Re: [Rats] Call for charter consensus

[Laurence Lundblade <[e-mail]>]

> On Jan 19, 2019, at 4:29 AM, Carl Wallace <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> [CW] Depending on where you are drawing the "decision" line, I don't
> disagree with any of this. However, as a relying party of several
> currently available attestation types, I can say that all I have
> encountered are broken in one or more ways related to verification,
> including: misapplication of security specifications, poor definition of
> trust establishment practices, misuse of structures relevant to trust
> establishment, misencoding of structures relevant for assessment of
> attestation contents, unstable structure definitions, "interesting" use of
> extensibility mechanisms. Each complicates interoperability and code reuse
> without even considering that each is different. Most of these issues are
> at the intersection of proprietary attestation structures and standard
> security layers, i.e., the procedures that appear to be missing in the
> charter goals.

Nice list! :-)

I suspect it is going to take a long while to get to the level of interop you have in mind, but I think it is a good goal. I hope you can stay involved and continue to point out things from this perspective.

I also think we’ll end up keeping comparison to KGV in mind for lots of claim definition work even though it is out of scope. 

LL