Re: [Rats] Use case -> architecture document

Michael Richardson <> Thu, 10 October 2019 11:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39A77120BFE for <>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 04:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.436
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.436 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ApkSMXbDDxUq for <>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 04:26:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:7e00::f03c:91ff:feae:de77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 706F41200F8 for <>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 04:26:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C63D1F456 for <>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 11:26:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id DACC8346B; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 13:27:15 +0200 (CEST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: "rats\" <>
In-reply-to: <>
References: <> <> <>
Comments: In-reply-to Kathleen Moriarty <> message dated "Wed, 09 Oct 2019 07:31:12 -0400."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 13:27:15 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Rats] Use case -> architecture document
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Remote Attestation Procedures <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 11:26:31 -0000

Kathleen Moriarty <> wrote:
    > As it stands, the use case document is not an architecture document,
    > but it could be shaped as such and I'd really like to see if we can do
    > that in short order to have a comparison prior to an adoption call.

As the primary author of the use case document, I can't see how the document
can be manipulated easily into an architecture document.  If I were to do so,
I'd wind up with a document that looks much like Henk's -02 document.

And I'm not sure I'm willing to do an architecture document "on my own"

Henk and I have had many discussions about these documents going back at
least 8 months.  What I am hearing is that some people prefer my lazy
Canadian use of imprecise language over Henk's precise, almost mathetical,
use of language.  Perhaps this is a case of "Only Nixon can go to China"...
  ( )
that is, only a native English speaker is allowed to be lazy and familiar
with language.  Any non-native speaker must be more precise.

Henk and I have agreed that I will help with the Architecture document.
We are in the process of setting up a time for a weekly work session.

So my ask is that we go to the end of IETF106 before we change direction.

]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]        |   ruby on rails    [