be so obvious to the charter authors that they neglected to state it.)

> and that the terminology and architecture
> documents be constrained to be published *LAST*.

Well, at the same time, because the other documents will want to use the terms.

> But, the WG should issue WG
> Consensus Calls on the documents at intervals such that the text is in them
> can be considered authoritative enough to answer questions in the protocol.

The charter doesn’t go into a lot of details of how the WG should work — that is normally not part of the IESG-WG contract (which we call charter).  But doing this in a sequence of milestones may be a good suggestion.

> Note that I cut out a bunch of text from the Introduction. It didn't help me
> understand the purpose of the group.  Also I note that IE is never used again
> after the first paragraph, so I think you could just call them artifacts.

Works for me, too.

Grüße, Carsten