[Rats] Re: RATS Session agenda planning - need WG input

[Ned Smith IETF <[e-mail]>]

We are oversubscribed. Anything that doesn't fit will go to a virtual interim.

But we still have to decide somewhat arbitrarily which talks to push out.

Ned

________________________________
From: Mike Ounsworth <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, 06 July 2026 18:36:47
To: Muhammad Usama Sardar <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ned Smith IETF <[e-mail]>; rats <[e-mail]>; rats-chairs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Rats] Re: RATS Session agenda planning - need WG input

Hi Ned,

Sounds like we'll need an Interim to continue discussion on documents that don't fit during the 2 hours at 126.

About my new document:
> The RATS Privacy Framework talk is also planned for SAAG, so possibly we don’t duplicate it in RATS.

1) I did send an email to the SecADs requesting a slot for SAAG, but I don't think I've heard a reply, and SAAG has not published an agenda yet [1], so where are you seeing that this is planned for SAAG? What am I missing?

2) SAAG doesn't have the power to adopt documents into RATS. Then, should I take your comment to mean that you feel so positively about this document that we can go straight to an on-list Call-for-Adoption without a presentation and discussion? 🥰 (I suspect that's not what you intend)

Basically, the point of this draft is that the RATS WG has thus far basically completely ignored the 2023 IAB Statement on the Risks of Attestation of Software and Hardware on the Open Internet [2], and we should really do something to address that. If the RATS WG won't even give speaking time to this draft, then that's further solidifying the point that this IAB statement is being ignored.


[1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/126/session/saag
[2]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iab-statement-on-the-risks-of-attestation-of-software-and-hardware-on-the-open-internet/

On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 at 12:17, Muhammad Usama Sardar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Dear Ned, hi all,

To be clear, I was planning to ask for adoption.

On 30.06.26 18:14, Ned Smith IETF wrote:
Things to note:

  *
The RATS Privacy Framework talk is also planned for SAAG, so possibly we don’t duplicate it in RATS.
  *
Guidelines for security considerations would put us 5 minutes over.

I can make it 5+5. My rationale for the document is very simple: For example, the authors spend quite some time on the security considerations but high-severity vulnerabilities still remain. This draft could do some common work for them, and they could simply just import Sec. X.Y.Z from draft-sardar-rats-sec-cons.

Best regards,

-Usama

_______________________________________________
RATS mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>