►
From YouTube: RATS Architecture Design Team, 2020-03-03
Description
RATS Architecture Design Team, 2020-03-03
C
Okay,
so
we
are
accumulating
quorum
here.
C
A
C
A
A
A
B
C
A
C
C
A
Would
agree
with
Dave
that
that
the
sentence
this
complexity
is
independent,
yet
yeah
that
could
just
be
complete.
We
want
the
compositor
tested
to
send.
A
B
Speaking,
if
you
can
so
first
paragraph
is
about
the
architecture
but
not
describing
the
architecture.
The
second
slash,
third
paragraph,
is
an
example
of
the
architecture,
but
we
didn't
describe
the
architecture
yet
I
think
it
goes
on
and
on
and
basically
it
intertwines
the
architecture.
Inside
of
the
example.
A
But
the
two
types
of
environments
are
basically
the
two
things
that
are
introduced
aging
at
actually
they're
at
a
stage.
So
basically
the
hand-off
of
the
duty
of
being
an
a
testing
environment
Ubuntu
through
the
one
of
the
target
environments
is
the
staging,
and
that
is
the
architecture
concept
of
layer
association
and
this
is
described
there
and
six
and
6.1
I
think.
A
F
A
B
C
E
C
E
G
B
Okay,
we're
basically
so
two
types
of
environments
is
describing
the
testing
environment,
environment.
That's
the
simple
thing:
that's
the
best
in
the
context
of
a
simple
case
of
a
single,
a
tester
and
then
there's
the
composite,
a
tester
and
the
layer,
two
tester
or
I,
don't
know
if
it's
a
tester
or
a
test
attestation,
but.
B
E
C
B
D
A
Rephrase
for
correctly
this
paragraph
becomes
useless,
you
can
go.
This
has
to
be
clear
before
we
start
reading
4.1
and
then,
if
this
is
clear,
this
is
all
three
things
that
can
be
combined.
It
can
exist
separately,
then
this
and
this
paragraph
is
not
needed
and
putting
it
at
the
end
is
most
certainly
not
okay.
It
also
is
a
note.
So
yes
get
rid
of
it
and
maybe
make
a
note
to
add
the
give
you
the
architecture
overview
section
now,
if
it
come
addresses
four
one,
two
four
three
appropriately,
but
probably
it
doesn't.
A
C
E
E
B
C
B
E
A
B
A
E
E
Right
because
the
first
one
is
the
the
hardware
component
right,
where
talks
about
the
very
first,
a
testing
environment
in
this
example
can
be
a
hardware
component
and
it
would
be
you
know,
a
or
whatever
and
it
would
be
B
and
C
and
so
on.
In
the
diagram-
and
you
can
say
you
know,
B
might
be
a
firmware.
For
example,
yeah.
C
E
C
A
E
Your
answer
I'm
wondering
the
sentence
can
be
deleted
because
there's
already
an
earlier
sentence
that
talks
about
the
static
code
word
of
Trust,
which
is
the
hardware
piece
in
the
foreign.
You
know
component
a
completely
agree
with
that.
One
I'm
wondering
if
we
can
just
delete
this
one,
because
I'm
very
confused
by
this
else.
B
C
D
E
E
C
E
A
A
C
E
E
B
A
E
C
E
E
D
E
E
H
H
E
B
C
A
Layered
station
of
those
measurements,
and
then
we
have
the
creation
of
evidence
by
collecting
information
from
the
silicon
like
the
GPS
thing,
and
that
these
are
two
different
things.
These
will
end
up
in
evidence
both
and
maybe
it's
okay
to
say
they
are
at
one
time
collection
if
it's
a
claims
that
are
basically
a
location
or
debug
enabled
as
such,
that
I'd
like
to
find
in
each,
and
maybe
the
the
the
typical
thing
that
a
a
testing
environment
is
layered
at
a
station
approach
here
does
measurements,
maybe
that
is
okay
to
differentiate
that
yeah.
E
So
what
I'm,
thinking
or
hearing
based
on
this
discussion
so
far
is
the
second
paragraph
of
4.1
is
the
one
that
we
want
to
introduce
this
concept
in,
or
at
least
use
these
terminology
and
the
first
paragraph
of
4.1.
It
also
needs
to
be
the
second
half
of
the
first.
Paragraph
also
needs
to
be
modify.
E
Needs
to
have
a
forward
reference
kind
of
thing
right
in
the
next
two
sections.
The
next
two
sections
will
cover
two
examples
of
how
they
can
be
how
there
can
be
multiple
because,
as
other
implementations
might
have
multiple
attesting
in
tart
environments,
examples
are
in
sections
4.2
and
4.3
and
they
could
be
combined
or
whatever
goes.
A
B
E
B
B
B
An
arrow
flowing
from
the
I
don't
know,
I,
don't
know
whether
you
draw
it
as
an
arrow
flying
from
the
target
environment,
the
attesting
environment
or
the
other
way
around.
But
the
point
is:
is
there
is
a
collection
of
claims
by
the
attesting
environment
about
the
target
environment?
It's
a
subject,
object
kind
of
thing
and
subjects
are
active
and
so
I
tend
to
think
of
arrows
going
out
of
active
things
into
passive
things,
but
maybe
unintuitive
I,
don't
know.
Whichever.
B
Some
sort
of
consistency
and
then
the
terminology
is
it,
collects
claims
I,
that's
fine.
The
thing
that
we're
talking
about
is
in
terms
of
measurement
is
a
set
of
vocabulary.
That
is
claims
specific.
So
if
you
go
through
each
of
the
claims
that
are
defined
and
ask
yourself,
is
that
intuitive
to
say
that
I
collect
this
or
I
measure
this
or
I?
Something
else
this?
That
would
be
the
litmus
test
for
if
we
have
the
right
vocabulary,
I
claim
we
have
to
go
out
it
through
that
acclaims.
B
E
C
C
D
E
D
B
Generally
opposed
to
having
alternate
words
for
the
term
scientific
sign,
we
should
say
sign,
and
then
we
use
the
word
endorsement
as
a
noun
and
we
try
not
to
burbs
a
noun
by
creating
a
new
word
called
you
know,
endorse
or
evidence.
You
know
the
verb
if
I
were
to
try
to
make
evident
form
to
a
verb.
I,
don't
you
know,
I,
don't
know
what
word
I.
It's
like
I'm
evidencing
something
it's
like
I.
A
A
Signatures
have
different
meanings.
He
and
I
think
the
term
endorsement
is
used
simply
different
as
there's
different,
meaning
and
GP
I
think
the
only
problem
I
think
that's
what
the
problem
yesterday
in
the
virtual
interim
I
think
just
as
endorsement
in
GP
is
used
simply
differently
than
here.
We
have
to
disambiguate
that
problem
and
say
endorsement
in
GP
means
something
else
or
we
ignore
that
and
just
define
and
take
the
the
meaning
of
GP
and
put
it
in
here
somewhere
and
associated
well.
Both
you.
A
E
H
A
A
C
Well,
I,
don't
know
what
we're
what
I
don't
even
know
what
we're
what
clarification
you'd
asked
for,
but
cuz
I,
don't
know
what
texts
refer
relates
to
so
I've
made
a
mistake:
I
wanted
to
move
on
I
merged
this
by
mistake.
These
two
changes
here
that
we
had
removed
last
week
that
were
from
way
merge
them
by
mistake,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
either
are
agreement
or
we
I
will
remove
them
again.
C
F
C
E
E
C
That's
what
I
thought
I've
created
a
conflict?
Okay,
let
me
so
I
will
I
will
pull
this
in.
If
we're
in
agreement.
Does
anyone
else
want
to
see
the
differences.
C
C
C
C
C
C
F
B
B
B
It's
really
context
of
where
you're
you
know
how
things
are
connected,
but
if
you're
in
the
context
of
the
Internet,
then
local
is
the
remote
is
defined
by
an
IP
address.
If
you're
in
the
context
of
a
USB
bus,
then
it's
defined
in
terms
of
your
USB
endpoints
and
if
it's
in
some
other
Epico
night
I'd
have
architecture
that
it's
defined
in
terms
of
the
the
other,
the
other
whatever
that
other
activity
component
is
for
that
other
architecture.
So
it's
relative,
so
it's
ambiguous
to
talk
about
local.
A
So
this
is
saying:
I'm
still
I'm
ditching
this
one
last
time.
I
think
that
introducing
the
term
interconnect
and
saying
this
can
be
a
I,
don't
know
gee,
I,
hope
and
soldered
on
SOC
or
the
Internet
is
all
relative,
and
this
is
the
interconnect
and
entities
are
talking
with
this,
so
it
can
be
in
a
device
and
you
don't
need
to
find
anything
or
it
can
be.
A
You
probably
use
the
Internet,
so
so
I
think
still
try
to
talk
about
this,
but
it
was
disputed
like
three
times
and
I
gave
up
on
it,
but
this
is
again
same
problem.
This
is
why
we
are
talking
about
local
and
remote
soft,
because
we're
just
trying
to
differentiate
that
instead
of
saying,
there's
an
interconnect.
The
end
yeah.
G
C
D
C
D
B
I'm
just
trying
to
maybe
maybe
be
a
little
bit
of
a
purist,
I
don't
know,
but
it's
like
composite
device
is
one
of
those
building
block
concepts
that
you
want
to
get
it.
You
know
very
specific
and
clear
about
what
it
is
and
not
confuse.
Can
you
not
introduce
other
conversations
just
tend
to
draw
attention
away
from
this
really
core
concept?
B
The
point
is
is
at
the
point
of
a
composite
device.
Is
that
the
attestation
evidence
in
B
and
C
is
verified
by
the
thing
called
remote?
Verifier
is
not
verified
by
the
Leda
tester.
The
Leda
tester
is
simply
providing
an
assertion
or
a
claim
of
composition,
which
is
to
say
that
device,
the
test,
the
ax
tester
be
device
and
the
tester
a
device
are
composed
as
a
composite
device.
That's
all
it's
trying
to
say
and
there's
some
real
binding
between
them
right,
there's
some
sort
of
real
binding
between
them
right.
B
D
This
is
Gary.
Here
is
one
of
the
use
cases
we
typically
run
into
you
is
you
know
we
all
have
a
host
processor
to
some
other,
some
other
device,
that's
capable
of
the
testing
over
a
bus
like
PCIe,
you
are
etc.
That's
the
I/o.
Therefore,
there
will
be
a
local
verifier
in
the
composite
device
that
local
verifier
won't
like
claims
on
the
attachment
to
a
relying
party.
What
we'll
do
instead
is
it'll
use
the
claims
for
me
a
tester
to
determine
it.
The
attach
is
authentic.
A
A
D
B
D
B
C
D
D
G
B
C
D
G
G
C
Second,
diagram
might
be
the
right
way
to
go
where
you
explore,
where
you
explore
the
contents
of
this
inner
box
on
what
it
does
and
your
example
about
that.
The
that
you
know
it
may
have
a
local
verifier
that
never
actually
says
anything
to
the
remote
doesn't
result
in
additional
evidence
that
just
results
in
the
target
environment,
saying
I,
think
I'm.
Okay,
I
have
all
the
parts
connected
to
me
that
I'm
supposed
to
have
connected
to
me.
C
C
C
A
C
C
E
A
E
C
Suggesting
I'm
suggesting
Dave:
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
say
Dave!
Why
don't
you
do
that
on
Thursday
if
that's
convenient
for
you,
so
that
way,
we
don't
actually
essentially
I'm
I'm,
managing
a
right
lock
here,
if
you
prefer,
because
that
way
we
don't
get
into
into
reformats
of
the
of
the
same
paragraphs
or
unless
you
want
to
divide
it
by
4.1
and
and
Hank
won't
touch
4.1.
C
C
C
E
A
C
I
think
that
some
of
these
issues
on
the
screen
may
be
closed
at
this
point
and
if
they're
not,
then
that
would
also
be
good
to
know
whether
or
not
and
if
you
want
to
turn
any
of
these
like
this
one
here
Laurence.
If
you
want
to
turn
this
into
a
pull
request,
I
think
you
should
feel
free
to
do
that
before
should
be
closed
yeah.
He
could
turn
it
into
a
pull
request
and
then
close
it
as
having
it
now
requested
by
marketing.