Internet Engineering Task Force RATS Architecture Design Team, 30 Jun 2020

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: RATS Architecture Design Team Meeting, 2020-06-30

Description

RATS Architecture Design Team Meeting, 2020-06-30

A

We were also involved in this I think.

B

Hi Mike yeah yeah.

A

But also it was.

B

Onion see us Eric.

A

Lloyd as well I just want to make sure we have the right people here to respond and figure out where we're going with this I. Just.

C

A

C

If you're still waiting for people, it might be easier, just review the other PR that are orthogonal, meaning the thing I believe I address people's comments and mine and then I just started another trivial past that might be trivial emerge, but I had a different question.

B

Sounds good isn't going to to to join today because I think 88 is mostly his.

A

No, here's an answer telegram yet so I assume he's indisposed for the moment.

C

Yeah they 1:12 I'm, hoping we'll be trivial in some places it was a station result in the appraisal policy. In other places it was attestation results. You can see watchdog. That's one word to match the TCG spec in some places you had like evidence, appraisal policy versus the price of policy for evidence, and so and then no it looks like the last one got. Hey. I did not intend for that last one to be in the same one.

C

Let me go and revert that the CC and RP are not used in text, but that's supposed to be part of that other one, not this one. So let me go and revert those out of this. One hold on that part is not in the same set as the editorial pass. That's in a different peer.

A

Just one at 10:21.

C

Yeah 10 21 and 10 24 I'm gonna revert, that's in the doesn't ever clear. Sorry, that's well, I couldn't put them in here, you're right, it's not in the PR it's in the issue 111, but can you leave those on the screen for just a second were like what is a 10-1 et1.

C

C

Well can leave it in here. People want, but I didn't realize it was in the same request. Just those two are two events that are not even used anywhere in the 88 or 91, so that was a 0.1 in my list of six or seven she's 111.

C

Okay, can you refresh.

C

The get something wrong look all right, I got something wrong there hold on. Do that again,.

D

I'm sorry, oh I thought this. One was cancers, I, don't know why.

E

D

Thank you, yeah. That's good! Mister. Last time.

C

Yeah, the last one set out a cancellation of us, so I expected that we were not meeting so actually, since I got actually two sort of two different cancellation notices without any updates or notices that they were incorrect, so I assumed it actually was canceled. Weird I'm.

A

Sorry about that Dave I thought today was canceled. Did.

C

You get a Korean, did you get a cancellation notice, I.

D

D

Independence Day week and also suppose, and therefore nobody has time, I thought that was the agreement, but maybe that's just my memory. If it's bad.

C

Yeah there is the open source summit that I am on often time, but it turns out nothing Aires. During this slide, you can refresh again I'm trying to revert the bottom stuff is being quite a bit here. We go okay, yeah now, I think it's just a consistence of comparison.

A

Talk at 10:30 Dave on on on secure, update, over-the-air, secure, update.

C

Let me check my calendar anyway,.

C

At what time at 10:30, which would be 8:30, which is, after the end of our call right? Oh.

A

It's in 20 minutes.

A

Oh it's a tutorial. It's a that's a tutorial and the other one.

C

There is one over the.

A

Secure boot and over-the-air updates I, don't know if it's any good, but.

C

Anyway, there is a talk and I'm number when it is that's about the critical infrastructure platform and it talks about secure updates on that. One key is that when I was going to go as a suit chair and at the end, I was gonna.

C

Ask you a question about you know: what's the relationship to suit to see if they know about it, we had a suit chairs meeting the other day and I said: hey I'm gonna go and attend this one, so that I can ask the question at the end and raise visibility of suit, but I do want to make sure it's not the one that during this call because I didn't say, I was gonna, be there so me yeah all.

A

Right any objection to these edits- these are I, think, should caught non-controversial I.

D

Think mr. Tsai is totally under prepared vote fully under prepare.

D

C

Since we just look at this, and all this one did ank was there is consistency, so there was a couple places that we had appraisal policy for Association result versus attestation, policy for attestation results with an S, vs attestation, result appraisal policy and so I try to make those be consistent to always be results, plural and in in in all the places. Similarly, in in the TCG spec, that's called watchdog a lower case, and you can see here it's two different places.

C

Two words one upper case, one lower case and so I try to make it be consistent with the same as what the TCG respect uses. That's I, don't know if I missed any other ones later on, I didn't get to the end, and so I may have a continuation later. But all these are a nice consistency pass. So.

C

It's not interesting, it's just taking a term that was already used with the document and using in other places, making it consistent.

C

And that one I think Greg and I had agreed that this one is obsolete. If you look at the conversation.

C

You should scroll down, you I, believe it's absolutely by 108 and Greg says yes, I, agree and so I think this and there's now abandoned, because it's kind of merged into the other one it should be. However, we do that.

C

Levin is one where I believe I have addressed everybody's comments and I. Don't know if I, if people like the way that I've addressed it but I believe that 11, which I had comments in it before I, believe that I have addressed them. Oh I'm, not it not necessarily exactly the same way as people would suggest it, but I do want to.

A

You say said eleven, but just.

C

Like what do we get.

A

C

We it's our answer.

C

E

C

Are in outdated sections, yeah.

A

So my complaint was that I thought that we needed that relying party verifier relying party I just felt needed a slash or a dash or something in it. Well,.

C

It used to say you verifying relying party, you can see there in the red, 681 and now I put a slash in it, but I did not accept the appraising slash or lying party and change it to verify or allowing party which I thought was much more correct. Relying parties also do appraisal right, so every relying party is an appraising relying party. So that's why I thought this was more clear and the other point that was raised I think from Hank was I.

C

Try not to use a test as a verb and I reworded that which also see, if you screw up the very first change in this PR now you'd screw up. You can see it was already used in there in 275 and so I changed like three different places. This is one of them, so I changed the existing places to.

C

Okay, thank you.

C

Yeah, so there was a couple of new chain new changes in this PR because of that comment about a test cuz. It was already using a couple places so, but the point seemed about it to me so I wouldn't look for him.

C

So the only changes in here are the ones which have the verifier slash. Relying party was that change and then the attest not being used as a verb any place in the document. Those the two changes since, since the last time you reviewed it. Oh- and you see my response to your aside, but I, don't think it's the scope of this PR, but it's interesting discussion.

A

So I'm asking architectural question: is it a requirement on the containers eat, for instance, that a testers identify what might they what might be PII from their point of view.

C

It not in the document so far, but it's a valid question to ask. I'm.

A

Asking I'm asking: is this an architectural requirement that we explicitly identify PII personally identifiable information to try to figure out what that PII meant we're gonna said we ever discussed that in the working group.

C

In an 8 presentation, I can't remember I.

C

Don't know if Lauren says audio.

A

Situation where.

A

Some identifier is used in more than one place and.

A

Because of the way it's used in a different place, it's identifying so I, don't know for an instance a if, if a MAC address was used, a randomly generated, MAC address was used in some place.

A

It might not be PII because it's randomly generated, but when the manufacturers oh UI, is used than it is identifying and then maybe you wind up using that MAC address in some other places and identify ur, because you didn't have anything.

F

A

So Michael that this.

F

Is this is one of the early questions with the TPM, particularly the the ek certificate is signed by a manufacturer, let's say Intel Corporation or you know arm and if that's certificate, or that key pair is used to quote certify to co-sign another device, keep air that second device. Keeper is still uniquely bound to that device, and so when, when I use it say to go shopping, you know to send my Bitcoin to yeah. So you know absolutely right, it's you know the other end, the recipient.

F

The RP is going to be able to correlate all my transactions right, and so the question is here is well. Is this? Is this the right layer to talk about PII because it's really device behavior information versus my personal info? For me when I, where I live my address and so on so on, maybe we should just limit the discussion to say you know something like you know, there's a possibility that the device could be correlated, and so you could do you know you know basically behavioral surveillance right.

A

I'm, not I'm, not really asking about that point. I'm asking is that so, for example, I mean I. Try to think a good example here so I say.

C

That, in some cases, the model number of the device would be PII yeah.

G

So let me, let me say what eat did it doesn't try to define PII or have a criteria of like sorting whether this is bi or not, that that seems like that's going to be a problem because of various quality by context? Much for the things what document says is privacy is an issue and you have to watch out for it. Some things will be privacy violating and some things won't. And if you, you know, the solutions to the privacy issue are either. Don't send the data?

G

Ask the user if it's okay, to send the data or find a way to anonymize the data and then maybe some particular discussion around the key material, because the key keying strategy is that that has just huge implications for privacy and to try to avoid the privacy issues. You have to really I'm.

A

Not trying to I'm not trying to have that conversation that was.

C

Lawrence's answer I completely agree, wait, I, think that's a great answer or do I and I. Don't think and I think that's a motivation for why the answer is no to your question level. Could.

F

Be is, instead of using that that those three words personally identify help information. Could we say, device identify identify information like dia, well,.

C

A

Don't have a proposed text. The only text here that I'm responding to is that that the tester must trust entities to which you conveys evidence that they won't reveal it right, and that text was already in there. This just moved here. So that's why this is all in a side, discussion, right right and so so that the side discussion, to my mind, is if Ana tester is going to trust another entity to not reveal things that are sensitive. Does the data that sensitive needs to be marked as sensitive yeah.

C

And I agree the sensor, which is the may completely vary by context and so on, and so there will be at times. I would think where the a tester doesn't have a clean way to market, because I mean I know the code may not know whether it's PII he depend on the context in which that device is deployed.

C

I agree lawrence was saying when he said it may vary by context, other things, and so that's why I don't know that it makes sense to try to do that. I mean I can't prove that it doesn't. But I'm saying I right now: I accept Lawrence's answer so yeah.

G

That's what I'm saying okay.

A

All right so I'm going to resolve this. For the moment, I mean.

C

It'd still be worth asking an a message to the list to see if other people agree with that, but I personally accept Lawrence's answer as a good answers.

E

In my mind, this falls into sort of the opposite of a lot of the appraisal, policies that you know can't be dictated in this document. There's you know this is a. This is a local policy at the in tester. As to you know what constitutes viii. What come you know under what conditions are they willing to share with whom and so forth? That's sort of you know, as as long as it's clear that that's that's a policy choice that an ax tester can can make and enforce. I think it's about the relying party.

G

The relying parties because they're the ones if it's just one, it's not a big issue, but if you're looking at a set of you know hundred or five hundred potential relying parties of all sorts of different types. That's that's where you're gonna, that's the context of matters. I mean the.

C

Sentence, Mike was asking about the seven ten to seven eleven I think Paul's exactly right.

C

What what the the thing that it conveys evidence to is the verifier right and so the attest, rested, trust and that reveal sensitive data to unauthorized parties and so what sensitive data and who are not authorized parties I think Paul is exactly right. If that falls into the realm of the appraisal, policy is gets to dictate that.

A

So let me give you an example where I think it might be useful to have a flag right in general. The hash or measurement of the firmware is not is not sensitive data, because everyone's running the same firmware, I, hope right. That has that device, except in the case when it turns out they're, running a beta or something else, and there's only six of those people, and so revealing that they're running the beta may be revealing. Who is there? That's.

C

Exactly what I meant by saying the model number can be PII you're, just using a polymer, can be equivalent I'm using the latest model number. That's still in beta. That's exactly what those things right.

A

Okay, so latest model, that's still in beta right. So the point is that in general this is not the thing, but the firmware says: oh yeah actually I'm a special firmware so actually I'm telling people what firmware I am yet revealed something right. Normally it wouldn't, and so the verifier doesn't know this necessarily, and so it I'm asking the question. Would it be useful to mark that so that.

C

A

The attest er doesn't necessarily know that either well. I take your point. The ax tester doesn't necessarily know that either yeah and some III I don't know that's the point. I was trying to ask the question.

G

Verifier do the job of privacy preservation by you know you can trust the verifier to not to to receive PII or or enough information to identify something, and then you know it basically acts as a privacy proxy that removes all all of it, so that the relying party doesn't see it. Yes, I.

A

I have checked the party is tall enough to ride this ride and therefore I don't have to reveal to you how tall they are Yeah right.

C

Are we looking at the files view with the comments view right now? It.

A

Says files view.

C

Because I made changes to that long, it doesn't show up so long if they got lost, I might have to the the attest is a verb. Yes, I know: I changed that yesterday, just.

H

C

That no I I'm going to I'm going to do it again right now, so I'm gonna be silent for two minutes. While I do the change again.

F

We're doing a two-minute silence, add a.

A

Few minutes of silence.

F

A

Yeah I don't think they got committed somehow.

C

Well, some of them did so some.

A

Of them did yes, yeah.

A

A

There was an issue open with Dave.

C

Hi comments I'm right now.

C

C

Hopefully my speed I didn't completely mess it up, but.

H

Well, a comment is gone: I can, which which lines Dave? Did you just fix that.

C

So I'm just looking up there, one of them was I believe.

C

Seven: seven: sixteen yeah there you go.

A

Okay, everyone happy with this. These changes that you accept your typos fix their because I didn't think. I want to be.

A

A

While I'm clicking on this objections, oh no.

A

Pushing a version today.

C

Depending on the outcome of that, one I think pushing one I ship early ship, often so I'm pushing it frequently so yeah.

A

Alright, so Hank, so these is a summary of of Dave's complaints about what we committed. I guess: I'll, take floor, responsibility for thinking you.

D

See it's just not good, so.

C

A

C

The process that I would like us to follow is what I'm I'm used to open world's and stuff, where you have a set of maintained, errs and request changes from maintainer from a maintainer as opposed to a random reviewer means that you don't merge it until either that purchase has removed the request, changes or sufficient time has passed to confirm that that person is not unresponsive.

C

So you got to go through the Ness collation process, okay, emerging in any way at the consensus of all the rest of them, saying oh, it's been two weeks or whatever they're, completely non-responsive or whatever so I've liked the followed that process where the editors are the maintainer. She sets what I'm used to an open source and III.

A

Take your point: it's my my mistaken engine. Judging that.

C

Me yeah I'm, not trying to put blame or anything I'm, just saying that that's the process I would like us to use going forward, and then we just figure go to about this one. So you guys are all my friends, so I'm Madison.

C

So because I can see you're all yours, my friends.

D

We have to fix this, so you first of all, thank you for this DJ summary I'm, very sorry to be not appreciating it enough by having only noticed.

C

C

So number one I think is is easy that when I try to do just by deleting those two lines, number two is the main one. That I think we wanted to talk about here. Cuz I went.

A

C

Since I've not.

A

Got any document it actually confused, so so so um the the comment, the original comment here right shows us removing a bunch of stuff and, and then it says, this ID is never used in later sections and I'm actually really unclear on which one is you're. Referring to now.

C

The point was, none of them could be you in the table unless they appear in a later section right. So that's.

H

C

P, your specifically those even after the murder guys you can see in Fenway may 19 comment there to downtown. They comment, I think Dave's meetings at the newly added three events are not using later sections. You can see out of those three, you know he's right, then you can see at least one of those was merged without being referenced, and so that was my point number one. So.

D

C

Was that's one of the two easy ones? There's another one? That's a there's, some trivial, typos and stuff, but this so.

A

So my question was my I: have.

C

Is is Hindle distribution specified in some document somewhere I couldn't find what which document is it.

D

Rotating and the reference attached models.

C

There are any of those a working group document, because I thought I looked at all the okay, so.

H

My number to you.

C

My point of what number two is two points: number one I, don't think it's appropriate to replace a synchronized clock section right. Synchronize clocks is a well-known technique. Using you know, security PPTP, whatever it is, and there was a section that talks about that that I want to keep now whether there's an additional section that talks about handle distribution I would be fine with if there's a reference to pull something because you know nonces are well known, synchronized clocks are well known.

C

Handle distribution is not well known, okay and right now, if it's only in an individual summation, that's not a working group document. I would hold off on merging that until after the working group accepts that handle distribution is in some working. Your document.

D

So maybe this is no shooting myself in the foot of some other people. I don't know, I think the most likely document to be adopted is the relativity of the referenced reference action model thingy, which has handle distribution in it, I think they.

C

Have never viewed.

E

D

Restful resource document, the rooftops, the document and the subscription to Network Devices document that were all reference- the Henry distribution stuff form from the action model, so that is likely to be adopted soon. So I would have that as a milestone dependency. Here, if you want to have this hold back, we can also prepare text in anticipation. We can leave this up to you. I, don't really I only care about not being a blocker, and that could be a blocking action. Yeah.

C

So I admit: I have not reviewed, you need to handle distribution stuff, so I am NOT up to speed on Indy if there are technical issues or forwarding issues or whatever I'm not prepared to vote for any review of that part. Yet, since I've not reviewed any of the handle distribution text, that's in a document now I, remember I've reviewed a long time ago, and maybe the hint of the situation is more recent than that or maybe I'm just not remembering right.

C

But my point is I guess my preference would be to leave, handle issues and text in a unmerged branch until after there's a working group discussion as opposed to putting into the architecture document that has references to things that are not that's my preference. But my main point is: it should not replace the synchronized clock section. Yes,.

D

I think the replacement is a poor choice. You are right, so what we have to do here is to split these. Basically, we merge the old one. That may be a true that to Thomas, unfortunately, today and then I think there is no contest input here. We have just parallel side by side that is I, think more.

D

D

B

D

And then we can compare them next time, so we have a better understanding what princess and then I think because it's time synchronization, we talked about elaborating a little bit on that in the example, because example, it was basically. This is like another example, with the exception of two sentences, and that was a little bit. Slim I think so. Maybe there was some improvement, a room for improvement there, although I have to admit I, do not really remember right from the top of my head. So would that be?

D

Okay if we read another branch but which I always do by for PRS that we could have split out again pull in the old text? I can dig this up and and then have a separate text that is not overlapping here with the end stuff and then go from there. Is that fine yeah.

C

That's one thing: okay, said: okay with you,.

D

Cool okay, yeah, then do we have to go through three four five and a lot of other things. I can try to address them because I I skimmed the text, to be honest,.

D

A

The section about time stands with synchronized clocks. I want to put that text back in yeah.

C

I would put it back in and I would be happy to add. I, don't think it's cited. Anything I think it would be fine to add a citation to either you know an NTP RFC or PTP for Mary Tripoli or both as examples of clock, synchronization protocol.

D

C

It listing to as examples might be sufficient, but.

H

C

You have three because there three are widely deployed and at the time that you yeah.

D

Rough time is widely deployed because it's centralized to be a centralized problem, and you know so it's it's basically, three. Typically, if you want to have a full scope, yeah.

C

You know the reference for it. That sounds fine to me.

D

You want to go through the other three to eight or do you.

A

D

Something addressing it first and then you can bash that hard I understand where.

A

Was the section on synchronized clocks removed because I still find a lot of discussion of synchronized clock so I don't understand that.

C

It was replaced with text about handle distribution which the clock synchronization protocols that are referenced. There are not handle distribution protocols, and so now it talks about handles being distributed and talks about what like number four. It talks about announces in this section. That's labeled to be about time, stamps, right and, of course, NTP and PD of you don't use nonces right their time, stamps right and so right now it keeps the section. So once you.

A

See our 88 and I don't see text that does that what you just said: I don't see diffs. They.

D

A

What you just said, so that's why I having difficulty undoing it.

D

Removed any references anywhere but maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think. Maybe.

C

It was removed in 91, yes, that some of the stuff is combined across them. I was looking at the diffs between before and the combined 88-91, so I don't know which one.

B

Please anything in that space.

D

As weird I, don't know why this is lost, I I, don't remember even seeing a reference to NTP and PTP. You have to be honest. It's.

C

Not that's what I'm saying I would be fine with adding those references that was never in.

D

D

C

For example, I'm looking at 88 line.

C

95 is an example, a 1095 1096 1097 that block right. There is changing the meaning of the whole section into a different meaning, so 1095 that that paragraph.

C

You can see replaced requires roughly synchronized clocks with stuff about using centrally identify, essentially generated identifiers.

D

C

This or sign time stance, so the announces or sign time stamps and centrally generate identifiers is a complete replacement for synchronized clocks and the previous one, and so that's why this right here only belongs in a different section, does not belong. In my opinion, in the time stamp based section yeah.

D

The title is should be, it should be, a generalization of them comprise both.

C

For a different section, it's more like handle based background check or something like that.

D

So you have some redundancy there, but that's fine! If you can start with.

C

The my point is that I believe that example: three should reference the standards and you might have an example. You know, for whatever the number would be, that would be handle distribution once there's something you can reference there and I would have no objection of that. As long as it's you know, a working of document or something that's referenceable, it's fine, so yeah.

D

Okay, we can do this again, but I think before we are not pushing anything for is G. That's right.

C

We still got two weeks well yeah, two weeks for my yesterday before the day, I need.

D

Also, I don't think we would adopt something before.

D

I'm fine, as long as I'm not blocking out here, I'm super crucial if I start become a block I'm getting nervous. So.

A

So, do you want me to undo sorry I hit the doorbell rang? Do you want me to undo this 1095 1096 1097 change.

C

You asking me yes, my personal opinion it is is that it would be easiest to go back to the pre merged one and I, meaning on the local machine, you'll sink back to the pre merged one and then generate this from there and then perhaps rebase them on top of the current one. If you understand what I'm saying, in other words, I I, would not assume that those three lives is the only problem. I would assume that the whole thing is a problem and selectively we undo stuff and move everything else to the branch.

C

And then we do a couple things like you know. If you wanted to add the references or what something like that, so, okay.

A

So what I'm gonna do is I'm going to make up a commit that revert s'. Those changes I mean.

C

Some things are trivial like was it line, 7 973, which has the period for consistency right? You can see adding the periods, no problem right, but otherwise you know adding lines into there. I think, as part of the other discussion that some of those are only referenced in the handle Tex and some of them aren't referenced at all. So so.

A

So I have I have restored the branch, so you can see the branch is still here. You can do that. Pull that code out.

C

So I it sounded like I, don't know if Hank there tell us where somebody was volunteering to take an action item or if you want me or Michael to do that, I'm, not sure who's got the action here. So.

D

He wants to do or something else, I thought.

C

You and Thomas were had some proposal before about what to do that. I said, I was finally the time remembering right and I. Don't know what somebody actually volunteering to take that action, or is that an ask for somebody else? Yeah anyone objected.

A

Facing the master.

D

I propose that.

D

Too, but we base in an addition.

D

Just the proposer that and they've I think agreed to was to do the split in the PR and a new bench, but we can also rebase and do a half branch so to speak as I'm saying.

C

There's multiple things we could do. I don't have a strong preference between those. So.

D

It ought up because we're.

C

About how do I get to an end, I'm working concerned about what the end state is then about how we get there so.

D

Thomas, better because I think we want to step the original example for time. Stamps here would be to create a PR is a split into the old example into the new example. Then we can see it side-by-side. I don't have to cross PR.

D

But maybe that's just.

D

The proposal I would like to do that. Mike. Are you okay, with this yeah I'm, fine, I'm, fine with it yeah, okay, a quick question about the table? Could you bring up, maybe the table of the timestamp acronyms again, I. Think it's in the beginning of the Appendix A.

A

So you want to see.

D

But I would also address because it has never addressed before something like Knotts relate to nonce conveys something.

D

Using I would like to know I.

C

Think it was Eric right that did the Eric and I went through it. We both of us liked relayed better than conveyed, because relayed only when you're, not the entity that created the announced to begin with right bounce relayed, is only when you're relaying somebody else's nos we're conveyed is more generic and we're rate is more specific, and since it's only used in a more specific case, we wanted to make it as specific, as was relevant. Okay.

D

So there is it's.

C

Not sent if you cannot sit, it is an answer. It is not conveyed right. Thank.

D

You that is a very good point. Let me check just for a second, so with evidence is always relayed and never sent I, don't think so know.

C

D

C

The time isn't used for anything, and so it doesn't cream the table. It.

F

E

C

Nonsense could, in theory, be called nonce generated without loss of information, so it could be. Ns could be changed to be ng just for consistency with eg that that is true. I would be fine, changing NS to ng, and one could argue the slightly more correct right.

D

I was confused by the central 8 stuff and now I was immediately.

D

C

Yeah well: okay, no I I! Do remember why it was not sent okay, because it's a nonce right. It's only a one-time use thing. If it really is a nonce right, you could in okay a theoretical, hypothetical implementation right. Hypothetical implementation is, let's say: I boot and I generate a pool of a thousand ounces and then I selectively send them out one at a time across the next three days.

C

Hey the time that they were generated is not interesting, because they're not really in use until I send them the first time otherwise they're just hidden as if they weren't created when I did the random number generator versus when I send it it's when I sent it that's when the time starts, counting infer security checks for.

D

In this a time keeping it doesn't really matter when it was generated, this is important, send it out and then receive the response based on it back. That's.

C

Why we kept it is not sent and that not generated so I. If it ain't broke, don't fix it and so right now, I, don't think that they're the Texas broke there so so.

D

C

D

Why is there not evidence received in comparison evidence.

C

Received is never it's.

D

The time window, but it's important yeah.

C

Because it's it's there's already a different event for that I think it's our G result generation when it appraises the evidence right it doesn't matter when it was received after the wire it's when you get around her appraising it's when you actually do your security case.

D

Right that somewhere is before it's sent to at the station. Sorry resides a generation. That is the time and.

C

If you look at the text, that's with the Texas it when it talks about the security checks with you know, time are ge-, you know, whatever all those things you're actually.

D

In the text, I'm super happy with that I might have missed that somehow I don't know. Thank you. That is very helpful to me and I. Think.

D

C

And I went through them in detail when we were trying to sanitize the table with before so I'm.

D

Happy? Okay: that was a good question for me. Thank know.

C

It was a good discussion, so I'm glad it makes sense to you know: that's not broken so, but it's worth checking so.

C

And so we got ten minutes. What else do you want to do in the ten minutes? Do you want to go back to any of my other points, or is there anything else you want to cover in the last ten minutes.

D

On sentiment, bigger than 10 minutes, correct, I.

C

Don't know because your head, the points 3 through 7, we could go through any of those unless there's a different purpose. Different people want to talk about it. No there's another one from Kathleen we haven't talked about or something so. Yes,.

D

Maybe maybe I'm going this way their frontiers to phrase Kathleen second batch of comments in to get up here and issues it took me like I, don't know over an hour to do that. So I could do it again, but I'm happy if someone else is doing it, which.

C

Music hearing is here: we're talking about I, don't.

D

Know I have not dissected, it so I think it's about the same volume as the first batch. No.

C

Other issues filed already in here on this list on the screen.

D

C

So we need to add another issue or queue or more then.

D

Yeah I guess the same volume. It would be a PR and I. Don't know five to eight issues. Yes,.

B

D

And I can focus on the thing for the mediation here.

B

Take the action.

D

Otherwise, I have not a strong preference for today, again I'm totally unprepared, so I'm making some aegyo.

C

So I see Michael you opened two of these is there either of yours want to talk about either either the two the Q open, I know those are from Kathleen are those ones. We've already talked about. Oh I,.

A

Wrote this place holder for Sur considerations for implicit trust model, I haven't written any just. That was a placeholder to remember that by.

A

Freshness may not be inclusive enough. Thomas suggests there. You go. Oh.

C

Okay, this was at least assigned to Thomas, so yeah. If somebody already has the action item, then maybe we don't need to discuss it, but unless Thomas there's a question, no.

B

Question I know how to fix this yeah.

C

Yeah yeah, the ones that have no assignee, are perhaps interesting to talk about so 83-71 67.

C

Ned is not on a call.

A

I think this is okay, I.

C

Don't know how we'll fix it yet, but I think it's not on the call. So maybe it's better to not discuss this, but you saw my response. I didn't like the term layered device, but.

C

That was like over a month ago, so okay I'd say assign it to him for now,.

C

Just because he asked that but I don't know if we agree that something needs fixing, but if he has at her request, we can review it.

C

Yes, he's not here to talk about this one. This doesn't look like it's trivially there.

C

I can't tell exactly what his point is, but I I is this already addressed in the composite device section right now, that's like what she does refer to so I'm, not sure what the gap is, because we already talked about a text talking about it.

A

Is that clean art we might it might have, we might have just yeah.

C

Who did it yeah I want to? We should add in a question about. Has this already been addressed in the comments or something in the latest text around? You know composite devices.

C

C

Don't have anything else to say on this one, then I am not convinced that the additional changes to the document are necessary either it's already been addressed or what's not addressed, may not need to be addressed in the document, but I can't tell.

D

Ya, I think this is about what, if you want to annotate a.

D

So there are some expected behavior like this result is expected to be incorporated, other evidence to be made not directly consumed, and so, therefore, if you are the address the target destination of something you can.

D

So I'm a first responder so to speak and I shoot it back to someone else. So there might be a implicit question here. This is just me, maybe maybe spitballing, that maybe some some expected behavior of the post-processing entities is to be annotated as x in the exaggerated conceptual message.

C

I, don't know you might be right as far as what he's thinking personally I might find that more confusing than helpful if the text were to be in the document table of the architecture, to talk about every possible permutation of every possible way to do things so right, talk about you know reference models and leave it up to actually actual protocols to find details.

D

I'm not aware that.

D

At which point of time in the process of vector it should be so probably just getting stuff and processing stuff. So it's make sense of that. But maybe that's a semantic thing. I, don't know I yeah.

C

I said right now, my general principle is that anything that can be left to a protocol doc should be left for a part call doc, and all that's in here is things that motivate requirements for, say the eat document, which is a working roof document, and so we do put in like Michael's question about the aside that we talked about here. It's perfectly fair right, because that's kind of a question about whether there's a requirement on each to do a particular thing.

C

I, don't see that this has a direct impact on bat in any way that I understand yet anyway, and so I think this is the category a better left to a protocol document. If there's more complexity than what's currently covered, I think the composite device section right now is already really complicated.

C

So that's already on the verge of going overboard in my opinion, but you know, but we already have it so I think that's where we should draw the line.

D

At aside from that,.

D

As always, it was my to open something else, because I have a small, too Dave. Some minutes left that you stay on longer, because I have to ask you a question. I think.

C

As long as I don't have the open source thing that I need to be for a Q&A for suit, so I'm, sorry at the beginning, cause I was looking it up and I never finished. Looking it up so.

C

Just in case, it's in progress right now in question. Time is coming up in 20 minutes. So, okay.

D

Anybody has something very, very important to maybe put on our first spot of agenda next week today, already, if not so,.

B

One was more thing: it doesn't it it's a request to Michael. Could you please bring the point about the PII annotation that you made before on the list, because this I fear this says fall out on on the requirements for your test or API, and it says that I need to provide API use to selectively remove specific claims that are PII. You know relevant from the report that I'm requesting, if that becomes a requirement, please.

C

It is, and so I do need to drop off, because it is the one that you mentioned. My there's a cure. Putin over-the-air updates. That's going on right now, so I need to flip over there. So, okay.

D