Re: [Rats] Reminder on RATS scope

["Smith, Ned" <[e-mail]>]

As chair

Does anyone on the list believe item 7 in the Program of Work as stated here: https://github.com/ietf-rats/charter/compare/2nd-RC2...2nd-RC3 should remain in the Program of Work? 

If it is removed, the expectation is that the semantics of 7 are easily inferred from item 5 in the Program of Work.

Thanks,
Ned

On 1/14/22, 11:26 AM, "Henk Birkholz" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Hi Ned,

    yes, there is an asymmetry between how "evidence and attestation 
    results" and "endorsements and reference values" are covered wrt scope. 
    I am not a big fan of that asymmetry and, if others feel the same way, 
    we could discuss that further.

    On the deliverable #7: I am happy to remove it, if at some point the WG 
    arrives at the conclusion that it is covered by #5 already.

    Viele Grüße,

    Henk

    On 14.01.22 19:55, Smith, Ned wrote:
    > (not as chair)
    > The Program of Work items are presumed to align with Goals, hence wording variance in Program of Goals that could be interpreted as extending or constraining Goals should not be assumed. That said, the wording in (5.) seems to be broader than the wording in Goals as it relates to standardization of protocols, namely: "Additionally, the WG will standardize formats for endorsements and reference values, and may apply and/or profile existing protocols (e.g. DTLS, CoAP, or MUD) to convey them to the verifier." uses words like 'apply' and 'profile' whereas (5.) uses 'standardize...protocols'. The dissonance is if the protocol is existing then there is no need to standardize it. But if no protocol already exists then 'apply' and 'profile' don't seem to authorize definition of a new protocol.
    > 
    > If the Goals section is the last word on scope, then fine there is no confusion. But possibly, the intent of the scope isn't fully appreciated based on (5.) in Program of Work?
    > 
    > I think I agree with Thomas that (7.) is a subset of (5.).
    > 
    > On 1/14/22, 9:47 AM, "RATS on behalf of Henk Birkholz" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
    > 
    >      Hi all,
    > 
    >      as promised I have reviewd the whole charter text in 2nd-RC2 and here
    >      are my proposed changes:
    > 
    >      > https://github.com/ietf-rats/charter/compare/2nd-RC2...2nd-RC3
    > 
    >      All but one of them are nits and details, I think.
    >      The essential change is an additional deliverable explicitly added to
    >      the program of work.
    > 
    >      NEW:
    >      > 7. Standardize interoperable data formats for freshness indicators to be used in conveyance protocols for evidence and attestation results.
    > 
    >      It might be that this is already covered by deliverable #5, but as we
    >      are also preparing the milestones next (and we are working on this), I
    >      chose to err on the side of caution. Please bash and comment on that NEW
    >      deliverable.
    > 
    >      Apropos milestones - there is now:
    > 
    >      > https://github.com/ietf-rats/charter/blob/2nd-RC3/ietf-rats-milestones.md
    > 
    >      This is just the existing milestones scraped from the datatracker and
    >      put into a markdown table in support of a discussion to update those
    >      with the help of the chairs here on the list.
    > 
    >      NEW:
    >      > | Date | Milestone | I-D
    >      > | --- | --- | ---
    >      > | Jul 2021 | Submit Architecture draft to IESG for publication | draft-ietf-rats-architecture
    >      > | Jul 2021 | Submit Interaction Models draft to IESG for publication | draft-ietf-rats-reference-interaction-models
    >      > | Mar 2021 | Submit RIV draft to IESG for publication | draft-ietf-rats-tpm-based-network-device-attest
    >      > | Mar 2021 | Submit EAT draft to IESG for publication | draft-ietf-rats-eat
    >      > | Dec 2020 | Submit TUDA draft to IESG for publication
    >      > | Dec 2020 | Submit YANG Module draft to IESG for publication | draft-ietf-rats-yang-tpm-charra
    >      > | Mar 2019 | Call for adoption on TUDA draft | draft-birkholz-rats-tuda
    > 
    > 
    >      Viele Grüße,
    > 
    >      Henk
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    >      On 13.01.22 00:25, Henk Birkholz wrote:
    >      > Hi Roman,
    >      > hi list,
    >      >
    >      > On 12.01.22 02:56, Roman Danyliw wrote:
    >      >> I can see the issue.  I think the WG should figure out what they want
    >      >> to do and explicitly say it.
    >      >
    >      > As we are doing this thoroughly, please speak up, if you think there are
    >      > work items or additions to work items missing that should be explicitly
    >      > spelled out - to make sure that we'll propose a charter text for a first
    >      > consensus check that accurately reflects what everybody wants to do and
    >      > also actually can do in this next phase.
    >      >
    >      > It is a tad bit late on my side to really go through the entire text
    >      > today in a productive way. But I'll check for that tomorrow.
    >      >
    >      > I also agree that we then also have to update or define corresponding
    >      > milestones, accordingly.
    >      >
    >      > Viele Grüße,
    >      >
    >      > Henk
    >      >
    >      > _______________________________________________
    >      > RATS mailing list
    >      > [e-mail]
    >      > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
    > 
    >      _______________________________________________
    >      RATS mailing list
    >      [e-mail]
    >      https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
    >