►
From YouTube: RATS Architecture Design Team, 2021-02-09
Description
RATS Architecture Design Team, 2021-02-09
A
All
right
well,
many
of
us
are
here
now.
I
just
want
to
open
my.
A
Notes
so
we
have
a
couple
pull
requests
that
are
possibly
duplicates,
but
it's
today
anyway,
the
ninth
yes.
A
That's
not
it.
That's
not.
B
C
I
think
it's
the
1252.
A
A
D
No,
it's
fine,
the
other,
the
accepted
one
is
good.
This
one
is,
I
don't,
know
an
oversight,
okay,
not
missing
people
who
create
changes,
but
I
think
this.
A
Yeah,
okay,
all
right,
so
we
got
rid
of
that.
One.
A
This,
oh
yeah,
so
this
I
kept
open
because
we
had
some
discussion
about
this
wording
appraisal,
so
I
did
change
it
to
appraisal
policy
for
attestation
results.
As
you
asked.
A
Way
had
this
question
checking
the
attestation
results
on
plasticity
is
including
the
appraisal
policy.
Protestation
results
are
not.
D
I
think
that
is
somehow
part
of
the
appraisal,
but
it's
validity
checking
beforehand,
so,
depending
on
implementation
architecture
of
a
relying
party
that
might
be
a
separate
component.
Doing
that
I
would
substitute
it
in
for
our
case
here
in
the
appraiser
policies.
D
C
Okay,
I
think
your
text
is
fine,
as
is
after
reading.
D
I
mean
I
agree
that
we
can
that
this
effectively
is
an
issue
validity
checker
actually
was
a
separate
role,
it's
to
set
some
points,
especially
for
it,
but
we
abandoned
that
and
we're
not
intricately.
A
Yeah,
I
think
they're
pretty
close
to.
I
think
chinese
new
year
starts
tomorrow.
A
C
D
A
B
C
A
A
Somebody
wrote
some
text
claims
collection,
285.
Well,
that's
got
to
be
ned's
text.
Ned
must
have
written
this.
Okay.
A
C
Oh
okay,
I'm
just
looking
to
see
what
the
says
was
I
had
commented
and
william
had
thumbs
up
that.
C
A
Yeah,
I
agree
with
you
all
right,
so
this
is
an
issue
maybe
fixed
by
two
70.
A
Oh,
that's
the
one
that
I
find
the
nut,
calling
the
issues
issue,
blah
blah
blah
and
then
whatever
it's
confusing
to
me.
Okay,
so
all
right,
so
we're
going
to
close
this
without
changing
it.
That's
that's
what
we're.
C
A
High
level
so
what's
left
here.
C
Remember
last
week
we
left
an
issue
assigned
to
me
to
go
into
a
pass
and
I
did
a
little
bit
of
cleanup
here.
I,
like
realigned
the
things
that
we
didn't
do
during
anything
and
so
on.
So.
A
A
D
No
not
except
most
of
the
yeah,
it's
also
fixes,
that's
all
in
there
now
yeah
thank.
D
A
C
Yeah
I
raise
this
is
a
question
because
I
know
this
is
what
the
rfc
editor
is
going
to
be
confused
about.
We
don't
capitalize
on
the
abstract.
We.
A
C
Need
to
capitalize
it
in
582
and
afterwards,
and
so
that's
why
there
are
parts
of
this
that
are
absolutely
correct.
The
it's,
though,
there's
a
couple
occurrences
before
line
582.
The
question
is:
do
we
capitalize
those
given?
We
don't
have
the
abstract
or
not,
and
that's
the
question
that
I
asked
I'm
okay
with
no
matter
which
decision
we
make.
I
would
probably
leave
them
lower
case
before
line
582.
But
again
I
don't
really
carry
it
away
because
I
figure
rfc's
editor
is
going
to
change
it.
One
way
there
are
chances
are.
A
Yeah,
so
there's
probably
maybe
some
other
other
terminology
in
the
in
the
use
cases
that
the
same
policy
would
apply
to.
I
I
don't
know
what
they'll
what
they'll
do.
I
know
they
would
like
consistency,
but
anyway
I
don't
know
whether
what
they
would
do
with
that.
So.
C
A
I
think
that
I
think
there's
a
50
50
chance,
which
way
the
rsc
editor
will
go.
A
D
The
terminology
appears,
surprisingly
late.
Now,
in
the
surprising
to
me,
there
are
no
pages
in
the
in
the.
C
Is
a
generic
enough
term?
I
guess
the
the
claim
would
be
that
it's
a
generic
enough
term
that
until
you
start
using
it
in
any,
you
know
almost
normative
sense
about
what
we're
doing.
It's
just
use
cases
right.
So
then
it's
just
yet
the
layman's
term,
without
definition,
is
fine
for
use
cases.
I
guess
that
would
be
the
argument
so.
D
C
Other
definitions
too,
they
refer
to
claims.
Like
you
know,
evidence
refers
to
claims.
You
know
instead
of
signed
things
or
whatever
yeah.
B
You
can
also
use
it
as
a
verb
initially
and
then
switch
it
to
a
noun.
The
reader
won't
really
notice.
C
B
B
C
It's
mixed,
you
know.
Yes,
it's
lower
case
before
there
and
then
afterwards,
it's
makes
it
supposed
to
be
uppercase
after
there,
but
there's
a
couple
place
cases
in
this
pure
request
that
actually
fixes
it
where
it
was
lowercase.
C
D
It's
inconsistent
in
in
before
it's
introduced.
That's
that's.
My
point
3.4
is
is
like
in
the
diagram.
It's
lower
capitalized
in
the
it's
a
lower
case
in
the
textbook.
A
So
the
diagram
is,
has,
yes,
it
has
lower
lower
case.
It
should
be
uppercase.
D
D
A
A
The
text
I
I'm
agnostic
about
the
the
about
the
ref
about
the
use
above
the
in
the
reference
k,
use
cases
in
the
use
cases
I'm
agnostic
about
it.
D
A
D
Yeah,
okay,
then,
if
there's
no
objection,
I
will
create
a
pull
request.
Capitalizing
claims
all
over
except
abstract,.
D
Then
that
it's
replaced
by
a
suggestion
that
the
merchant.
A
C
A
C
A
I'm
not
actually
sure
anymore.
At
this
point,
I
I
they
weren't
marked
no
won't
fix.
B
A
I
did
not
email
about
them,
I
think
they're.
In
still,
I
think
that's
really
what
they
are
help
wanted,
meaning
we
we
really
haven't,
come
to
any
conclusion.
C
C
I
am
fine
with
hank's
a
proposal
of
won't
fix,
meaning
by
won't
fix.
We
mean
respond
in
email,
but
what
do
others.
C
Think
I'm
my
comment
might
be
part
of
a
response
that
in
email.
C
Yeah,
where
do
you
stop
right
if
you
have
to
attest
the
verifier
who
verifies
that
and
if
that's
not
combined,
then
who
verifies
that
one
and
so
on?
So
at
some
point
you
stop,
and
you
say
the
bottom
of
it
is.
If
you
need
to
do
attestation
everywhere,
then
at
some
point
at
the
bottom
of
it
you
have
to
have
a
minimal
verifier
in
your
lying
party
and
that's
what
I
tried
to
right
there
and
I
think
I
think
I
agree
with
hank.
C
Okay
and
we,
you
can
say
that
you
know
because
you
can
see
hank
your
comment.
This
is
related
to
the
current
mutual
authentication
attestation
discussion
and
will
be
reworded,
mutual,
but
we
reword
it
in
a
way
to
actually
match
more.
What's
in
the
text
that
is
being
quoted
up
top,
so
that's
not
really
a
response
to
this,
but
I
don't
know:
okay.
A
But
so
all
right,
so
we
put
won't
fix
and
we're
going
to
reply.
D
C
C
A
A
Okay,
michael
you're
funny.
What
did
I
say?
A
C
A
They
don't
it's
quite
scandalous
at
one
point
in
canada,
you
know
questions
were
asked
in
parliament
as
to
why
exactly?
How
exactly
did
they
get
these
and
were
they
in
fact,
real.
C
D
Yeah,
this
is
a
typical
thing
that
maybe
we
can't
over
stress
here,
but
I
think
in
general
attestation
results
have
a
stronger
dependency
on
being
simple
and
standardized
than
evidences.
C
No,
no,
I
agree
with
your
conclusion
there.
I
don't
so
you
know.
Interoperability
and
standardization
is
more
relevant
for
attestation
results
than
this
for
evidence
completely
agree
with
that
sentence
there,
and,
if
that's
not,
if
that
doesn't
come
through
someplace,
adding
just
that
right,
there
is
one
sentence:
someplace
might
actually
be
helpful.
C
All
right,
so
I
guess
I
want
to
see
that
in
context
there
to
see
if
I
can
take
if
we
can
take
pink
sentence,
starting
with
the
word
this
implies,
and
this
implies
that
interoperability
and
standardization
is
more
relevant
results
than
it
is
for
evidence
that
sections
I'm
trying
to
see
if
there's
a
good
place
to
insert
it
close
to
the
text,
that's
being
cited
here,.
A
A
C
C
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
C
Not
if
you're
american,
no
it's
correct!
Okay,
if
you're
british,
yes.
C
A
A
C
Actually,
look
at
that
one.
I
wonder
if
that
was
the
one
that
we
said
was
covered
by
two
different
ones,
because
I
think
this
is
the
first
strongest
security
yeah.
I
think
we
already
fixed
this
one.
This
is
the
one
that
we
abandoned,
because
there
was
a
another
request
already
merged
that
did
this
one.
It
just
may
not
have
been
linked
to
this.
One
was
the
issue
so,
okay,
so
I
don't
know,
do
we
want
to
make
sure?
C
I
guess
you
can
find
it
indirectly
by
looking
in
the
in
the
one
to
see
which
one
it's
obsoleted
by
you
can
see:
change
picks
for
strongest,
fixed
number
220.
I
think
that
was
the
one
that
we
abandoned.
C
C
A
A
This
yeah
and
we're
just
looking
for
the
which
one
was
rewarded
so
that
we
can
have
a
a
trail.
C
I
think
it
was
mine
that
had
tpm,
I
think
it's
one
that
had
that
the
title
in
the
closed
ones.
I
believe
it's
282
282.
A
All
right
meantime.
A
We
have
this
question
about
from
guy.
How
does
the
loader
environment
work
it'd
be
good
to
see
the
whole
diagram.
A
A
C
C
C
I
think
the
diagram
is
correct.
It
may
not
be
obvious.
B
A
Again
so
that's.
C
Can
you
bring
up
the
bike
yeah?
Okay,
so
my
reading
of
the
I
don't
know
complaint
or
feedback
or
whatever?
Is
that
the
line
that
comes
out
of
a
testing
environment
b
that
goes
up
to
verifier
right?
He
says
the
target
environment.
If
that
target
environment
is
you
know
a
boot
loader
or
something,
then
that's
only
around
for
a
tiny
period
of
time,
and
so
it
can't
actually
conduct
a
protocol.
That's
there
right,
and
so
how
does
that
line?
Work
right?
C
And
I'm
saying
I
think
it's
actually
correct,
because
what
happens
is
that
can
all
happen?
The
information
can
be
cached
in
the
target.
Environment
c.
Can
then
supply
that
and
implement
the
protocol
there.
This
is
a
conceptual
data
flow,
not
where
the
protocol
itself
lives
or
whatever.
So,
if
that
right
there
goes
out
to
storage
or
whatever,
and
then
the
rest
of
the
line
happens
at
a
slightly
later
point
in
time
after
boot,
then
that
diagram
is
still
valid
now,
whether
it's
worth
going
into
all
of
that.
C
Another
way
to
perhaps
not
beg
the
question
would
be
to
change
the
description
of
this
diagram
for
a
different
example
case,
and
the
example
case
that
I
think
is
a
little
bit
easier
to
understand
in
this
case
is
where
a
testing
environment.
So,
let's
take
a
case
with
something
like
where
b
is
the
os
rather
than
the
boot
loader
c
is
an
application
or
workload,
and
then.
D
C
A
A
C
C
A
C
Yeah,
and
so
I'm
saying
I
think
the
least
fix
would
be
a
is
you
know,
file
separate
loader
b
is
os
and
c
is
application
or
workload.
A
A
A
A
A
Okay,
so
that
leaves
us
with
one
issue
to
write
an
email
about.
A
So
I
will
post
a
new
revision
this
afternoon
and
write
that
email
and
the
email
is
mostly
based
on
this
text
or
this
text
I'll
figure
it
out.
I
guess.
A
B
C
C
We
did
make
so
it
might
be
useful,
michael
to
reference,
the
change
that
we
did,
that
was
related
to
this
mean
that
whatever
the
mutual
one
is
because
when
it
says
you
know,
as
discussed
above
you
could
say
you
know
you
know,
can
you
check
the
changes
in
the
following
pr
and
see
if
these
address
your
question
or
address
your
comment?
That
kind
of
thing
see
if
we
can
find
the
number
which
pull
request,
that
was,
that
was
the
one
with
the
word
mutual
in
it.
C
Yeah,
the
line
921,
for
example,
is
the
first
part
of
the
change,
and
then
it
continues
on
when
it
says,
discussed
above
it's
all
kind
of
referring
back
to
this
rewriting
of
text
and
things,
and
so
you
could
somehow
phrase
it,
as
you
know,
copy
in,
for
example,
my
response
there
and
said
we
did
make
changes
in
the
following
pr.
C
A
C
A
A
A
A
I
believe
kathleen
is
going
to
do
the
shepherd
write-up
as
my
understanding
from
email
from
her
a
couple
days
ago,
and
I've
told
her.
She
should
start.
D
Yeah
I'm
going
to
do
so,
and
so
we
should
do
a
submit.
With
all
issues
closed
I
think
again
and
I
will
start
an
editorial
pass.
Then.
A
D
I
hope,
of
course,
so
that's
a
that's
a
procedural
question.
I
could
do
a
humongous
pr
or
a
quote
painstakingly
granular
prs.
I
don't
know
what
is
best
here.
There
are.
A
D
B
D
Yeah,
that's
a
good
idea.
Okay,
I
will
create
a
staged
pr
with
commits
as
they
happen
and
yes,
I
became
we
can
still
mesh
bash
that
when
we
are,
we
have
isd
review.
But
first
of
all
we
need
a
shepherd
write
up
ad
review
before
it
goes
to
isg,
and
that
will
take
a
lot
of
time
and
I
would
like
to
make
use
of
that
time
in
between.
A
D
Also,
actually,
the
id
review
look
at
the
pr
or
at
the
at
the
draft.
Pr
I
can.
I
can
label
it
as
a
wip
or
draft,
I
think
yeah
and
it
can't
be
merged,
and-
and
so
maybe,
if
I
don't
know
roman
is
doing.
A
D
D
A
It's
it's
probably
mostly
fine.
I
wish
rowan
wouldn't
do
his
spell
check
thing,
but
anyway,
apparently
he
just
apparently
he
generates
this
from
a
macro
with
word.
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
that
if
you
do
them
with
individual
commits
right,
we
normally
have
gone
through
this
files
changed
which
shows
us
everything
together,
but
that
we
can
actually
walk
through
the
individual
commits
right
and
we
can
actually,
you
know,
agree
or
disagree
or
comment
have
a
conversation
about
them.
Yeah
individually,.
D
If
you
said
made
for
isg,
do
you
really
want
to
do
that?
Maybe
that's
an
interesting
thing
to
capture
I'd.
A
C
A
A
The
changes
to
that
might
break
your
editorial
review
because
we
might
have
to
you
know
I
don't
know
change
some
approach
or
they
might
really
just.
D
Data
reviews-
I've
done
them
a
lot,
so
I
I'm
fine
with
creating
a
branch,
not
creating
a
pull
request
working
on
it
and
then,
when
other
feedback
comes
in,
I
line
it
again.
D
Yeah,
I
I'm
sorry
sometimes.
A
But
are
you
are
you?
Are
you
trusted
a
tester
right
anyway?
Okay?
Well,
thank
you.
So
I'm
going
to
remove
the
next
week's
meeting
from
the
calendar
and
we'll
will
re-convene
when
it
makes
sense.
D
Yeah,
so
next
section
is
like
so
caslin:
that's
not
that's,
not
public.
I
think
offered
to.
A
C
Actually,
a
a
field
in
the
data
tracker.
I
just
wonder
if
that's
been
updated
for
this
document
to
say
who
the
shepherd
is.
A
No,
it
had
not,
but
email
I
got
from
kathleen
was
that
she
was
going
to
do
it.
Whether
you
know,
okay,.