Re: [Rats] John Scudder's No Objection on charter-ietf-rats-01-00: (with COMMENT)

["Smith, Ned" <[e-mail]>]

Yes. Your wording captures the intent.

On 5/4/22, 3:27 PM, "RATS on behalf of John Scudder" <[e-mail] on behalf of jgs=[e-mail]> wrote:

    Hi Ned,

    I don’t think “use” is central to my mild discomfort with the sentence. I’m imagining that what you mean is something like this?

    5. If feasible, use or extend existing protocols to securely convey evidence and attestation results, or if not, then standardize interoperable protocols for this purpose.

    The point being, that if I understand you right your preference is for using existing protocols over coming up with new ones (a goal I applaud).

    $0.02.

    —John

    > On May 4, 2022, at 5:17 PM, Smith, Ned <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > 
    > 
    > Is "leverage" or "extend" better than "use"?
    > -Ned
    > 
    > On 5/4/22, 1:49 PM, "John Scudder via Datatracker" <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > 
    >    John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
    >    charter-ietf-rats-01-00: No Objection
    > 
    >    When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
    >    email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
    >    introductory paragraph, however.)
    > 
    > 
    > 
    >    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    >    https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-rats/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!D7KI1DbmTVgmbn34aUu3l92cF9ckLcsuQG7yr2lOHYorPcuY-OtPk_iKFoUuu9Ly5-nReyB5F_ZNeDs$
    > 
    > 
    > 
    >    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >    COMMENT:
    >    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > 
    >    I’m a little confused by:
    > 
    >    5. Standardize interoperable protocols to securely convey evidence and
    >    attestation results with a strong preference to use existing protocols.
    > 
    >    The intent seems right, but if you “use existing protocols” doesn’t that mean
    >    you aren’t “standardizing… protocols” (because they’ve already been
    >    standardized)?
    > 
    >    Nit, looks like a CRLF got lost before the second asterisk here:
    > 
    >    * operational state and measurements of steps which led to the operational
    >    state, or * other factors that could influence trust decisions.
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 

    _______________________________________________
    RATS mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats