Re: [EAT] Preliminary RATS BoF Agenda

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 22 October 2018 21:35 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: eat@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D6AE12D4F1; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 14:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 96chTGHTCM9h; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 14:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4569130E99; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 14:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost2.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c8:406a:91ff:fe74:f2b7]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w9MLZkD8013044; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 23:35:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.114] (p54A6CA9F.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.166.202.159]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 42f8vk0fdhz1Bqf; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 23:35:46 +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 <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <11236.1540243036@localhost>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 23:35:45 +0200
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com>, "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, "eat@ietf.org" <eat@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 561936943.518659-5d1aa2950c71e9b25d3af51f52d40c12
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FB2FEF8E-ADDA-43CF-B185-D4CC067928A2@tzi.org>
References: <d9f63399-5fa1-e220-22f3-3e85596a589f@sit.fraunhofer.de> <AM5PR0801MB209735CCC5CF80CCE96E9670FAFA0@AM5PR0801MB2097.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <11236.1540243036@localhost>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eat/xV8wb9N3GXUHGFLrrx4C2nNX1YE>
Subject: Re: [EAT] Preliminary RATS BoF Agenda
X-BeenThere: eat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: EAT - Entity Attestation Token <eat.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eat>, <mailto:eat-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eat/>
List-Post: <mailto:eat@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eat-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eat>, <mailto:eat-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 21:36:04 -0000

> Background material is welcome, but I’m not seeing a charter.

One problem with writing a charter in an area without accepted terminology is that you need a source of that terminology.
The IESG generally frowns upon a WG defining the terminology used in the charter in an I-D, as this means the WG can change the meaning of the charter unilaterally.  So there is a need for some terminology definitions, more than usually in a charter.

> I keep seeing introductory text that belongs in an overview, roadmap or
> requirements document (but I don't know which, because the charter hasn't
> told me how we are running things)

Now that looks like a problem, indeed.

> Also, I don’t know how eat@ and rats@ differ,

EAT is one technical approach (put claim sets into CWTs), which I like.  
RATS has some additional requirements that are harder to do in a CWT (of course, anything can be packaged in a CWT if you really want — RATS is really more about workflows that involve evidence and tend to be more complicated than just signing a few CWTs and checking those signatures).

> so maybe we can just get rid of
> one of these lists?

Whenever we know the name of the new WG, we can get rid of both.

Grüße, Carsten