Re: [Rats] Virtual Interim call for agenda

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. <https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/eat/issues> 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 <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. 

LL

> On Sep 28, 2019, at 12:35 PM, Smith, Ned <ned.smith@intel.com> 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/ <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/ <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/ <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
> RATS@ietf.org <mailto:RATS@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats>