Re: [Rats] Call for charter consensus

Inline...

> On Jan 18, 2019, at 6:27 PM, Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) <ncamwing@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Carl,
> <Chair hat-off>
> It is my experience in the IETF that we focus more in the definition of data models and transfer/transport mechanisms for information (e.g. yang, netconf, radius, nea) but how the information is applied is typically out of scope.

Many verifiable data models (e.g., X509, CMS, JOSE, COSE, etc.) include verification rules. 

>  
> <Chair hat-on>
> As to the consensus of the group and the charter during the call, there was no consensus to the last item (the assessment of claims).  Additionally,
> I don’t believe we have permanently omitted the “assessment” portion. 
> The understanding is that we need to charter to a scope that we can achieve and if and when in that process we need to recharter to include other work items we can certainly do so.
>  
OK. 

> Warm regards, Nancy
> 
> From: Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com>
> Date: Friday, January 18, 2019 at 07:12
> To: "Nancy (ncamwing)" <ncamwing@cisco.com>, "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Rats] Call for charter consensus
>  
>  
>  
> From: RATS <rats-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <ncamwing@cisco.com>
> Date: Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 10:38 PM
> To: "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
> Subject: [Rats] Call for charter consensus
>  
> Hello RATS participants:
>  
> At the virtual meeting on 1/16/2019, there was consensus [1] that we should pursue chartering a Working Group with the text reflected in [2].
>  
> We need to continue this discussion on the email list as well as gauge continued interest in participating in this work.  Please do so by responding to the following questions:
>  
> Do you support this charter text (full text also provided at the end of email or at [1])?  Or do you have objections or blocking concerns?
> [CW] I dislike that the goals do not include verifying or using attestations. Verification was cast as "mundane" during the meeting earlier this week, but historically interop pain often arises at the verification/usage point. This is independent of comparing values extracted from an attestation to a reference value, which is deemed out of scope. Perhaps: "This WG will standardize formats for describing assertions/claims about system components and associated evidence; procedures and protocols to convey these assertions/claims to the relying parties; and procedures to establish trust in attestations/claims. Assessment of assertions/claims, such as via reference values, is outside the scope for this WG."
>  
> Are you willing to author or participate in the development of the drafts of this WG?
> [CW] Possibly, though limited to defining some conveyance mechanisms most likely.
>  
> Are you willing to help review the drafts of this WG?
> [CW] Yes
>  
> Are you interested in implementing drafts of this WG?
> [CW] As a relying party, yes.
>  
> Please provide comments including proposed text changes ASAP to provide ample time for discussion.  This call for consensus ends on February 1, 2019. 
>  
> Thanks, Roman and Nancy
>  
> [1] Minutes sent: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/xEwczqnoNgyBYlRTKg35Yo4ccWY
> [2] Updated charter sent: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/MQLZIkIK23ZlSBMB5wJjo71bOr0
>  
> _______________________________________________ RATS mailing list RATS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats