►
From YouTube: RATS Architecture Design Team, 2020-04-14
Description
RATS Architecture Design Team, 2020-04-14
B
A
B
C
A
E
C
Target
doesn't
necessarily
sometimes
it's
a
claim
of
bottom
of
their
claim.
So,
for
example,
a
claim
inside
of
the
attestation
result
might
be
a
timestamp
at
which
the
verifier
did
the
verification
of
the
target,
and
so
technically
it's
a
time.
It's
a
piece
of
information
about
the
attestation
about
the
verifier.
In
that
case,
I'd
say
not
necessarily
no.
D
D
G
A
D
C
D
D
As
endorsements
or
as
in
foreign
policy
and
kind
of
even
what
what
a
known
good
value
is
just
in
a
very
loose
way,
that's
all.
D
D
C
So
I
still
have
with
this
topic
before
you
paste
it
in
Wow,
you
can
paste
it
in,
but
I'm
saying,
I
won't.
I
think
this
is
only
a
small
sub
case
of
the
overall
thing,
and
it
focuses,
in
my
opinion,
too
much
on
a
tiny
sub
case,
because
the
phrasal
policy
will
deal
with
a
bunch
of
logic
or
determining
trustworthiness.
C
Some
things
might
be
tests
for
equality.
Some
things
may
be
test
for
not
equals.
Some
things
might
be
tests
for
a
member
of
set.
Some
things
might
be
within
a
range,
some
things
might
be
less
than
some
things
might
be
greater
than,
and
some
things
might
be,
comparisons
against
things
that
are
not
fixed
values
but
values
of
other
claims
and
I
think
this
text
currently
over
focuses
on
it.
But
you
get
our
case
where
it's
an
equality
against
the
constant,
which
is
only
one
of
many
different
cases
and.
H
C
I
D
C
B
Everything
they've
said
except
tiny
piece,
because
both
the
big
vital
thing
and
the
real
thing
expecting
some
constants
to
compare
with.
Having
said
this,
you
absolutely
right,
but
I,
don't
think
that
giving
this
as
a
prominent
example
is
bad.
Therefore,
but
I
am
NOT
pushing
this
into
the
document,
because
I
agree,
basically
with
your
opinion,
but
I
also
don't
think
I'm
against
this,
so
I'm
neutral
on
the
side,
I
I.
C
Am
finally
saying
you
know
what
they're
explaining
the
general
case
than
saying,
for
example,
and
you're
saying
this
is
just
the
example
we
picked,
because
it's
a
prominent
example.
So
I
agree
with
you
on
that
one
Hank
okay,
but
then
it
would
be
sort
of
subsequent
the
more
a
general
description,
meaning
like
a
paragraph
or
something
that
would
come
before
this
and
the
period
for
paragraph
comes
before
this.
C
A
J
A
C
Paragraphs
above
the
heading
I'm,
one
fire
uses
evidence
endorsements
from
endorsers
by
applying
an
evidence,
appraisal
policy,
that's
the
ax
tester
and
generates
attestation
results
for
used
by
a
growing
parties.
The
evidence
of
racial
policy
might
be
obtained
from
an
endorser
along
with
the
endorsements
or
might
be
obtained
via
some
other
mechanism,
such
as
being
configured
at
the
verifier
by
the
administrator.
I
think
it's
part
of
that
topic,
how
you
obtain
the
evidence,
appraisal,
I,
see
and
anything
that
would
be
known.
Good
values
who'd
be
considered
to
be
part
of
the
evidence,
appraisal,
policy.
A
C
C
C
F
F
F
A
A
C
Two
categories
of
timestamp
things
that
were
presented
in
the
injure
me:
there
are
things
that
are
that
there's
already
texting
how
to
use
and
that
there
were
things
that
were
questions
about
whether
they
weren't
eaten
it
was.
They
were
the
ones
that
were
you
know
ones
were
not
great
right
right
now.
This
one
would
have
the
ones
that
are
not
in
gray,
and
the
question
is:
can
we
merge
the
ones
that
are
not
in
gray?
Well,
we
keep
discussing
the
ones
that
were
in
gray.
So
that's
that's.
The
question
here
is
I.
C
Don't
necessarily
think
that
this
poor
request
has
to
have
the
complete
list
before
it
gets
merged,
in
other
words,
because
that
would
just
delay
merging
things
until
then,
if
there
are
pieces
of
it
that
we
agree
on,
can
we
at
least
merge
the
pieces
that
we
all
agree
are
are
covered?
Well,
so
that's
my
question
here:
is
there
outstanding
things?
Are
the
ID
one's?
Do
they
match?
What's
another
thing,
sort
of
changes
that
are
needed
for
the
minimal
subset
here,
even
if
we
then
continue
with
a
separate
ProQuest
and
other
things.
C
G
G
C
My
is
the
ones
that
they're
that
are
in
purple
should
be
in
a
different
for
a
quest
and
shouldn't
be
merged
until
after
there's
text
that
references
them,
and
so
this
one
I
would
claim
this
pull
request
is
meant
for
the
ones
not
in
purple
whether
it's
already
text,
and
so
the
question
is
for
the
ones
not
in
purple
other
things.
Other
is
their
texts,
and
we
need
to
change
in
here.
It
can
be
merged
in
purple
ones
and
use
a
separate
for
a
quest
for
discussion,
a
purple
ones,
I'm.
C
C
G
C
B
B
H
C
F
Okay,
I'm
I'm
willing
to
take
a
stab
at
a
paragraph,
I.
C
Guess
what
I
would
propose,
then,
is
unless
there's
any
other
things
that
sounds
like
I
would
propose
we
merged
this
one.
Then
Ned,
you
generate
a
new
pull
request.
That's
moving
a
table
with
what
you're
looking
at
and
Hank.
You
can
do
other
work
west.
If
you
think
it
belongs
in
this
document,
as
opposed
to
in
the
tutor
document,
and
so
we
just
do
those
multiple
requests.
B
C
So
it's
good
the
way
it
is
that
that's
what
I'm
hearing,
because,
for
example,
what
Ned
would
do
is
he
would
then
move
the
text
because
once
it's
already
merged,
then
it's
easy
to
find
and
just
move
it
into
an
earlier
section
and
add
some
other
text
around
it.
That's
what
I
heard
Ned
volunteering
to
do.
B
A
C
A
A
J
C
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
C
C
A
A
A
F
C
A
A
F
F
L
A
C
C
D
C
C
A
A
C
J
A
J
A
C
A
C
J
L
L
Was
that,
when
talking
about
claims,
what
we
really
want
to
do
is
establish
a
these
claims
that
are
evidence
about
a
certain
environment.
Then
their
claims
about
claims
which
may
come
from
other
environments,
and
so
the
messages
I
think
we
want
to
convey
is
that
the
verifier
has
to
know
what
claims
are
about
and
how
to
verify
that.
The
claim
is
both
accurately
presented
and
it
satisfies
the
need
of
the
claim
itself.
H
A
A
Saying
evidence
evidence
evidence,
evidence
so
you're
right
it
does,
it
may
be,
it
may
be.
Maybe
it's
evidence,
evidence
claims
evidence.
Evidence
is.