Re: [EAT] Preliminary RATS BoF Agenda

Carsten Bormann <> Mon, 22 October 2018 21:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D6AE12D4F1; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 14:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 96chTGHTCM9h; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 14:35:56 -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 A4569130E99; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 14:35:55 -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 w9MLZkD8013044; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 23:35:51 +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 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 <>
In-Reply-To: <11236.1540243036@localhost>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 23:35:45 +0200
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig <>, "" <>, Henk Birkholz <>, "" <>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 561936943.518659-5d1aa2950c71e9b25d3af51f52d40c12
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <11236.1540243036@localhost>
To: Michael Richardson <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [EAT] Preliminary RATS BoF Agenda
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: 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