Re: [Rats] draft-ietf-rats-endorsements-00

[Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Hannes,

I think you are correct that draft-ietf-rats-endorsements is an addition 
to RFC 9334 (as is, for example, draft-ietf-rats-daa) and it is 
definitely not ready for submission today. draft-ietf-rats-endorsements' 
content was not in the scope of the initial RATS charter, which is why 
that content is not in RFC 9334 (also, for example, CoRIM has evolved 
quite a lot since then).

The goal of draft-ietf-rats-endorsements is to provide more 
architectural context for how appraisal procedures of Verifiers work in 
principle, and in consequence it provides the architectural bridge-head 
to I-Ds, such as CoRIM - a CBOR encoded document format to explain 
Attesters to Verifiers that can convey the conceptual messages Reference 
Values and Endorsements.

There are pros and cons to a -bis as the scope of a -bis can grow over 
time. Maybe we should work a little bit more on the actual content for a 
while before deciding where content goes?


Viele Grüße,

Henk

On 13.12.23 21:26, hannes.tschofenig=[e-mail] wrote:
> I read the RATS endorsement draft and was wondering whether the document 
> shouldn’t have become a section in the architecture document. I am 
> unclear about the direction it will take. Currently, it reads a bit like 
> a transcript of a hallway conversation.
> 
> Wouldn’t it be better to create a -bis of the architecture document and 
> to include the content of this document?
> 
> Ciao
> 
> Hannes
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats