Re: [EAT] Preliminary RATS BoF Agenda

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

> 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