►
From YouTube: RATS Architecture Design Team, 2021-04-23
Description
RATS Architecture Design Team, 2021-04-23
A
B
See
look
here
see
it
says
here,
look
look
I
mean
I
actually
took
out
because
I
was
tired
of
I
took
the
other
list
out
because
I
was
tired
of
getting
no
thank
yous
from
all
sorts
of
people.
It
says
right
here.
It
says
your
name
right
here
yeah.
I
believe
you
darn.
I
should
add
you
to
my
contacts.
Maybe
that'll
make
the
difference
anyway.
B
B
B
I
hope
this
is
our
last
meeting
today.
That
would
be
great
yeah.
I
think
we're
pretty
close
pretty
much
at
that
point.
B
Andrew,
so
how
did
you
know
to
show
up
hank
if,
if,
if
you
didn't
get
an
invite.
B
B
A
That's
a
legitimate
assumption.
I
think
though
no
it
is
not
ned
will
not
be
here.
I
think
he
highlighted
that
he
will
be
out
today
and
blocked
for
most
of
the
day
and
that
included.
A
B
All
right:
well,
we
have
we're
missing
one
author,
but
that's
all
so
and
I
you
say:
hank
ned
might
not
make
it
so,
let's
just
get
into
this
so
intro
to
add
intro
to
appendix
a
and
that's
our
paragraph.
C
Oh,
I
see
hank,
you
felt
the
issue
and
you
were
and
you
approved
it.
B
B
C
B
C
And
separately,
by
the
way,
both
thomas
and
hank's
comments
applied
to
the
teep
architecture
document
too,
and
I
also
have
the
same
outstanding
pro
request
and
the
team
architecture
documents
to
be
emerged.
There.
C
B
C
B
Disney
edition
exactly
exactly
yeah
all
right,
so
basically
partly
what's
happened
is
the
text
has
moved
up
from
here
to
here
yep
and
then
we
have
this
additional
piece
down
here,
which
looked
perfectly
great
to
me.
B
C
Issue
that
was
filed
was
that
the
same
issues
apply
to
the
relying
party,
but
their
lying
party
section
just
didn't
happen
to
use
trust
anchor
before
it
used
other
texts,
even
though
the
same
thing
applied,
and
so
we
moved
it
up
to
the
first
location
and
made
it
actually
use
the
term
trust
anchor
for
the
stuff
it
was
talking
about.
That
was
what
the
original
issue
was
so.
B
Yeah
and
that's
where
that's
the
new
text
here
expressed
by
storing
that
and
trusting
okay,
so
I'm
going
to
hit
the
merge
button.
The
only
thing
that's
remaining
is
the
this
issue
that
lawrence
had
filed
some
time
ago
and
which
we
have
not
liked
the
rewording
and
lawrence
has
not.
It's
not
a
tap
been
attached
to
this
wording,
but
none
of
us
have
seen
to
decide.
We
want
to
fix
his
wording.
B
I
didn't
have
any
great
strong
preference
for
the
for
for
the
new
wording
over
the
old
wording
myself.
So
it
wasn't-
and
probably
you
know
some
of
the
trust
anchors
in
here.
Maybe
some
of
this
is
all
just
changed
at
this
point,
and
we
should
just
we
should
just
close
it
as
unfixed.
A
A
I
commented
on
it
like
a
few
hours
ago
and,
having
in
mind
our
current
and
not
this
proposed
text
about
legislation,
the
text
that
he
introduced
in
in
the
each
id
works
actually
quite
well
with
our
existing
text
and
and
this
proposal
is
of
course
a
rewording,
but
it
is
not
required
by
the
each
id
to
make
sense,
because
I
think
that
already
makes
sense.
So
so
that's
just
a
point
of
resonance
and
a
single
opinion
about
the
dependencies
here.
B
B
Yeah,
I
think,
he's
it's
quite
late
there
too,
so
he
may
not
be
able
to
unmute.
You
can
type.
Maybe
I
don't
know,
okay,
so
we're
going
to
close
this
existing
text
is
compatible
with
current
eat.
C
Id
text
closing
you
also
mentioned
when
you
say
existing
text,
you
might
say
current
updated
text
or
you
know
current
text.
I
don't
know
something
that
implies
that
the
text
that
he's
quoting
in
the
in
the
issue
is
no
longer
the
exact
text.
So
I
don't
know
how
to
say
it
so.
B
Yet
so
this
was
the
this
was
the
issue.
C
C
C
C
Asking
because
it's
not
tagged
as
a
reference
in
this
issue,
if
we
did
so,
if
we
did
it,
we
should
actually
add
a
note
that
it
was
in
a
particular
request.
B
Yeah,
okay,
so.
B
C
C
C
Okay,
try
for
request.
C
C
C
That,
okay,
it
doesn't
actually
explicitly
call
without
the
fact
that
it
might
be
part.
You
know
it
might
flow
through
some
other
entity
or
whatever,
which
was
the
point
that
you'd
summarize
there
that's
the
closest
thing,
but
you
can
see
977
talks
about
format
and
semantics.
It
doesn't
talk
about
which
well,
it
doesn't
talk
about
which
entities
are
like
intermediaries
or
something
in
the
in
the
middle
of
an
end
and.
C
I
don't
know
I
was
looking
to
see
if
we'd
actually
put
your
main
point
there
and
I
could
find
something
that
was
close.
It
doesn't
actually
make
your
point
it
it.
At
least
that
paragraph
doesn't,
but
you
could
easily
add
a
sentence
if
you
wanted
to
say
pretty
much
what
you
said
in
your
comment,
by
putting
in
a
sentence
into
that
paragraph:
okay,
someplace
else
in
the
doc.
So.
B
B
Yeah,
I
think
so,
yeah
okay,
so
I'm
gonna
put
I'm
going
to
going
to
format,
revision,
12
and
I'll.
Just
read
it
before
I
post
it
to
see.
If,
if
I
want
to
add
a
sentence
and
but
I
don't
think
so,
I
think
I'm
happy
with
the
tenses
as
it
is.
I'm
happy,
maybe
you're
not,
but
I'm
happy
well.
I
didn't
follow.
A
A
We
don't
have
to
schedule
another
meeting
which
I
hope
really
to
avoid.
Actually,
and
although
I
like
talking
and
working
with
you,
so
it's
not
that,
but
but
then
we
then
they
can
approach
the
chairs
for
next
steps.
B
Well,
we're
yeah,
so
this
is
our
our
yeah.
So
this
is
our
our
resolution
of
working
group
last
call
issues,
so
they
just
need
to
yeah,
and
I
know
kathleen
was
the
shepherd
and
she
had
comments
and
we
dealt
with
her
comments.
So
I
think
mechanically,
it's
just
the
next
step.
C
All
right,
so
I
know
I'm
just
noticing
I'm
paging
in
state
here
right.
The
comment
that
you
made
here
is
in
response
to
penguin
right,
not
lawrence,
and
if
you
remember
penguin's
comment
was
the
layered
attestation.
Diagram
has
a
line
coming
out
of
the
bootloader
and
going
to
the
verifier
yep
and
really
what
happens
as
you
point
out
is
well,
it
generates
something
that
might
be.
C
C
So
I
was
looking
in
the
wrong
place
for
the
the
point,
because
I
was
thinking
this
is
in
response
to
lawrence,
so
so
there
might
also
be
someplace
else.
So
so
yeah
and
remember,
we
had
talked
about
whether
the
line
that
comes
horizontally
out
of
a
testing
environment,
whether
that
should
come
up
through
the
kernel,
and
you
guys
all
said.
No.
Let's
not
do
that
because
that
would
be
confusing
to
have
it
come
out
of
a
testing
environment,
go
upwards
and
then
to
the
right
as
it
passes
through
kernel.
C
B
C
C
B
I
think
we
just
let
let's
just
let
it
be,
I
think
we
should
just
let
it
be.
If
we
get
further
reviews
that
are
confused
by
this,
then
we
could
add
some
text,
but
I
think
it's
better
to
let
I
think
we
should.
We
think
we
should
leave
it.
I
think
it's
it's
better
to
have
the
person
who
then
says
I
don't
understand,
figure
out
whether
we're
made
that
made
them
happy
and
rather
than.
B
C
B
A
Wow,
okay,
that
took
it's
free
time.
Well
then,
we
are
done
with
that
task.
Finally,
and
yeah,
are
you
okay
with
me
approaching
the
chairs
and
asking
for
next
steps.
B
If
ned
was
here,
it
looks
like
the
circle
ci.
B
C
But
it
may
be
because
of
the
fix
that
thomas
facade
pushed
that
he
just
pushed
the
the
the
xml
rfc
formatter
fix.
If
look
in
one
of
the
two
issues
we
just
merged,
he
commented
that
and
pointed
to
the
commit
had
that
fix.
B
B
B
Why
I
was
like
that's
why
it
was
a
little
bit
like,
but
I
but
and
then
okay,
all
right,
so
it's
there
all
right
and
we
have
a
diff.
I
already
got
the
diff
there's
the
diff
all
right,
great,
okay!
Well,
it's
been
a
long
strange
trip.
A
Yeah,
thank
you,
everybody.
This
was
fun
and
this
is
actually
a
rock-solid
document,
one
of
the
better
ones,
to
keep
it
mildly.
I
think
so.
Thanks.