Internet Engineering Task Force RATS Architecture Design Team, 1 Sep 2020

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: RATS Architecture Design Team Meeting, 2020-09-01

Description

RATS Architecture Design Team Meeting, 2020-09-01

A

uh I guess I can share my screen. I guess you guys got through a pr or two last week without.

A

Me yep hank seems.

B

To be revising.

A

This he's not joining he's messaging me, but he hasn't joined yet.

B

A

uh He's revised 111 is that shared right as 145.

B

uh Yeah, that's right, hank and I had met um had an offline uh meeting between last week and this week and talked about uh the 123 or whatever and 145 is the is his action item in 144 was my I kind of ever meeting.

A

Okay, can I close 123, then.

B

I would think.

C

Yeah this high this thing, I would not close it right now, because there are comments in there and they are very difficult to find again. Maybe.

B

um What, if you just reference uh the older one from the newer one in the comments that makes it fine.

C

Did that it references in my comments uh in the initial comment, this pr is one two three, uh I actually don't know what the new number is one for five. Yes,.

B

Okay yeah, so it's findable, because it's right there here, okay.

C

Yeah then closing is fine. I just thought that the the thoughts crossed my mind, but.

D

C

A

Okay, just keeps track of what we're eating. So, um let's just start with this one, then, if that's okay or you want to do the 144.

B

First, either is okay. I think 144 might be easier to do first, just because, if we agree with the direction 144 is going in, it requires another change to 145, but in terms of the styles.

B

um So hank has a comment on this one, and this is one of the main questions we had for people and the only reason why reviewing the other one before this one might make sense just because they are interrelated previously in the document there were these uh two rows which you can see in red up at the top 5253 value generation and test your awareness.

B

um Currently, the tester awareness was not used, that's what would be used in hank's per request, uh but this uh grows in the table here. um One of the observations that we had was that every example not just the one that hanks hank is adding, but every example there can be two possibilities for any particular claim right. One is that the value was created before evidence was done and the tester can actually get what time that was created so take a case where you have a gps.

B

Your gps might be in a little peripheral across some particular bus and when you boot up, you read the value from the peripheral, and the peripheral also tells you what time stamp it was based on, because gps's get to their own time from satellites, and so you can get vg long before you boot.

B

Even the you know the the vg, maybe top even before the boot time uh of the main processor, um then you could also have a case where you can't tell, and so, when you boot up, you don't have any idea how long that value has been that way before, and so as a workaround. You use the tester awareness, which is the time that you're creating a claim and those two possibilities apply to every example, and so how do we do that without invalidating all of the pictures, and so we or without causing lots of duplication?

B

So one approach that we discussed was to say: well, let's combine the events and put it in the explanation of events saying it could be either way. um Hink has a comment at the at the bottom of your screen now, which says that it's not distinguishable by the receiver and one of the questions that we had that I wanted to do that hank and I had discussed that. I wanted to think about some more because I said what I wonder is if there is a case if it actually should be different times in community.

B

How would you encode the difference into a claim set, so you could do it by somehow having let's say that you had two different metadata types for two different types of times.

B

um Another way to do it is to say you put in a time, and then you have a separate piece of metadata that talks about um your confidence in another time resolution, and that would be more like what lauren, I think, florence in the eat document you have like what type of bus it was received across, was the bus trusted or was it inside or outside, and so that's like an orthogonal piece of metadata and so exactly how you would encode the difference.

B

So your confidence in the time time, correct the correctness of the time could be a different value, and I haven't done anything about that because I want to think about it. But that was the discussion we had and I don't know if you have any ideas.

A

So so, if, if I can repeat back to you what I think you said, um on the one hand, you suggested that that the this time, whether it's value created or value generated um essentially, might be encodable with a an error amount, meaning I think it's around now, but it could be a little bit up as much as this much before um another and the other part not mutually exclusive. Is that the claim would say well, it came across this kind of a bus, and so that implicitly means that it must have at least taken.

A

No, you know some amount of time.

B

The lighter part is already true, meaning I think lawrence had some attribute in the somebody had an attribute in the eat document. That already had that. I was giving an analogy that you could have yet another piece of death of metadata yeah similar to that one, but not what type of post it came across, but um whether it came from some place that has its own time stamp or not.

B

A

B

Yeah because even if it came across a boss, it may or may not have its own time stamp right.

A

Right. Okay, I understand so that was just an example as well. Yeah.

B

Those are just an example. We already have multiple pieces of orthogonal metadata about the same claim set. This would this it could be done as another one of those, and I again I did not propose any text to do with that fact, but that- and that is what hank is highlighting here is- that is a point that we had discussed, um but there's nothing in the text that talks about this, um and how should we deal with? This is kind of an open question.

A

Okay, so I got you um so we don't know whether or not we need to put this other claim in about the time having originated from another device and.

B

Right there's uh at least two ways we could do.

A

It without a document, maybe more.

A

I'm just trying to think dude.

E

A

Claim a specific claim may want to detail this and it might want to standardize the way in which that is detailed, but I'm not clear that the architecture uh this sounds to me like another policy for appraisal, rather than uh a specific.

B

A

B

Question here is whether we want to combine these two rows or not. Okay, so this.

C

B

In here is, if you combine the rows, it implies that there is some other way to tell. If you don't combine the rows, then you have to have text that says in this example, we're going to use vg in this example we're going to use a a in this example. We're going to use vg and we've got to make sure that across the examples we arbitrarily pick one or the other and explain that that could have been the other one.

A

Okay, I don't have a great opinion either, although I I, I feel that having more labels and using them not using them is better than having fewer labels and having to add text all over the place.

B

Sorry other way around, if you have fewer, if you have uh more labels, it requires a bunch of text in various places. If you have fewer labels, you only have text in one place.

A

um Okay, I see your point um if.

B

You want one label, then the text goes here, that's the line 1152, which could be uh you can see. It has three sentences right now and it could have you know five sentences or something, but.

A

Somewhere else, someone has to tell you whether or not this was um generated by the in your example, by the gps or by the tester.

B

If we go with the combined place, then each example does not. You just have to say here that every example could be either one. If you have two different rows, then every example has to say we're using you know vg, but it could have been a a or something like that, because otherwise you'd think that it was inherent to that example, which it's not.

A

Okay, all right! That's.

B

A

Proposing come back.

B

I haven't helped maybe on the fence.

A

On this, so what about? There are other some of the other opinions from the group.

D

I kind of like them separate the reason it was a tester awareness. I think it goes back to the discussion from a while ago for handles what happens if you generate a not some nonce or some value centrally, but you don't get it until later now I know the point you're talking about is: can you really tell the difference.

B

Neither of these is about the handle or receive time you see in hank's. Pr he's gonna be adding another id. That's neither of these.

B

Because in uh if you're receiving a handle, aa and vg are both long before that point and you might even know the delta between vg or aaa and the hender received, and so that will show up in hank's pr. So this is orthogonal to that.

D

That was my biggest worry when we originally came up with the tester awareness. Was that so, if it's handled another way, I don't really care yeah.

C

So um more and more I would this is hank's opinion I could. I can see how this could be collapsed and then specialized, for example, in each that then deals with specific claims about that.

C

We'll flesh that out again, I don't think that the architect has to be overly expressive. We have less growing pains if we keep the acronym, that's why entry is generated, but that's only only a super micro net. I think it's it's especially easy not to edit all the text again and then arbitrarily choose a a and v uh whatever at some point. um I think it's it's literally easier.

C

The way dave is proposing it right now and uh as long as it's clear that there is some attester uh awareness there, and it says that literally I'm fine and then each can maybe deal with something that is appropriate for really uh um differentiating a and b something.

B

Well, if I understood right, you have a weak preference for combining them into one event. Did I hear that right.

F

B

F

C

B

Strongly on this one, including me right, it's just uh I I propose combining them, because I think it's actually less text overall in the architecture document, if you combine them, but again, none of us feel strongly. It sounds like.

A

Okay, so are you happy about I'm? Yes, I'm. I would go for combining them at this point then, um so uh and and hank's suggestion that we call it value generated.

C

Yeah, it's consistent with uh evidence, generated or end of a generation, but like just consistency with terms, that's all basically.

B

Okay, I understand you're saying keep the in other words collapse a a into vg, but keep it called vg.

A

Yeah, that's bad, okay, sure yeah.

B

Yeah, so the explanation of the event is okay, all right, I I understand.

A

Okay, so is there something so then later on? It's.

B

Those are all the places that I changed and those would be reverted in in hank's proposal.

A

Oh, I see because it would still be vg.

C

Yeah, but it's only here, the other document will not have to touch it if they don't want to.

B

That's true yeah because I think it is used in another document or two so yeah, and I don't know if you want to do this now. Michael er can do it offline uh in a because there's a there's like 10 of them.

A

Okay, I won't do it now, all right uh okay, so we got this yeah. Probably just you know.

B

This is the other notational question, the one that I said if you, if, if we go with this style, it will affect uh hank's pr where he didn't use the stocks. We were doing this in parallel right. So the observation here is that it would not be relevant if somebody were to say take time, eg and time ns and look at the delta between those two right.

B

That's not an interesting number, because those two clocks are not synchronized right, the time of sending in the time of say, reception of something when your time clock's not synchronized, you can get arbitrarily you get negative values and so on, and so this is to say that, because you don't have a global synchronized clock, then you got to pay attention to making sure you don't subtract, two events from different clocks that are not comparable, and so this one here you can see that there's an a v or r suffix, just added after each of their relevant ones, just to say that this is according to so-and-so's clock, and so you can only do subtraction between two things with the same suffix.

B

That's all this is doing. Is it's adding that annotation for the non-synchronized clock case.

A

B

Like to do it, this way.

B

Yes, we can do that. It makes the entire picture wider because you have to move some lines. I did look at that and then, in fact, when I said it to hank last week, should we do this. I actually used the word underscore, but right.

A

So because further down, it expands too much like here.

B

Yeah, like one yep, 12, 48 right right. So if people are okay, it just shows up with a lot more dips, because now every line has changed because the line's been farther apart and I don't know if there's any you know, 80 column issues or 70 column or whatever that our scene number is.

A

I don't think so.

B

Okay, we can try that with people like that, then I agree that does make it a little bit easier to read. But the overall question is: are people okay, with this annotation, so you'll, see, for example, line uh redline 1246 green line 1254.?

B

You can see ns prime in here whether we keep the prime or not. I think when we look at hanks, we may want to argue to keep the prime, but you can see. Nsr is different from nsv up in 1245, because they're different nonces, so maybe that should be ns prime underscore r. But again and you'll see that's the approach that hank took because there's different handles in his equivalent diagram.

A

Because, prime is a different clock is what was indicating a different clock.

B

No, it was more balanced, it was indicating.

A

A subsequent a subsequent value, right, yeah, okay,.

B

You can see it's mounts one up above, and this is the time at which knots two is acting, so it could be, you know, ns1 and s2, or something.

D

We use in some of our documents. One of the issues is, there will be times when you have prime prime or or point one. So we might have a nomenclature issue with prime. I guess we use double hash for getting it two, but once we get to three that might be an issue.

B

Yeah, so I'm wondering if here we wanna make it be like ns prime underscore r, which just adds another character with.

E

B

This is showing.

E

Ns prime from relying party clock.

B

Yes, because that, right, because.

E

Breaking the convention of identifying the clock, uh it should be rp or something an srp.

A

Yeah no he's saying that it would be ns, prime underscore r or r yeah.

B

E

B

Is missing a prime? That's all I'm pointing out right now, and we may want to add that back in um and I think when you look at hexpr you'll see. Maybe why.

E

I'm my point is that the clock is the relying party's clock.

B

Correct, that's the that's the r suffix uh in 1254, it didn't know.

A

I also kind of wonder if the suffixes are, I mean they're, underneath that particular line. So presumably it's that clock, but yeah.

B

Okay, but once you get into the text below at the top- and you can see like in line 2056 right, yeah things like that right.

A

You have to say what's wrong.

B

So, okay, so all right.

A

B

Them then it makes you wonder: oh is that doing this incomparable clock comparisons and no? No, no, I checked they're, all all the deltas are between things in the same clock and then the last nomenclature difference you'll, see between mine and hank's as you'll see in the document. Right now you can see all the deltas are expressed, as you know, time a minus time b and in hank's pr he has.

B

It is a delta parentheses, a comma b and my comment is: we should just pick one and uh use it whether it's a time a minus time b or delta, a minus or a comma b.

C

Honestly, I forgot to change the delta stuff. I just missed that.

B

C

Am okay with the threshold? I assume.

B

uh I'm okay with either one. My question is, which one people think is actually clear to understand.

E

C

When we look at the data one we can test, if so, it makes sense there, if not probably data.

B

And not not threshold, but I'm saying that the the in the middle of the thing, instead of using a subtraction, should we use a delta with a comma instead of a a uh a minus yeah.

C

I I was using uh younger time minus older time, which results in a positive duration, yeah, and so uh uh that could be something we can also try.

A

Yeah um yeah, I think.

C

A

I think it's clear if you subtract the okay smaller number from the bigger number. So yes, the younger, so.

B

Then we'll keep.

A

It here older time.

B

Yeah so we'll keep it here and we'll change the style in the pr that high generated so all right, scroll down a little bit. um So you can see the so.

A

I introduced a response to that. One.

B

Way you actually.

A

Respond response to.

B

That one um are you using the latest one or is it entered on farther down? Yes, what I had said is uh his comment.

A

Maybe you haven't hit enter yet.

B

Let me just check here because I actually included a uh suggestion. So what let's see.

E

B

I'm checking uh yeah here right hold on.

B

You're right, I didn't hit submit review all right there. You go please refresh.

B

Okay, um there you go so now, let's scroll down a little bit more, so you can see the suggestion as well. Okay, so uh uh william was pointing out that uh there is arguably an error in this inequality which was already there before. Okay, because you can see the the I would say equation, but inequality in the red and the green is the same and he's pointing out that uh there should be this other factor. That's in there, that's missing and so uh yeah. So that's!

B

Basically his suggestion is to change this line, which is orthogonal to the rest of the pr. But if people wanted the same, one then go ahead and commit the suggestion.

B

My original comment was well. I didn't change that before you're right, but maybe that's a different pr and I said uh it's only one line: let's just do it here so.

A

Okay, so I'm going to suggest that we accept the pr and then we fix the diagram with the primes and the vcvg.

B

uh If you want, I can do that offline while we review hanks just because it's a global search and replace and re-push, but.

A

B

A

If you could do that, that would be great yeah. So then we can uh that'll. Take me like two minutes: yeah. Okay. So let's do that.

D

A

D

Thanks for doing this,.

A

Okay, so then this is hank's pr hank. I don't know what this is about. This is about.

C

Thompson's I just caught this. Unfortunately, in my uh pull request, but the lip updated and now it says main and if it doesn't say main, it flows a warning. So this is not me. This is thompson's lib. So this is an artifact that is just uh logistics.

A

So I I'll put that into the main, and if you do the rebase like I suggested, then that will go away.

C

C

That's just a github change, so it's now common to a main. That's basically.

A

That's weird: they call it mean. Okay,.

C

Yeah also, I caught a uh um reference knit.

A

Yeah I fixed those two in the main uh as well. uh So that's why I asked you rebate so ignore that I put that into the master already and if you do your rebase and push go away uh from that yeah. I can do this afterwards.

C

um So uh also I have this- I mean it's especially lawrence created these two references because they look very uh fight to ask um lawrence. Please check if you think of heights before you commit, but that's okay, because I was like. Why is this all compiling? It took me like three minutes to find out that the offer was missing august, missing sort of.

A

Org was missing. That may be me yeah. That might be me because I'm stupid that way, um but I thought I compiled it, but anyway, okay.

C

So that was that uh yeah. So um again, as they've highlighted, we had a small offline discussion and uh we came to the resolution that handles is probably a third type that does not really fit nons and time stamps. So first paragraph here is about context: what's a handle basically.

C

And so they've made some comments here, a change actually yeah. Thank you. uh English is better kept with native speakers.

B

Yeah mine is purely wordsmithing grammar here.

C

Yeah, so, okay, that's always welcome, of course, um so yeah then I'm very, very easy. The handles are handles are because why are they different? You cannot just claim it. You have to highlight why this is the case. It's just me being a little bit furrow moving down a little bit, please um and you can parse that one.

B

Yes, I didn't know what the right way to fix the grammar on this one was.

C

Okay, so if it's one, this is 96, what the sense is trying to say is if you, if you already have a current handler available, this is superseded by a new handle and therefore outdated.

C

That's basically, all this tennis tries to say.

C

And there's the event, so the handler received outdates old one and uh supercedes by a new one.

A

Yeah, I know what you're trying to say the sentence is really not working.

C

I think, because I wanted to tailor event into it and then it made it complicated.

A

A

uh Receipt of a new handle validates a previous.

A

A

That that correct I, before except after c.

C

This is this a receipt to the term. I was always writing reception because I did not know how to phrase it.

A

Well, I can write reception or you can write receipt.

A

What do you prefer dave.

B

um Receipt with a p, I I think I agree, there is okay, I think receipt reads better.

C

Okay yeah, it's that's just me not knowing the right terms in english language here so, but thank you. um I like not only invalidate but also outdates. uh That's why I wrote out dates and therefore in validates these are, but that's again only me if it's clear enough uh it probably it's fine.

A

I outdates is not a that common, a word I would say I mean it's a technically correct word, but.

B

Right, outdated is used without dates is not yeah. Yeah.

C

Okay, it was just weird: okay, yeah, then just keep it the way. It is, I think it's shorter, more concise and clear. That's always good.

A

uh Cannot be applied from pending.

A

Reviews I think that.

C

Means someone else wants.

A

C

What do you mean by your comment dave, but as a parents.

B

Where oh mismatched parentheses, uh there is uh more opens than closes.

C

B

But uh but the better question this is what I was talking about. You can see delta with a comma and if you replace the delta with time e g, if you put a minus, then you can delete the time the delta open parenthesis.

C

Yeah, that is absolutely correct. I would uh agree that.

A

In this order,.

B

Yeah and then just for consistency.

A

Other examples.

B

I would uh replace validity duration with the word threshold with a capital t, just because that's how the other examples did it.

C

Yeah, no sorry that is it.

B

C

I think, and I'm also using that below and I'm comparing it to something else. I think.

B

um I know you are not using a blue, which is the my next comment is missing from 1304.

C

No, no I'm defining it and sorry just.

B

1304 the inequality should be something like uh the delta on the right. Minus the delta on the left is less than threshold.

B

So it should be like this: um the delta, that's on the right, so the hd hd prime delta minus the hdeg delta. Now you have to reorder the phrases because the one on the right is bigger and you do the subtraction you put the bigger one. First.

C

Yeah exactly so, it has to be prime minus non-prime.

B

Yeah put that one at the.

B

Beginning and then put a subtraction and then on the right side of the less than sign put the word threshold. Yes, now how we've incorporated.

C

Also, it has to be uh as a hd prime, which also should be h, r, I'm very sorry about that. This old text doesn't really make sense to me.

A

So does prime go first or are you saying.

C

Prime has to go first because it's a bigger number, otherwise we create negative.

B

C

As a result, and that's all there's a lot of errors in there.

B

Just for consistency, michael with where the uh spaces go, when we're doing the first delta delete the space before it. In other words, and the other examples, we don't have a space around the equal sign when we're just computing, a delta and so the same thing. At the end of the line, there is yeah that one.

C

So, but before.

B

C

Come before you commit this, could you scroll up this as a suggestion? Could you scroll up again, please, because I am in line sorry to watch so far so far below and line uh 1301, I'm defining validity duration, which is time h, r, prime plus, offset minus time h, r? That's why I'm using the.

D

Generation below.

C

B

C

So that I would like to retain it, please here, in this case.

B

Okay, so change the word threshold back. Okay, I understand. Thank you. Let's find the thing.

B

And then the same thing in the line that we were the long line, yeah.

A

B

Yeah same thing: there because it's the same same number, yeah.

C

B

C

Is before time, hr again correct, so hr is the bigger.

B

C

B

It is first, no, it should be. It was no no it's time hr instead of h, actually yeah. It should be time hr.

B

Yes, yeah! That's right! I agree.

C

Yeah because in one three o two there's the same error, yeah yeah time.

B

C

After time yeah well, that's because sorry.

B

Because delta might be assumed to be absolute value of differences, so yeah.

E

B

uh Yeah there you go.

A

I want to make sure that I had in fact it wasn't right.

C

I will make a pass after this and read the uh merge master in the end main story and then uh yeah. um So basically, this is all set if nobody disagrees right now. uh The diagram is ugly. Sorry, um but I did not.

B

I didn't finish reviewing it, so I can't guarantee that I won't find some other bug in the diagram, um since I kind of got down to about line 13 10 before the call so we're.

A

Going to put underscore law.

B

A

And uh so someone will do that consistently across the right.

E

That still needs to be done right.

A

Okay, so I'll finish, the review.

B

A

Not what I wanted to do is it did it commit my suggestions? Yes,.

A

Okay, as long as it committed my suggestions, I think it did. No, it didn't.

A

Okay, this is to.

A

They always put.

F

A

Yeah didn't work, did it okay,.

A

I guess I just missed.

A

E

A

A

Okay, so we're going to commit this.

B

um As long as we're expecting the underscore stuff to come in a separate pull request or something.

A

Okay, I'll um because I just fixed the base I'll I'll fix this okay. So what next.

B

um If you wait 60 more seconds I'll be ready for you to purge the other one or at least review the changes that I've done, but I'm on the last line right now with edits and so okay there's the last line I gotta commit.

B

This and push it and.

B

Now you can open it and see if I made the right changes.

A

A

A

A

A

Looks right to me.

B

So what I want to make sure that uh markdown does right. So if you go into the rich disk view button up top, uh I want to make sure the underscores render right in github um yeah you had yeah there. You go uh so example two and four okay yeah. They do. Okay,.

B

B

I just want to make sure I didn't need to backslash um escape them or something so.

A

Has no conflicts.

B

uh I think, uh because, uh william you had the uh blocking request, changes thing I will let you merge it even with that that was the one line, uh inequality change, that we did there if it lets you emerge it go ahead, because I think we've taken your suggestion.

A

Okay, I will fix hank's pull request. So what next.

A

I will fix this.

B

One um I have not looked at any of uh lawrence's new ones. I see lauren's open new ones. Yesterday I reviewed hanks but didn't have time to get through lawrence's.

B

So I don't know if those are ready this time, if there's another one, to look at.

C

Fresh ones are relatively uh concise, like uh four two and four.

C

B

um I don't like the combining into the same line, which makes it harder to review, but.

B

Yeah, I understand you've modified all three of them, so they'd show up as differences anyway, at least, but I have to stare at it to notice that.

A

um Well, maybe if we do that.

A

E

Did we not define claim as a term.

B

I think we did that's why uh lawrence is capitalizing claim.

F

Yes and it I, I believe it's it's capitalized, mostly in the document.

E

Yep, okay, I'm reading that wrong.

B

um So there's a typo in the last green line where exists should not have an s at the end, because a testing environment is singular.

C

B

Yeah you're right. You already noticed that. Okay, you want your head to be 12 by 12 hours, good job.

A

Okay, so take that one.

B

B

um I think grammatically and there's no limit or requirement of places, maybe requirement on places or something like that would be.

E

B

uh 404 uh about the eighth word or something in 404, uh no, the the green 404.

B

Let's see about the eighth word or something is places yeah yeah, sorry, you know you had the right uh michael, the word no limit to or requirement of places right before places, nope, not the word of advance. One word later yep that one is there a better preposition, there's no requirement on places or four places.

E

On the places and a testing environment.

B

And exist: yeah: okay, yeah. I like that ned.

E

That and then testing environment on the places and a testing environment can exist. Okay, yeah.

A

So sorry, this is there's another change here.

E

No, I just reading it out loud, it's whether or not that should be there. So I think.

B

It's correct either way but yeah. I think it's.

A

A preposition I never.

E

Know on on the places that and a testing environment can exist.

B

I think it's okay either way: okay,.

A

All the places that that's your suggestion.

B

uh Wrong place, move it upward leftward there you go. Yes,.

A

I prefer that that's.

B

B

B

Hey sentence: take that.

B

Looks? Okay to.

B

A

So you said this one was the other one that you thought you said it was easy.

C

No, I have not read that one actually all right. Well then, you.

B

B

Yeah, I think, that's fine, since we defined relying pretty owner as a term.

B

I think this makes it be consistent. So sure that looks fine to me, guys.

C

What about the comments here with the might is is, of course stronger than might.

B

Oh okay, um I think that lawrence's change is still consistent with what the diagram shows. If you go to the first diagram of the whole uh document,.

C

I mean because there is the box yeah of.

B

B

Not that one uh just go to the full editors view.

C

That is, of course,.

B

That one look at the far right and far right line and the line that the one that you just had on the screen, michael yeah, that one the far right line, relying party owner causes appraisal policy, and so the top right box is labeled drawing the owner and I think lawrence's pull request, changes it to say your line, party earned, which matches that line.

E

But the comment was on might versus is.

C

B

What I'm saying.

C

Something else there's nothing else. There.

B

Yeah exactly that's my point, that's why I think it's correct.

E

The the only consideration is whether or not the policy is embedded in the relaying pity or if it is configured by the.

E

The owner, but I think that it's a subtle difference and one could argue that embedding it is, is the same thing as the owner configuring. It.

B

um So, let's actually compare it with the sentence. The first sentence, the appraisal policy for evidence- might be obtained from an endorser or might be obtained via some other mechanism, such as being configured in the verifier by the verifier owner. uh Maybe that's why it was an example used for parity with that sentence which says.

E

It could be configured.

B

By the verifier owner, or maybe by somebody else, I mean forget the fact that it could come from the endorser right the or might be obtained phrase via some other mechanism, such as the words such as in the green there. In is probably why the mic, for example, was there.

E

B

So I'm okay with it either.

B

Way, all right sounds like william prefers might be.

F

I, like the is because um it's I think it's sharper and I don't like the idea of sort of important characteristics or data items or configurations coming sort of from ambient, or you know not specified places. I mean that the the arrows in that diagram are there for a reason and they really are showing something and if, if something important is coming from somewhere else, there should be an error for it.

B

Well that I'm not sure I agree with that, there has to be an arrow for every possible thing, because it's an example but an important.

C

B

Ned, which are asking ned what you suggested is there might be some case with the appraisal policy for attack station results and say heard coded into the relying credit code, in which case it wasn't configured by the owner other than the owner may have installed that code on there or something so.

E

A

Says is configured in the relying party right.

C

A

That be the code by the relying party owner, which you know well.

E

Yeah, I think that.

E

That's fine too, um but I think, but either way I think it can be interpreted correctly by just using the word is.

B

E

uh Because it's it's, it's purposefully, not identifying the entity that is doing the making the change or doing the configuration.

B

So I guess I would suggest is typically, but I don't feel strongly.

A

E

I'm fine with is.

E

Just it's less, this.

B

E

B

I don't know if he has audio because he hasn't spoken up yet.

C

Maybe maybe try to talk, we cannot hear you.

A

Type in the chat it's late at night, there.

A

Okay, um well, I don't see I'm not hearing a resounding; it must be changed. I'm not hearing that a preference for going back to, for example, but uh typically is typically maybe that would satisfy the the not-white agreement here.

F

I I don't, I don't know I really like is I don't like this sort of a squishy background kind of things coming in from from shadowy places that that are? We don't really describe.

A

Well, it it's more, I think, opening that it's not the only way I would say is that I think people are trying to get at is that.

E

It's like saying um in my security kernel: I have a security policy, that's hardwired and it was written by the manufacturer and then you could say another part of the.

C

E

Of the system is based on a policy that's configured by an owner.

D

E

At the end of the day, both policies affect the security behavior of the system. One was you know, written by one entity, the other by another entity, but you can't really. You know. At the end of the day, the behavior is one behavior and we we presume that the whatever whatever work was done by the manufacturer, who is okay by the owner.

E

You know for practical reasons, the owner can't write. uh uh You know some of the code, that's in the system, yet he agrees with it. So.

F

So then, let's say that the appraisal policy uh might be pre-configured into the relying party code or it might be con configured by.

E

Dynamically configured by relying party by the owner, I agree with that. Yeah.

A

So, do you want to say, um do you want to say, do you want to insert something here about it being pre-configured or do you want to put an or.

E

Well, I think it's both it might be pre-configured or.

A

Yeah and then you want to uh put something before the is or do you want to say is configured.

A

I meant is programmed here is either programmed into the relying.

A

E

uh Or is configured yeah? That's fine!.

A

Okay, I'm going to put that on the same line like this.

E

Or both, but maybe that's implied.

A

I can put or both, but um I want inclusive or rather than exclusive or right, I think, is the point.

A

B

um What do you mean by or both.

E

It's whether you interpret or as inclusive or exclusive, I don't know in english. What the right way is.

B

Okay, let me rephrase um in what case would it be inclusive? Are you saying one overwrites the other, or do you mean that it is a combination? That's.

E

What I mean, what.

B

Okay, because I'm just observing that or both does not appear in the previous paragraph, where the same point would be true right.

E

B

You'd have to do it in the owner, yeah.

E

You'd have to fix them up both of them to be similar.

A

uh Hang on here so you're talking about line.

B

A

We don't mention the program.

B

Right right because it might be very typical for some stuff to be come in from the endorsements and other stuff to come in from the verifier owner and the effective one is the combination of those two together, which is your point down here.

A

Too so are you happy with and or.

B

um Yes, although um I would swap the order of the two things listed in there uh only because uh the diagram shows relying party owner, and so I would rather list first, the one that's shown as the typical one in the diagram.

B

If we just swap the order of the two phrases, then yeah.

B

Yeah, that's much better.

B

Yep, I'm fine with that.

B

B

And then the question is in line 362: do you want to change that or to be an and or.

B

362 is my question.

A

A

E

A

Okay, it's pretty much the top of the hour. I have fixed three based.

B

B

Because I put the pull request on the sentence that could make sense so.

A

That's wrong that should have quotes around it.

A

Sorry, let me fix that.

B

Okay, I remember my request.

B

A

A

All right, so I'm going to commit this, that's all for today and then we're going to fix the diagrams to have the consistency.

B

Yeah, we should only do like underscores and stuff in this one, but yeah. That's fine, except for requests.

A

I don't know if I deleted all the other branches, all right, so I'll talk to you guys next week, then.

B

So on that one hank actually asked a question that would be useful for us to see whether we have agreement on. If you just go back one thing in the browser in his comment on 145 I mean you can see: uh no, no, not not not not in the text. In the pure request description, he says also a background check version might be perceived as missing. Do we need one question?

B

Oh yeah yeah, because before we had a two by two matrix of examples, meaning background check versus passport for nonce versus timestamp, and this adds a third value versus timestamp access. So now it's non-timestamp and handle, and so.

C

B

Well, that's a question: there are six theoretical ones. Do we actually need to add the sixth one or do we think that uh adding the sixth one would not add any other information I mean? Should we add a tiny one that says oh and this one is the same. um That's the open question there.

A

Could you ask working group sure for the also reason of making them read the document.

B

This was a question that hank and I had talked about last week and we didn't have a strong answer to it, but that's why? I think I think you copied the question in here, because that is a topic we discussed so.

A

Exactly yeah, let's ask the working group and uh that I think that's a good way to engage them.

C

Before we uh ask someone, do we want to push a update.

A

Yeah, do you want me to push the update? I can push an update today.

B

I would say hank if you can get the underscores in there and push the update uh or well. Does that mean.

C

There's something without us.

B

Having a chance to review it, so it depends on how fast we can get the review done. So if you can generate it, I can review it, but I don't know if we want to go ahead and merge it or what so.

C

Okay, that doesn't is about a day, so I will ever yes, this pr should be in otherwise would be weird, and then we can. I can address your.

B

Because I say that michael because we're going to be calling in in hank's question if he sends it to the list and we're going to be calling attention to these sections, and then people are going to just point out well, what's this underscore in one place, not the other place.

A

He underscores it can't do it. I can do that today and and uh get review it, because that will be probably time zone wise.

B

A

Okay, wonderful talk to you guys.

A

A