Re: [Rats] Reminder on RATS scope

[Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

as promised I have reviewd the whole charter text in 2nd-RC2 and here 
are my proposed changes:

> https://github.com/ietf-rats/charter/compare/2nd-RC2...2nd-RC3

All but one of them are nits and details, I think.
The essential change is an additional deliverable explicitly added to 
the program of work.

NEW:
> 7. Standardize interoperable data formats for freshness indicators to be used in conveyance protocols for evidence and attestation results.

It might be that this is already covered by deliverable #5, but as we 
are also preparing the milestones next (and we are working on this), I 
chose to err on the side of caution. Please bash and comment on that NEW 
deliverable.

Apropos milestones - there is now:

> https://github.com/ietf-rats/charter/blob/2nd-RC3/ietf-rats-milestones.md

This is just the existing milestones scraped from the datatracker and 
put into a markdown table in support of a discussion to update those 
with the help of the chairs here on the list.

NEW:
> | Date | Milestone | I-D
> | --- | --- | ---
> | Jul 2021 | Submit Architecture draft to IESG for publication | draft-ietf-rats-architecture
> | Jul 2021 | Submit Interaction Models draft to IESG for publication | draft-ietf-rats-reference-interaction-models
> | Mar 2021 | Submit RIV draft to IESG for publication | draft-ietf-rats-tpm-based-network-device-attest
> | Mar 2021 | Submit EAT draft to IESG for publication | draft-ietf-rats-eat
> | Dec 2020 | Submit TUDA draft to IESG for publication
> | Dec 2020 | Submit YANG Module draft to IESG for publication | draft-ietf-rats-yang-tpm-charra
> | Mar 2019 | Call for adoption on TUDA draft | draft-birkholz-rats-tuda


Viele Grüße,

Henk




On 13.01.22 00:25, Henk Birkholz wrote:
> Hi Roman,
> hi list,
> 
> On 12.01.22 02:56, Roman Danyliw wrote:
>> I can see the issue.  I think the WG should figure out what they want 
>> to do and explicitly say it.
> 
> As we are doing this thoroughly, please speak up, if you think there are 
> work items or additions to work items missing that should be explicitly 
> spelled out - to make sure that we'll propose a charter text for a first 
> consensus check that accurately reflects what everybody wants to do and 
> also actually can do in this next phase.
> 
> It is a tad bit late on my side to really go through the entire text 
> today in a productive way. But I'll check for that tomorrow.
> 
> I also agree that we then also have to update or define corresponding 
> milestones, accordingly.
> 
> Viele Grüße,
> 
> Henk
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats