Re: [Rats] CoTS and CoRIM

[Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>]

On 14.12.23 16:05, hannes.tschofenig=[e-mail] wrote:
> Hi Yogesh,
> 
> Here this for guidance for these types of meetings:
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/interim-meetings-guidance/ <https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/interim-meetings-guidance/>
> 
> Under this definition, your meeting is private even if you announce it 
> in the public.

And these types of meetings are quite usual editors/contributors 
meetings - as we had, for example, with the RATS architecture starting 
with the formation of the RATS WG. I am pretty sure that is a-okay as 
these meetings are not virtual interim WG meetings (and also no smoky 
back-room activities, but well announced with every new scheduled event 
series). Similar meetings occur all the time all over the IETF, for 
example in LAMPS or SCITT.

> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> *From:*RATS <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Yogesh Deshpande
> *Sent:* Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2023 14:10
> *To:* [e-mail]; muhammad_usama.sardar 
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Rats] CoTS and CoRIM
> 
> Hi Hannes,
> 
> To your comment:
> 
> /A word about the process: Decisions about the directions the document 
> take should be made on the mailing list rather than in private meetings. 
> The chairs should be more strict about this. /
> 
> Please note: CoRIM Meetings are NOT private meetings.
> 
> We advertise the details of CoRIM Weekly Meeting periodically and 
> everyone following RATS are Welcome to join and participate in the 
> discussions.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Yogesh
> 
> *From:*[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 14, 2023 1:02 PM
> *To:* Yogesh Deshpande <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>; muhammad_usama.sardar 
> <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* RE: [Rats] CoTS and CoRIM
> 
> Thanks for the quick response, Yogesh.
> 
> Two points:
> 
>   * The reason why I believe that the trust anchor functionality should
>     be part of CoRIM is that it is a core feature rather than an
>     extension. I understand that there is some history about how these
>     documents came into existence but this should not prevent us from
>     doing the “right” thing.
> 
>   * Using trust anchors under the umbrella of endorsements makes sense
>     to me. This needs to be more clearly articulated in the documents
>     though.
> 
> A word about the process: Decisions about the directions the document 
> take should be made on the mailing list rather than in private meetings. 
> The chairs should be more strict about this.
> 
> Ciao
> 
> Hannes
> 
> *From:*RATS <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> *On 
> Behalf Of *Yogesh Deshpande
> *Sent:* Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2023 12:31
> *To:* muhammad_usama.sardar <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [Rats] CoTS and CoRIM
> 
> Hi Hannes,
> 
> To your question:
> 
> /I am wondering why the two documents <draft-ietf-rats-corim> and 
> <draft-ietf-rats-concise-ta-stores> aren’t merged./
> 
> //
> 
> The work on Cots started at different point in time (by different 
> authors) and hence the CoRIM base document does refer Cots but is not 
> fully integrated.
> 
> We will discuss the possibility and implications of such in our regular 
> CoRIM meetings.
> 
> Regarding Trust Anchors as per RATS document (RFC 9334) to the best of 
> my knowledge it comes under the heading of Endorsements.
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9334#name-endorsements 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9334#name-endorsements>
> 
> RATS treats Trust Anchors as a type of Endorsements.
> 
> Hope this information is helpful.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Yogesh
> 
> *From:*RATS <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> *On 
> Behalf Of *Muhammad Usama Sardar
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 14, 2023 8:21 AM
> *To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [Rats] CoTS and CoRIM
> 
> Hi Hannes,
> 
> On 13.12.23 21:24, hannes.tschofenig=[e-mail] 
> <mailto:hannes.tschofenig=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>     I am wondering why the two documents <draft-ietf-rats-corim> and
>     <draft-ietf-rats-concise-ta-stores> aren’t merged. Reading through
>     the RATS drafts I often get the impression that trust anchors have
>     somehow been forgotten and were added later, as an afterthought. The
>     RATS architecture RFC does not list trust anchors as an item in
>     Figure 1. In some other document trust anchors are then portrait as
>     belonging to reference values – somehow. That does not feel right to
>     me either.
> 
> I think it is completely wrong to consider trust anchors as Reference 
> Values. Can you name the document which presents this view?
> 
>     Ciao
> 
>     Hannes
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Usama
> 
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended 
> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the 
> contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy 
> the information in any medium. Thank you.
> 
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended 
> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the 
> contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy 
> the information in any medium. Thank you.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats