►
From YouTube: IETF108 SACM 20200727 1100
Description
SACM session at IETF108
2020/07/27 1100
B
Oh
really,
but
you
can
see
the
slides
and
you
can
hear
me
right
so.
B
A
C
A
B
Yeah,
that's
true,
oh
wait.
Let's
see,
let's
see
our
chat,
hi
kathleen,
all
right,
we'll
give
it
just
another
minute
or
so
to
get
everything
settled
out.
I'm
also
going
to
switch.
B
B
A
I
I
told
roman,
we
would
give
him
another
moment,
as
he
reboots
his
machine,
to
try
to
make
audio
work.
Okay,
well,
oh,
and
he
says
no
get
started.
B
Oh
darn,
I
was
gonna,
say
good
I'll
go
get
my
cup
of
coffee
that
I
didn't
manage
all
right.
Let's
go
ahead
and
get
started
then
welcome
to
the
sacrum
working
group
online,
itf
108.,
I'm
assuming
you
all,
have
had
a
chance
to
participate
in
the
the
numerous
training
sessions
for
this.
As
couple
things,
I
want
to
remind
people
of
first
of
all.
If
you
want
to.
B
Speak
or
show
your
video
you'll
need
to
select
it,
and
we
will
need
to
allow
it,
except
for
the
first
button
and
then
also
there
is
a
chat
window.
This
is
the
same
as
the
jabber
if
you're,
if
you're
looking
at
a
separate,
jabber
client,
this
is
the
jabber
that
you
would
see
here
other
than
that
it's
a
conferencing
tool
like
a
lot
of
other
conferencing
tools,
highly
tailored
to
the
ietf
way
of
doing
business.
B
B
B
First
of
all,
I'd
like
to
cover
the
note.
Well,
this
is
the
ietf
notewell,
please,
if
you
have
any
questions,
feel
free
to
reach
out
to
chris
orei
or
to
roman
r-a-d
and
by
participating
in
this
meeting
by
signing
up
by
logging
in
you
have
agreed
to
abide
by
all
of
the
rules
that
are
specified
in
the
network,
including
all
of
the
intellectual
property
rules,
also
harassment,
policy,
code
of
conduct
etc.
B
Our
agenda
for
this
morning
we'll
get
to
starting
with
the
welcome
notewell
administrivia,
so
we're
at
that
part
of
the
agenda
now
and
as
we're
getting
started.
We
don't
jabra.
Scribe
has
a
slightly
different
meaning
in
this
context,
but
I
would
appreciate
if
somebody
could
volunteer
to
keep
an
eye
out.
I
imagine
that
folks
it'll
be
a
little
bit
different
to
watch
the
queue
which
is
in
one
window
and
the
jabber
channel,
which
is
in
a
different
window.
B
B
If,
if
a
couple
of
the
more
experienced
people,
if
there's,
if
you
have
a
question-
and
you
don't
wish
to
request
audio
to
ask
the
question-
you
can
type
it
in
there,
but
if
you
could
preface
it
with
mike
so
that
somebody
else
can
can
read
out
the
question
that
would
be
really
helpful
and
if
a
couple
of
the
experienced
working
group
members
could
please
try
and
pay
attention
to
that.
That
would
be
great
the
rest
of
the
agenda.
B
Nope
excellent,
so
the
first
agenda
item
is
document
status
and
chris
and
I
were
working
on
this
over
the
weekend
and
I
think
very
late.
Last
night
I
submitted,
and
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
check.
Did
you
get
close
with
him.
A
Coast,
wood
is
also
submitted
with
one
caveat,
so
if
the
coast
would
authors,
I
had
some
comments
before.
If
you
could
send
an
ipr
declaration
to
the
list,
I
will
amend
my
shepherding
document
to
say
that
all
the
authors
have
submitted
an
ipr
declaration.
A
A
D
Because
you
are
now
a
mickey
mouse
voice
with
me,
this
is
always
happening
when
I
switch
to
audio,
which
is
kind
of
funny.
So
don't
expect
me
to
understand
replies
easily
speak
slowly.
Please.
We
still
have,
I
think,
super
tiny
edits
found
in
the
I
don't
know.
Previous
months
I
was
asking
responsible
parties
beforehand.
If
this
is
something
we
can
still
squeeze
in,
there
was
no
reply.
It's
it's
very,
very
small.
It's
one
type
where
I
think
an
r
is
missing
and
one
or
two
small
additions
to
cdl.
D
So
how
is
this
resolved
formally?
And
I
think
I
have
to
stop
my
audio
to
hear
your
answer.
A
There's
also
some
nits
actually
so
some
of
the
references
have
updated
so
I
mean
I
ran
it
mitts
on
it
last
night,
so
there
are
some
reference
updates
that
need
to
happen
in
the
document
too.
B
Go
ahead
karen,
I
shall
say
what
I
discussed
with
the
epcp
authors
on
friday
was
that
for
because
they
have
a
couple
document
nets
as
well
ref,
you
know
updated
and
obsoleted
references,
and
things
like
that.
B
B
D
Excellent
so
yeah
that
does
make
sense,
but
I
think
the
write
up
was
last
meeting
initiated,
so
I
was
not
sure
how
that
fared.
So
we
are
not
there
yet.
I
assume
so.
I
see
okay.
C
D
We
will
yeah
just
add
these
small
and
it's
in
the
review
process
then,
and
that
seems
kind
of
big
thanks
roman's
in.
D
C
This
is
going
to
work,
my
apologies
for
the
delay.
Yeah,
I
mean
if
we
need
to
make
minor
updates,
despite
the
fact
that
I
see
you
know
where
I
guess
what
waiting
for
write
up-
and
I
see
the
ec
epcp
document
is-
is
already
submitted
to
me
for
review.
I
mean
by
all
means
just
kind
of
make
the
make
the
updates.
That's
fine.
B
Okay
and
that
did
work
roman
thanks,
jess,
I
saw
you
in
the
queue
and
then
you
popped
back
out.
Did
you
want
to
say
something
or
use
you.
E
About
the
inspiration,
I
suspect
I
was
the
person
chris
was
talking
about
chris.
I
can't
get
any
of
my
normal
emails
these
days
under
our
new
telework
regime,
so
I
will
send
you
the
right
email.
A
B
C
B
Okay,
so
fingers
crossed
these
documents
are
moving
forward.
D
Am
I
audible?
Sorry?
Yes,
okay!
As
long
as
the
ipr
questions
is
not
a
yes,
no
answer,
but
we
can
answer
our
own
phrasing,
I'm
fine
with
an
open
answer
which
I
have,
I
think
never
done.
D
If
I
do
them
openly,
not
with
the
do,
you
agree
with
my
phrasing
here.
Yes,
no,
but
I
want
like
my
audios
my
own
on
phrasing.
If
that
is
okay,.
A
B
Yeah,
let's
see
what
your
phrasing
is
so
the
next,
so
is
there
anything
else
on
these
two
documents
nope.
The
next
document
I
have
on
the
agenda
is
the
roley
configuration
checklist
extension
and
we
did
not
receive
any
slides
to
talk
about
this
and
I
don't
see
the
person
who
I
believe
updated
it.
So
do
any
of
the
authors
want
to
speak
to
this
bill.
Absolutely
I
would
please
to
let
you
send
audio
go
ahead.
A
A
That's
giving
him
permission
tonight,
he
says.
Is
that
permission
tonight
on
your
side,
you
want
me.
B
A
B
B
B
F
Yeah,
it
works
all
right.
Actually,
I
can't
speak
in
any
detail
about
it.
I
do
know
that
steven
banhart
kind
of
took
the
pan
on
it
and
he's
the
one
who
made
the
update,
but
I
haven't
actually
looked
at
it
myself,
so
I
don't
know
exactly
the
details
of
that
update.
I
do
know
that
he
was
interested
in
seeing
it
obviously
seeing
it
updated,
so
that
would
be
good
make
some
progress
on
that.
I
believe
that
they've
made
some
progress
on
rolly,
otherwise
so
yeah,
that's
all.
F
B
Yeah,
no,
it's
not
a
working
group
draft,
so
I
guess
that's
something
we
could
do
pretty.
I
mean
we've
been
we've.
B
It
dates
back
a
couple
years.
It's
just
it's
been
put
aside
for
quite
a
while.
Is
there
anybody
else
that
wants
to
speak
to
this
document.
G
Yeah
sorry,
new
conferencing,
technology
yeah,
so
basically
we're
looking
for
a
way
of
how
we
can
define
and
discover
like
security,
checklists
and
benchmarks,
and
so
we
started
to
describe
specifically
maybe
aspects
of
those
checklists
and
benchmarks
so
like,
for
example,
you
might
create
a
security
configuration
guide
on
the
database
server.
So
you
know
you
need
to
categorize
that
and
who's
gonna.
G
You
know
who's
in
who's,
the
author
of
it
or
who's,
the
authoritative
source
and
just
kind
of
it
describes
all
that
so
that
you
should
be
able
to
automatically
discover
benchmarks
and
checklists
that
say:
nist
might
do
or
cis
or
red
hat
or
microsoft,
or
you
know,
whoever
might
do
it,
whoever
might
be
creating
these
checklists
and
benchmarks.
B
G
B
B
We
have
discussed
this,
so
it's
not
a
it's,
not
a
surprise.
The
submission
is
not
a
surprise.
Even
though
it's
not
a
working
group
document,
that's
correct
right.
Chris
right,
okay,
hank,
I'm
gonna.
B
Let
you
in
do
you
have
something
you
want
to
say.
B
B
B
Create
a
working
group
last,
a
working,
a
working
group
call
for
participation
for
that,
so
you're
back
in
the
queue
paying
for
your
back
speaking.
D
Yeah,
yes,
it's
which
devices,
so
this
is
better
you're,
not
making
more
of
what
I'm
talking.
That's
way
better.
I
support
adoption
and
that's
actually
it.
We
really
needed
this
document
adopted,
and
I
think
this
question
should
be
on
the
list
like
asap
and
it
has
full
support,
at
least
for
me,
that's
it.
A
B
Okay,
so
that
we
will
do
the,
I
think
I
don't
think,
there's
any
I'm
not
hearing
any
disagreement
on
that.
So
we
will
go
off
and
do
that
the
chatty
bunch
this
morning,
but
you
are
sending
audio
adam.
You
can
stop
if
you
wish
and
you
apparently
have
stopped.
Okay.
B
Okay,
if
you
are,
if
you
are
sending
anything,
audio,
video
or
your
screen-
and
you
wish
to
stop,
all
you
need
to
do-
is
hit
the
button
at
the
top
and
it's
a
light,
blue
and
then
it'll
go
back
to
gray
and
then
you'll
know
you're
not
sending
anymore.
B
It
takes
a
tiny
bit
of
getting
used
to,
but
it
really
makes
a
lot
of
sense
once
you
use
it
a
little
bit
all
right.
So
next
on
the
list
is
zach
architecture
bill.
Have
you
got
your
audio
up
or
you
bill
or
well?
Let
me
switch
slides.
Let
me
do
that
first,
so
speaking
of
hitting
the.
B
B
Okay,
bill
or
adam:
let's
see
I'm
guessing
that
that
little
red
exclamation
point
is
bill.
Telling
me
no,
yes
ira,
we
already
did
the
coast
with
it's.
It's
gone
to.
The
isg
is
basically
the
bottom
line.
B
F
See
you
and
see
me,
I
thought
you
know
if
I'm
gonna
present,
you
guys
might
as
well
see
my
ugly
mug
cool.
So
this
isn't
actually
my
draft.
Well,
it's
my
draft,
but
it's
not
my
presentation.
So
I'm
just
gonna
roll
through
bill's
presentation.
F
Can
you
switch
together?
You
know
perfect,
so
we
did
make
some
updates.
I
think,
like
back
in
may
or
something
like
that.
We
added
some
management
playing
functions.
A
couple
of
orchestrator
to
component
administrative
interfaces
and
some
taxonomy
updates
for
the
management
plane
function.
Updates
we
added
436,
it's
coordination
of
periodic
evaluation.
F
It's
still
to
be
worked
out
and
I'm
kind
of
reading
notes
from
bill's
slide
still
to
be
worked
out
but
similar
to
coordination
of
periodic
collection.
So
we
distinguish
between
collection
and
evaluation.
F
This
function
allows
for
a
recurring
evaluation
of
policy
based
on
collected
posture
attributes,
as
well
as
the
modification
of
that
evaluation
schedule
through
cancellation
and
rescheduling.
We
added
437,
also
in
management
plane.
Coordination
of
change
based
evaluation
also
still
to
be
worked
out,
but
again
similar
to
change
based
collection.
F
The
function
allows
for
triggering
of
evaluation
functions
based
on
changes
to
specified
posture
attributes
that
are
persisted
into
a
repository
for
the
administrative
plane
functions.
We
added
placeholders
for
directed
evaluation
and
heartbeat
fleshed
out
more
details
for
component
onboarding
for
both
the
orchestrator
and
non-orchestration
roles
and
added
a
capability
advertisement
handshake.
F
A
D
Yes,
I
have
to
reauthorize
my
audio
all
the
time,
although
I
tell
my
browser,
this
is
legit.
Sorry,
it's
a
there's,
a
click
on
it.
Periodic
collection
of
claims,
there's
another
working
group
not
doing
this
a
little
bit
but
on
a
different
basis,
that's
rats,
and
so
I
learned
a
ton
in
the
last
year
and
it
is
a
little
bit
off
the
out
of
the
question
that
I
join
in
right.
C
D
But
to
the
end
of
the
year,
I
think
I
should
I
say
this
all
over
again,
so
that
sounds
like
a
groundhog
day
here,
but
I
think
I
will
be
able
to
join
in
this
specific
field
of
claims,
collection
or
assertions,
collection
on
target
endpoints
for
compliance
checking
again,
and
I
can
bring
in
all
the
lessons
learned
of
the
year
last
year.
I
assume-
and
there
are
a
lot
of
people
that
really
really
want
this
happening
so
because
inactivity
does
not
mean
disinterest.
It
is
just
just
been
overload.
Yeah.
B
Okay,
any
other
comments
on
this
okay.
Well,
then,
I
think
this
has
perfectly
teed
up
the
next
present.
The
next
presentation.
B
Maybe
so
the
next
item
on
the
agenda
was
next
steps
so-
and
this
is
also.
F
So
you
know,
as
as
we
just
talked
about
the
architecture,
draft
that
didn't
get
very
much
feedback
like
zero
feedback
and
previous
drafts
that
were
published
had
little
to
no
commentary
as
well,
and
we
look
at
you
know:
we've
had
aspirations
to
have
an
information
model
kind
of
revisited,
some
hackathons
working,
and
we
have
done
some
hackathons.
There's
been
some
good
work
there,
but
generally
the
formerly
engaged
are,
are
elsewhere
engaged.
F
So
we
have
to
ask
at
this
point:
what
is
it
we're
doing
here
right?
I
put
the
bombs
up
there.
Hopefully
people
know
who
the
bombs
are
but
yeah.
You
know
like
I,
I
kind
of
feel
like.
F
I
I
feel
kind
of
exhausted
about
it
to
be
honest
with
you
guys,
and
I
know,
there's
a
lot
of
people
in
the
chat
and
everything
but
yeah
I
mean
we're
working
on
a
draft
that
doesn't
seem
to
have
very
much
backing
aside
from
the
two
people
who
work
on
it.
We
do
take.
You
know
to
be
fair.
F
We
do
kind
of
bridge
two
worlds,
so
we're
we're
here
in
in
this
venue
we're
also
in
the
s-cap
2.0
venue
and
we're
trying
to
make
you
know
those
two,
those
two
worlds
you
know
meet
essentially,
but
that's
difficult
right,
so
I
mean
is
there?
Is
it
worth
continuing
here?
Is
it,
and
maybe
these
are
hard
questions
to
answer?
Maybe
they're
not
but
yeah.
Is
it
worth
continuing
here?
We
don't
have
very
much
other
activity,
so
you
know,
let's
discuss.
B
A
Kathleen
commented
in
the
chat
that
she's
been
overloaded
like
many
during
during
this
whole
pandemic.
I
know
I
feel
that,
but
I
mean
karen-
and
I
have
talked
about
this,
but
I'd
like
to
hear
from
the
you
know
more
from
the
group.
F
I
would
also
comment
that
even
before
kobe
like
so
even
you
know
late
last
year
last
year
I
mean
they're,
I
don't
feel
like
there's
a
ton
of
engagement
on
it.
C
B
Up-
and
I
mean
chris
chris
mentioned
that
he
and
I
have
discussed
this.
B
I
I
I
feel
like
if,
if
people
aren't
willing
to
step
forward,
then
then
we're
sort
of
sorry
I'm
reading.
At
the
same
time
that
I'm
talking,
I
think
we
need
to
show
some
some
motivation
to
get
this
done.
I
think
adam
and
bill
have
been
working
on
this
architecture
drive
for
a
while
without
a
lot
of
engagement,
and
we,
as
a
working
group,
said
we
were
interested
in
it
and
it's
not
a
huge
piece
of
work,
but
we're
not
even
commenting
on
it
so
so
dave.
B
We
haven't
actually
suggested
the
two
options
that
chris
and
I
discussed
were
to
close
the
working
group
or
to
pause
the
working
group
for
like
a
year
and
see
what
what
implementation
work
is
done
and
what
progress
can
be
made
before
re-re-engaging
with
it,
and
so
part
of
what
we
wanted
to
know
is
what
the
working
group
actually
thought.
I
mean
in
this
particular
scenario,
I'm
really
just
trying
to
read.
I
don't
have
a.
B
I
don't
have
a
ball
in
this
game.
I
guess
so
kathleen
you
ask.
Will
anyone
else
review
it?
Well,
that
would
be
a
question
we
could
even
try
at
home,
but
I
don't
know
you
know
who's
willing
to
review
the
working.
The
draft.
B
Again,
we
would.
We
would
need
to
also
take
this
to
the
mailing
list,
but
I
mean
there's
33
people
on
this
and
we
have
like
three
people
speaking.
F
Right
and
you
know
just
to
point
out
so
and
I
appreciate
everybody
who's
willing
to
review
any
of
these
drafts
right
like
we'll,
keep
working
on
it
if
people
are
interested
in
it,
you
know
I
feel
like
we've
been
here
before,
but
I'm
not
sure
so
you
know
we'll
keep
work
on
it.
F
So
it's
just
it's
a
difficult
balance
to
make
right
and
then,
with
all
the
work,
that's
going
on
in
other
venues
and
we're
trying
to
bridge
that
so
we're
kind
of
working
in
two
areas
at
once,
so
it
and
that
seek
largely
to
do
the
same
things
right
so
we're
just
trying
to
figure
out
what,
where,
where
do
we
spend
our
our
limited
time.
B
Just
I'm
going
to
answer
a
couple
questions
from
the
cue
verbally
and
then
jess
I've.
I've
enabled
your
audio
in
just
a
second,
but
regarding
existing
drafts,
our
our
thought
was.
We
would
finish
the
the
two
that
have
just
gone
to
the
iesg
and
we,
the
question
is
the
roly
document.
Is
that
a
pretty
straightforward
one
to
get
through?
B
That
was
part
of
the
rationale
for
pausing
the
working
group
versus
closing
it
so
that
we
could
wrap
up
the
roley
work
and
then,
secondly,
while
folks
are,
I
think
this
is
also
a
working
group
that
requires
deadlines
and,
for
example,
chris
and
I
didn't
schedule
a
couple
virtual
interims,
that
we
were
supposed
to
schedule
and
I
think
that
you
know
for
better
for
worse.
This
is
definitely
a
deadline
driven
group.
So
jess
did
you
want
to
go.
E
Yeah
I
had,
I
don't
know
if
this
is
a
question
for
adam
or
for
the
chairs.
I
was
wondering
about
the
if
any
other
work
groups
in
ietf
are
relying
on
this
document.
Adam
had
mentioned
that
you
know,
there's
you
know
work
simultaneously
occurring
in
the
s-cap
community.
E
I
think
there
are
several
of
us
in
this
work
group
that
would
focus
our
energies
there
unless
there
is
a
pressing
need
for
ietf
to
have
this
architecture,
so
I
don't
know
who
wants
to
answer
that
one,
but
is.
Is
there
anyone
counting
on
us
to
get
this
done
outside
of
saccum.
F
I'll
take
the
pause
as
somebody's
expecting
me
to
talk.
I
guess
so
yeah.
You
know
to
be
honest.
Yes,
I
I
don't
know
like
I
don't
know
who
might
be
relying
on
this
architecture
draft,
except
for
us-
and
I
know
hank
just
mentioned
some
overlap
or
or
synergy
with
rats.
But
again
I
don't
know
if
they're,
relying
specifically
on
this
draft
existing
your
question
goes
back
to.
I
think
roman
asked
a
question,
maybe
one
or
two
retfs
ago
two
iatfs
ago.
F
I
think
about
what
work
is
this
actually
enabling
this
architecture
draft
like?
Is
there?
Are
there
other
things
relying
on
this,
and
I
don't
think
we
had
a
good
answer
at
that
point
either
yeah.
So
I
thought
chris.
If
you
wanted
to
jump
in
and
say
what
you
were
going
to
say.
A
Yeah,
no,
I
was
effectively
you
you
mostly
covered
it,
which
is
we
we
don't
know
and-
and
you
know
I
think
that
might
provide
some
motivation
for
us.
I
mean
adam,
you
know
we
we've
we've
tried
to
do
some
stuff
outside
of
you,
know,
kind
of
formal
working
group
meetings
and
just
as
you
said
right
it's
you
know
you
guys
get
busy,
we
get
busy
everybody.
You
know
it's
easy
to
have
that
excuse.
A
A
A
Is
there
I
mean
you
know
what
what
will
drive
progress
and,
and
you
know
the
question
for
me-
becomes
somewhat:
what
do
we
need
to
do
to
make
those
things
happen,
because
it's
not
clear
that
these
debt,
the
milestones,
certainly
aren't
it,
you
know
so
so
what
is
it
or
do
we
do
we
say
we're
not
going
to
do
it.
B
Well,
I
think,
and
I'll
get
to
you
kathleen
in
just
a
second,
but
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
we
also
probably
should
acknowledge
is
we
were
making
pretty
steady
progress
when
we
had
physical
meetings
and
we
had
the
hackathons
the
weekend
before,
and
you
know
we're
now
in
our
second
meeting
without
any
of
that,
and
that
really
seems
to
have
sort
of
taken
the
wind
out
of
the
sales
of
getting
this
done,
because
I
think
you
all
were
progressing
the
architecture
based
in
some
part
on
what
was
being
accomplished
in
the
hackathons.
B
So
anyhow
go
ahead.
Kathleen.
H
I'm
wondering
so.
You
hit
a
really
good
point
on
who
plans
to
use
this,
and
then
the
other
piece
is
the
work
of
rats.
I
think
will
eventually
take
the
place
of
this,
but
it's
going
to
take
a
long
time
for
rats
to
evolve
to
a
place
where
you
can
do
posture
assessment
and
have
it
fully
automated
and
assess
right.
I
think
it'll
be
a
simpler
mechanism
to
accomplish
that
task.
H
So
this
is
a
gap,
fill
right
between
this
more
complex
method
that
involves
lots
of
different
interfaces
to
one
that
is
hopefully
with
a
more
common
interface,
depending
on
what
industry
does
to
itself
on
this,
so
wrapping
this
up
sooner
rather
than
later
makes
sense.
If,
if
that's
the
goal
right
that
this
is
a
gap,
stop
for
you
know
and
a
gap
stop
and
in
these
kind
of
terms
could
be
a
decade
right.
Sometimes
it
takes
that
long
to
get
technologies
rolled
out
and
to
replace
others.
H
So
I'm
curious
on
that.
You
know,
in
terms
of
who
plans
to
use.
H
Yes,
yes,
yes,
and
you
also
see
that
there's
a
gap
stop
between
now
and
rats,
or
maybe
some
people
don't
see
that
as
a
gap
stop,
and
that
would
be
important
to
understand
like
if
they
see
this
as
separate-
and
you
know
for
some
reason,
with
their
architectures
and
what
they
see.
Perhaps
they
don't
see
that
change
happening
in
time,
which
would
be
good
to
understand.
F
Right
so
speak
inside
so
two
things
that
are
related,
I
think
so
I
I
can
speak
more
or
less
for
cis.
My
employer
writes
center
for
internet
security
and
our
intent
is
to
implement
these
things
and
we're
already
starting
to
do
that
to
some
degree
and
what
my
hope
is
to
do
is
to
start
influencing
some
of
the
vendor
members
that
we
have
and
we've
got
like,
87
or
so
different
vendors
at
this
point,
at
least
50
of
whom
are
likely
interested
in
something
like
this.
F
F
But
the
second
part
of
my
statement
is,
you
know
so
cis.
Yes,
we
want
to
implement
something
like
this
kind
of
as
a
proof
of
concept
right,
so
that
we
can
demonstrate
that
an
ecosystem
like
this
really
can't
work
right
and
then
the
second
part,
I
think
I'll
I'll
talk
about
a
little
bit,
but
then
defer
to
others
who
are
on.
This
call
is
about
the
ascap
2.0.
C
F
Which
kind
of
seeks
to
do
pretty
much
the
same
thing
right
like
at
one
point
and
it
was
kind
of
a
joke
a
little
bit.
I
think,
but
at
one
point
one
of
the
participants
in
that
group
basically
said
okay,
so
the
s-cap
2.0
architecture
can
be
viewed
kind
of
like
an
instantiation
of
the
s-cap
architecture,
and
you
know
we're
not
detailed
enough
to
actually
make
that
statement
fully
true.
But
the
spirit
is,
in
my
opinion,
I'm
sorry
you
mean
the
second
one.
F
No
I
mean
the
s-cap
2.0
architecture
would
be
viewed
as
an
instantiation
of
the
sack
of
architecture.
Did
I
not
say
that?
I'm
sorry,
if
I
didn't
right.
Thank
you.
That's
that's!
That's
what
I
meant
thanks.
Sorry,
you
know
more
coffee
or
whatever,
so
I
think
people
are
interested
in
this
kind
of
solution
in
distinguishing
these
roles
specifying
the
interfaces
for
them
how
they
communicate.
F
H
F
Yeah
to
be
clear
on
that,
you
know,
like
I
said,
I'm
hoping
to
influence
them
right.
So
there's
nothing
promised
there.
It's
just
an
idea
at
this
point.
You
know:
let's
talk
to
them
to
see
how
interested
they
are,
because
you
do
get
some
pushback
from
vendors
right
because
they
like
their
little,
they
like
being
proprietary
about
it
and
and
yeah.
H
Right
and
any
of
the
attestation
work
is
going
to
take
time
right,
like
it's,
it's
really
being
adopted
pretty
well
in
industry,
but
it's
going
to
take
a
lot
of
time
before
it's
a
reality.
You
know
all
the
way
up
the
stack
and
the
various
things
that
it
can
do.
So
you
know
I
I
do
think
it's
reasonable
to
work
on
this
and
have
this
stuff
deployed
in
the
interim.
A
So
so
adam
kathleen.
I
have
a
question,
sorry,
roman,
which
is,
I
always
viewed
kind
of
the
stuff
we're
doing
in
sacramento
as
more
an
ability
to
orchestrate
you
kind
of
collect.
A
You
know
a
multitude
of
things
right,
not
necessarily
a
single,
a
single
type
of
rate,
so
not
just
attestation,
but
some
of
the
other
things
and
orchestrate
on
top
of
that,
and
so
you
know
the
more
of
those
things
like
rats
that
be
that
kind
of
do
their
work
would
be
the
better,
for
you
know
long-term
implementations,
but
you
know,
and
is
that
not
kind
of
how
you
how
you
two
view
it
just
personal
right,
not
necessarily
right
asking
for
any
kind
of
corporate
stance
or
whatever,
but
that
that's
always
and
I
think
adam
we've
had
that
conversation.
H
So
we
probably
have
different
views
right.
I
would
imagine,
but
the
way
so
I'll
finish
mine,
I
think
in
the
longer
term-
and
I
think
this
is
going
to
take
a
long
time
to
get
there
instead
of
some
of
the
things
that
we're
doing
with
sakum
right
now
and
even
with
oval,
you
know
where
you
can
do
configuration
checks.
H
I
think
that
the
people
who
publish
those
pieces
will
be
able
to
put
out
policies
and
measurements
that
are
expected
for
those
and
those
policies
and
measurements
would
be
used
in
remote
attestation
comparisons,
and
it
will
change
how
we
do
things.
So
I
think
it
will
simplify
the
management
architecture
for.
H
You
know,
and
the
vendor
might
even
provide
sets
of
options
depending
on
how
you
want
to
implement.
Or
let's
say
you
have
your
systems
delivered
in
a
certain
state
or
those
modules
delivered
in
a
certain
state
right
and
then
you'd
have
the
matching
policies
to
those
and
then
the
more
technical
people
would
have
that
comparison
level
of
detail
provided
to
them,
so
that
the
people
who
really
like
the
hands-on
and
the
larger
set
of
data
will
have
the
transparency
from
rats
but
provided
in
a
much
simpler
way.
H
Now
that
might
be
10
15
years
out
right
to
get
to
a
state
like
that.
I
hope
it's
sooner,
because
I
think
that
will
help
our
smaller
organizations
that
are
part
of
supply
chains
for
larger
organizations
and
larger
organizations
that
don't
have
the
resources
to
manage
to
the
same
level.
H
And
so
I
do
think
the
attestation
work
will
replace
this.
You
know
things
like
nia
are
not
well
implemented
because
it's
so
difficult
oval.
The
amount
of
customization
that
you
need
for
it
is
is
just
too
much
for
lots
of
organizations
to
handle.
B
B
Patiently
for
us-
oh
sorry,
I
forgot
I
was
gonna
before
you
start
roman.
There
was
just
a
couple
things
I
wanted
to
mention
that
ira
had
put
in
the
chat
in
case
folks
didn't
need
it
notice
it
one
was
that
interim
meetings
are
more
likely
to
drive
progress
than
regular
ietf
meetings.
I
think
that's
true
with
the
exception
of
the
hackathons,
and
he
also
mentions
that
he
doesn't
think
rats
will
wind
up
simple
or
that
it
will
replace
the
sakam's
s-cap
security
and
with
that
sorry,
roman,
go
ahead.
C
No
worries
revisiting
kind
of
the
the
earlier
topic
adam
about
the
interplay
of
cis,
with
the
confederation
of
kind
of
at
least
50
kind
of
plus
organizations
that
are
relying
on
it.
I
think
what
would
transform
the
experience
and
make
sure
that
we
have
an
architecture
document
people
want
to
implement
is
the
obvious
thing:
can
we
get
some
of
them
to
come
to
these
meetings
and
help
us
review
and
provide
the
feedback?
Even
if
honestly,
it's
as
simple
as
I
looked
at
it,
it's
actually
exactly
what
I
want
like.
B
I
think
we
we
have
a
month
or
so
you
know
people
have
specifically
indicated
august
and
to
see
if,
if
we
get
some
reviews
there
schedule,
I
think
you
know
fortunately
or
unfortunately
I
think
ira
is
right.
B
We
do
need
virtual
interims
to
make
progress
and
every
working
group
has
its
character
and
this
one
needs
virtual
interims,
unfortunately
or
fortunately
so
we
could
commit
to
reviewing
it
and
we
could
commit
to
a
virtual
interim
and
then
we
could
make
a
decision
in
the
time
frame
and
why
etf
109.
B
Or
we
could
pause
the
working
group
wrapping
up.
That
would
also
give
us
a
cleaner
way
to
progress
the
stuff
that's
going
to
the
iesg
plus
the
rollie
document,
which
should
be
straightforward,
which
we
should
be
able
to
get
out
by
the
end
of
the
year.
I
would
think,
wouldn't
I
mean
it
is
straightforward
right?
It's
not.
B
It
should
be
ready
to
go
adam.
Is
that
right
for
this
right.
B
So
we
can
delay
the
decision
to
december.
We
can
pause
or
we
can
close.
I
think
those
are
our
three
options.
Okay,
so
bill
also
says
it
shouldn't
take
more
than
and
we
do
need
to
delete
the
outdated
milestones.
The
last
time
I
we
did
a
charter
update.
These
were
things
that
people
felt
really
needed
to
be
there,
but
we've
had
no
contributions,
and
so
I
would
suggest
deleting
them
and
they
were
mentioned
earlier
and
that
would
leave
our
charter
with
the
architecture
document
and
the
ones
that
we're
currently
working
on.
B
We
have
an
option:
a
and
option
b
and
an
option
c.
Do
we
have
any
more
discussion
or
thoughts
on
what
these
options
should
be
chess.
B
C
Yeah,
I
mean
very
practically
it's
a
very
simple
thing.
We
would
finish
the
the
particular
documents
we
have.
They
would
get
submitted
pending
kind
of
for
publication.
It
would
start
that
process
and
beyond
that.
We
wouldn't
do
anything
in
the
working
group
for
some
period
of
time
that
we
would
agree
to
as
the
documents
kind
of
progress
and
at
some
point
some
time
would
have
passed
and
we
should
agree
what
that
is,
and
I
would
come
back
and
say:
hey
I
didn't
see
anyone
saying
we
need
to
restart
something.
C
I
think
it's
time
that
we
close
it
down
and
then
you
know
at
that
point
there
will
either
be
pushback.
No,
no,
no
you're
completely
wrong.
We
want
to
do
all
those
things
and
that
would
demonstrate
a
significant
amount
of
kind
of
interest
and
at
that
point
we'd
want
to
recharter,
because
we
have
done
everything
we
want
to
do
so.
I
think
administrative
we
wouldn't
want
to
do
it.
We
wouldn't
necessarily
need
to
change
anything
kind
of
status
wise.
C
B
I
think
that
the
challenge
here
was
when
I
was
first
thinking
about
pausing.
I
had
I
wasn't
thinking
about
the
roly
document.
I
was
just
thinking
about
what
do
we
do
with
architecture.
B
A
C
Practically
at
this
point,
I
think
we
we
have
finished
all
the
assuming
all
the
documents
we
just
talked
about
are
done
that
pretty
much
gets
us
to
the
end
of
all
the
planned
milestones,
and
so,
if
we
would
be
talking
about
doing
something
kind
of
bigger,
the
question
is:
would
that
entail
rechartering
and
then
kind
of
practically?
If
that's
the
case,
it's
not
clear.
There's
a
big
difference
between
closing
the
working
group
that
at
some
point
we
can
just
reopen
the
working
group
versus
a
recharging
exercise.
You
know
from
an
administrative
perspective.
B
I
had
the
rowley
document,
so
the
the
there's,
the
two
documents
that
are
currently
past
working
group
last
call
but
the
word,
but
the
really
document
hasn't
actually
been
adopted
as
a
working
group
document.
Yet
and.
C
B
C
So,
let's
add
some
milestones
and
kind
of
the
talk
was
about
six
months
to
to
kind
of
sort
that
out
that
gets
us
to
the
end
of
the
calendar
year,
and
maybe
the
thinking
we
should
be
doing
in
parallel
is.
Is
there
anything
to
do
after
that?.
B
Right
and
if
right
so
that
that
gives
us
two
things
that
we're
working
on
right
now
between
now
and
the
end
of
the
year.
B
Work
see
some
checking.
B
B
Repeat
my
last
statement
for
the
notes.
We
have
two
working
group
items
to
work
on
between
now
and
the
end
of
the
year.
B
So
I
I
had
originally
said
we
had
an
option,
a
and
option
b
and
an
option
c
and
a
was
to
continue
for
another
six
months
and
do
rolly
and
do
architecture
and
then,
in
parallel
talk
about
what
the
future
work
would
be.
If
any
option
b
would
be
to
pause,
which
is
like
roman
has
just
described,
and
then
option
c
is
to
close
the
working
group.
Now
I
think
those
are
our
three.
B
Options
and
go
ahead
ramen.
I
don't.
C
B
Yeah,
that's
true,
so
we
have
an
option:
a
and
an
option
b,
and
I
think
I
sense
given
what
some
of
the
people
have
said
in
the
chat
that
we
can
go
with
option
a.
But
I
would
also
say
that
chris
and
I
and
adam
are
are
serious
to
the
extent
that
if
folks
don't
engage
with
this
architecture
work,
then
it's
going
to
get
dropped
and
we're
going
to
stop.
B
So
I
can,
I
don't
know
if
we
need
to
do
any
sort
of
stevens
here
great
right.
I
think
we
can
get
it
done.
B
So
it
is
so,
do
we
need
to
do
any
sort
of
a
consensus,
call
on
that
or
is
there
anybody
opposed
to
that
way
forward
that
we
choose
option
a
and
move
forward
with
that
path?
B
B
C
I'm
like
I
need
to
authorize
every
time.
I
speak
just
to
make
sure
what's
clear
to
me
at
the
end
of
this
calendar
year,
I'm
supposed
to
come
back
in
a
very
kind
of
in
a
very
deliberate
way
to
say:
is
there
actually
interest
to
do
this?
Otherwise,
I'm
closing
down
is
that
right.
Is
that
what
we're
committing
to.
B
C
Got
it
yeah,
so
let's
make
it
one
thing
that
would
again
help
me.
It
seems
minor,
but
I
think
it's
clear
for
very
helpful
for
signaling.
Let's
clean
up
the
milestones,
let's
make
it
crystal
clear.
This
is
the
only
things
we
have
left
for
the
working
group
and
then,
when
we
get
to
the
end
of
the
year,
we'll
say
we
are
done
everything
we
said
we
would
do
so.
We
can
declare
success.
B
Right
and
ira
makes
a
comment
in
the
chat.
That's
that's
true.
If
we
were
going
to
pause
the
working
group
or
we
were
going
to
pause
and
close
the
working
group,
then
we
need
to.
We
do
need
to
discuss
this
with
the
mailing
list,
but
nothing.
B
Folks
that
aren't
here
today
that
could
be
on
the
mailing
list
might
have
a
response,
but
I
think
most
of
our
active
participants
are
actually
here
so
I
mean
we
said
this
when
we
rechartered
we
had.
We
had
a
long,
serious
conversation
about
how
productive
we
were
and
when
we
recharted
and
we're
like
okay,
we're
serious.
This
is
the
stuff
we
really
think
is
going
to
go.
We
need
to
do
we,
we
narrowed
the
scope
to
what
we
currently
have
and
now
we're.
B
You
know
we're
not
making
a
lot
of
progress
on
that
and
and
it's
not
fair
to
people
that
when
we
tell
them
that
we're
going
to
that,
we
want
to
do
the
work,
and
then
we
don't
comment
when
they
do
the
work
they
do
the
work,
they
put
it
out
there
and
then
then
it's
like
crickets.
F
Hey
go
ahead.
All
right!
Sorry,
I
don't
know
if
I
want
to
say
it
or
not,
but
it
seems
like
we
don't
really
even
have
that
much
engagement
on
continuing
engagement
and
is
it
worthwhile
to
have
maybe
a
hum
or
something
instead
of
just
asking.
If
there's
any
objections,
I
I
I
don't
know
like
it.
I.
B
B
B
Okay,
so.
B
B
Should
the
architecture
work
be?
How
should
I.
A
I
think
we
want
to
say
something:
are
you
willing
to
engage
or
do
you
think
it
should.
B
Sorry
so
everybody
should
be.
You
have
like
a
little
over
15
seconds
to
hit
your
home
button.
A
B
B
B
So
the
second
question
is:
should
we
pause
the
architecture
work.
B
B
B
All
right,
it's
even
softer
than
piano,
so
there
is
a
a
slight
bias.
There
is
a
small
consensus
in
the
direction
of
continuing
the
work
for
six
months.
So
then
the
other
thing
I
would
like
to
do
is
in
the
chat.
I
want
folks
that
are
committing
to
review
this
document
in
august
to
please
indicate
that
in
the
chat,
so
who
are
our
volunteers?
That
will
be
definitely
reviewing
this
in
august.
B
B
All
right,
so
we
have
chris
and
kathleen
ira
and
three
quarters
of
hank
okay.
B
Oh,
so
is
there
any
chance
adam
that
you
can
get
any
of
the
possible
implementers
to
take
a
look
at
it.
A
B
Oh
okay,
yeah.
I
didn't
that
was
a
surprise
to
me.
So
all
right,
yeah,
so
roman
says
that
all
they
need
to
really
do
is
to
endorse
it.
They
don't
need
to
do
a
technical
review
of
it,
but
just
say
that
this
is
something
that
makes
sense
to
them
and
that
they're
interested
in
using
okay.
B
So
that
then
the
other
side
of
that,
then,
is
we.
We
we
do
seem
to
make
more
progress
when
we
have
virtual
interims.
How
are
we
doing
on
time?
Okay,
we've
still
got
some
time.
The
virtu,
so
I'd
like
to
talk
about
some
rough
time
frames
for.
B
A
virtual
interim,
I'm
thinking
middle
of
september,
that'll,
give
all
of
those
august
reviews
a
chance
to
get
done
and
any
potential
update
to
both
rowley
and
the
architecture
to
be
done.
B
Any
weeks
that
are
particularly
bad,
can
you
tell
by
since
calendars,
are
a
complete
mess
at
the
moment,
I'm
not
asking
for
it
for
a
go
ahead.
Roman.
C
Do
we
want
to
set
set
some
kind
of
timeline
for
you
to
do
a
call
for
adoption
for
the
rolly
draft.
B
Actually,
I
I
thought
we
committed
at
the
beginning
that
we
were
going
to
do
a
call
for
adoption
now
so
like
chris,
and
I
will
get
that
out
by
the
end
of
the
week.
Perfect.
C
B
B
All
right,
so
we
will
target
maybe
the
week
of
the
14th
or
maybe
the
week
of
the
21st,
and
we
will
get
an
interim
scheduled
in
that
time
frame.
B
Mostly
once
a
month,
so
maybe
the
7th
of
september,
so
we
do
seem
to
make
more
progress
when
we
have
a
steady
zombie.
I
think
that
chris
and
I
have
not
been
very
good
at
scheduling
those
this
time
so,
okay
september
20th,
no
travel
plan.
That's
true
traveling
from
here
to
my
kitchen
for
a
cup
of
tea
after
this
meeting.
B
Okay,
so
we
have
our
marching
orders.
Is
there
anything
else,
any
other
business
for
the
working.
B
Group
all
right,
I
think,
we're
looking
at
maybe
the
week
of
the
7th
or
the
14th
and
we'll
try
and
do
a
doodle
poll.