Re: [Rats] draft-dthaler-rats-endorsements: request for WG adoption?

Actual state works for me. Thanks.

From: "Smith, Ned" <ned.smith@intel.com>
Date: Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 8:20 PM
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com>, "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Rats] draft-dthaler-rats-endorsements: request for WG adoption?

“actual state” seem close to or appropriate for appraised evidence and endorsements. I excluded “evidence” because it is an asserted state that may not be actual until it is appraised. 

“desired state” seems close or appropriate for reference values. 

From: RATS <rats-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Dave Thaler <dthaler=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Date: Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 1:38 PM
To: Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com>, "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Rats] draft-dthaler-rats-endorsements: request for WG adoption?

Thanks Carl.

For point 1, would “actual state” be ok?   For example discussions like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_loop 
https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/workloads/controllers/deployment/
Academic papers like https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5976793
Etc.
All use “desired” vs “actual” (as opposed to “current”).

Dave

From: Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com> 
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 3:03 AM
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>; rats@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Rats] draft-dthaler-rats-endorsements: request for WG adoption?

An informational draft on endorsements seems like a good addition, so I support adoption. Two nits:

I’d prefer “observed state” to “current state” in most places throughout. This would be more consistent with the first sentence in the second paragraph of section 2.
In the next to last paragraph of section 2.1, I’d change “sign Evidence” to “verify Evidence” where discussing trust anchors.

From: RATS <rats-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Dave Thaler <dthaler=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 11:03 PM
To: "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
Subject: [Rats] draft-dthaler-rats-endorsements: request for WG adoption?

draft-dthaler-rats-endorsements-01 is now posted which makes the updates I mentioned
at IETF 116.  Notably it does not mention EAT or CORIM and only discusses endorsements
in general, like my presentation to the WG did, thanks to feedback from Ned and others.

>From IETF 116 minutes:
Dave to make an update, and then will ask for WG adoption.

Now that I have made the update, I would like to ask the WG for adoption.
It is quite short (6 pages).

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dthaler-rats-endorsements/

Dave

_______________________________________________ RATS mailing list RATS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats 