Re: [Rats] Virtual Interim call for agenda

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

Sent from my mobile device

> On Oct 1, 2019, at 9:39 AM, Laurence Lundblade <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ned,
> 
> Here’s two more topics that seem important:
> 
> EAT Draft Issues including additional claims
> There are a bunch of open issues against the EAT draft. I will do some clean up of them and be prepared to give an update on them.
> 
> The GitHub issues list is where I would like to track proposals for additional claims. I definitely think we need more than we have now, particularly around SW and measurement.
> 
> Info / Data Model
> We still have the info / data model issue open in relation to https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-birkholz-rats-information-model-00. I’d like to simply propose that the info / data model for claims be in the EAT draft and that the info / data model for the conveyance protocol be in Henk’s document. 
> 
> 
> I believe the status on vendor claims is that we are OK with inheriting from CWT and JWT except one person, I can’t remember who, wanted to enhance CWT with a Collision-Resistant Name space like JWT has. I don’t think there is much to discuss until we have a written proposal for this and it has been initially vetted with the CWT folks. There is most certainly a means to support vendor claims today that works reasonably well. 

This may have been Russ Housley and if so, we should discuss it further if he has a proposal or someone else submits one.

With no hats:
For the RATS architecture draft, my review wasn’t mentioned in Henk’s update.  Were my comments considered? I’m not going to review it unless they were as I spent a fair amount of time trying to help make the document more readable already. 

Thank you,
Kathleen 
> 
> LL
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sep 28, 2019, at 12:35 PM, Smith, Ned <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello all!
>> I’m putting together the agenda for the RATS virtual interim scheduled for Tuesday, Oct 8th 2019 @ 14:30 UTC (7:30 PDT).
>> Draft agenda so far:
>> -          Milestones update (RATS chairs)
>> -       Architecture draft - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-birkholz-rats-architecture/ - (Henk Birkholtz)
>> -          Interaction model draft - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-birkholz-rats-reference-interaction-model/ - (Henk Birkholtz)
>> -       Yang module draft - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-birkholz-rats-basic-yang-module/ - (Henk Birkholtz)
>>  
>> Also, should there be more discussion around which claims RATS WG is going to define?
>> Are there missing claims?
>> Is there growing consensus that the claims we currently define are sufficiently understood and relevant?
>> How will RATS support vendor defined claims?
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> RATS mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats