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

Carsten Bormann <> Thu, 11 October 2018 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96584124C04; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0H6pXo1oeKxB; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F31071277CC; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c8:406a:91ff:fe74:f2b7]) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w9BKhDxc028365; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 22:43:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 42WNG93yn1z1Bq8; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 22:43:13 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 22:43:12 +0200
Cc: Henk Birkholz <>, "" <>, Laurence Lundblade <>, "" <>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 560983390.9626679-0aec4371ce3ad6f1ae9edc0d916b4b68
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Michael Richardson <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [EAT] [Rats] Attestation BoF charter updates?
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: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 20:43:24 -0000

On Oct 11, 2018, at 22:07, Michael Richardson <> 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