►
From YouTube: RATS Architecture Design Team, 2020-10-13
Description
RATS Architecture Design Team, 2020-10-13
B
C
A
A
Oh
great!
Well,
not
not
compared
to
me
so
so
to
everyone
just
turn
and
sort
of
face
yourself
towards
the
continent.
Thomas
okay,.
B
Okay,
I'm
sorry.
This
is
a
little
bit
stressful
day,
so
we're
waiting
for
thomas
is
that
correct?
I'm
not
the
blocker.
A
Well,
dave
hasn't
turned
his
microphone
on
and
said
hello.
Yet
so
maybe
it
doesn't
work
either.
Hello,
hi
and.
B
B
A
B
Interesting,
yes,
I
can
make
his
microphone
disappear.
I
think
so.
That's
fine
pull
requests
are
issues
first,
maybe
we
can
already
look
properly.
Pull
requests
right.
Lawrence
is
not
here.
That
is
okay,.
B
And
I
think
michael
captured
something
that
was
still
to
be
discussed
in
the
maybe
even
commit.
C
A
And
then
we
have
signing
material
becomes
key
material.
We
had
a
bunch
of
those.
Oh
that's
five
minutes
ago.
Okay,
so
great
just.
A
A
A
Did
we
deal
with
this,
which
one
this
part
here
and
then
eight
days
ago,
which
would
be
before
our
previous
meeting.
C
A
Okay,
so
I
I
I
kept
two
versions
of
this
yeah
here,
because
we
hadn't
decided
what
to
do
and
the
text
up.
791
797.
C
Right
and
of
course,
807
was
a
new
point
that
wasn't
discussed
until
we
got
into
the
meeting
last
week
and
people
said
yeah
put
that
in
so
that
was
the
807
paragraph,
but.
C
C
All
right
so
now
that
text
intentionally
does
not
use
the
word
transitive,
but
it
does
use
directly
and
indirectly,
which
was
my
terms
that
so
far
nobody
objected
to.
But
I
don't
know
if
people
want
to
think
about
it
more.
A
A
C
If
I
can
yeah,
if
I
can
steal
your
device,
then
or
if
you
have
a
camera
mounted
on
the
outside
of
your
building
versus
a
camera
mounted
on
the
inside
of
your
building,
the
one
on
the
inside
is
more
secure
because
you
know
middle
of
the
night.
Somebody
can
come
and
tamper
with
it
if
it's
on
the
outside.
A
Right
so
so,
just
just
as
another
aside,
one
of
the
one
of
the
issues
that
in
the
in
the
default
password
guidance
that
I've
been
working,
one
of
the
issues
is
that
for
some
devices
it
should
be
that
physical
possession
of
the
device
lets.
You
reset
the
password
easily
right,
yeah
yeah,
because
you
can
reach
the
reset
button
right,
yeah
and-
and
it
should
be
trivial
because
you
want
your
your
mother
to
be
able
to
do
it.
Who
has
parkinson's
right
and
then.
E
A
A
A
On
some
things
and
other
ones,
you
really
need
to
disable
it
and
anyway,
okay,
so
so
this
suggestion
here
is
it
eclipsed
by
the
rewrite
that
you've
made.
C
C
A
Okay,
what
the
hell?
Oh,
here's,
the
version
where
I
deleted
it:
okay,
okay!
You
can
delete
that
then.
So
I
can
reflect
with
blank
delete
yes
suggestion
and
go
with
there.
We
go
all
right,
so
good.
A
A
I
I
don't
care
if
there's
one
blank
line
or
two,
you
must
apply
one
or
more
suggested
changes.
A
A
Redundant,
I
think
the
rest
of
it
okay,
so
11
minutes
ago,
you
have
all
right.
Let's
deal
with
this,
I
think
you
have.
C
A
C
C
C
D
C
D
C
Because
of
the
text
at
791,
through
whatever
is
the
new
text
that
replaces
the
suggestion
yeah
all.
A
C
A
This
has
conflicts
that
must
be
resolved.
Okay,
well
I'll.
Do
that
in
another
window.
Let's
move
on
to
a
different,
oh
wait.
Okay
just
means
the
checks
have
passed.
Let's
move
on
to
different
pull
requests.
A
A
A
D
So
I
haven't
read
157,
but
I
think
that
points
at
a
general,
a
general
comment
around
the
sort
of
fluid
interchange
of
entity
and
role,
and
even
in
even
in
simple
definitions,
we
kind
of
get
it
both
ways.
C
I
don't
know
if
somebody
else
was
going
to
make
a
pass,
but
I
think
this
one
to
me
makes
it
harder
to
read.
I
don't
know
if
there's
some
simpler
change
than
the
text
changes
on
the
screen.
C
C
Right,
that's
why
you
can
see
the
title
of
this
one
says:
don't
refer
to
verify
or
rp
as
an
entity,
and
so
an
alternate
wording
of
950
would
just
be
a
verifier
or
relying
party
may
need
to
learn
the
point
in
time.
D
C
D
D
B
B
Yeah
but
I
pushed
to
lawrence's
commit
here,
there's
a
there's.
A
history
shows
that
I
added
something.
I
think
it
was
the
cr
here
it
was
in
lawrence's
branch,
so
I
use
the
web
interface
that
enables
you
to
mess
with
someone
else's
branch.
B
E
A
A
A
C
I
would
tend
to
agree
with
ned
only
the
sense
of
what's
there
is
far
more
readable
and
the
change
makes
it
harder
to
read.
So
I
I
don't
know
opinion
on
the
definition
of
entity
or
role
in
this
case,
but.
C
Oh
okay,
I
see,
let
me
try
that
then
I
see
what
you're
saying
I
don't
know
if
I'll
like
that
or
not,
but
let
me
try
it
here.
C
C
Yeah
it
can't
it
won't.
Let
me
I
have
to
wonder
if
I
should
do
it
in
two
different
comments.
I
think
I
think
I
have
to
do
it
two
different
comments.
It
won't.
Let
me
spam
the
red
text
in
the
comments.
No.
A
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
C
C
C
C
Yeah
so
now,
if
you
look
at
the
red
985,
the
only
difference
between
the
red,
985
and
mine
should
be
deletion
of
entity
comma.
A
All
right,
let's
commit
these
suggestions
and,
let's
just
see.
A
B
C
C
Now
that
we've
changed
the
other
one
to
appraiser.
Do
you
think
that
the
consuming
entity
here
should
also
be
the
appraiser?
Here's?
The.
D
C
C
C
Was
it
957
I'm
going
to
try
doing
the
same
thing
up
there
and
see
if
you
like
it
or
not?
Unless
unless
you
want
to
do
it,
I'm
going
to
try
to
do
the
same
thing
up
at
950.,
go.
D
A
Yeah
confirm
merge,
okay,
so
we
don't
get
to
delete
it
because
it's
his
branch,
okay
code,.
C
So
from
appraiser,
comma
down
to
the
end
of
two
lines
down
where
it
says,
attestation
results
in
parentheses,
comma.
C
C
E
C
No,
actually,
I
like
the
term
appraising
party
better
than
appraiser,
but
I'm
okay
either
way,
meaning
throughout
being
in
all
three
places.
But
what
do
you
think
ned
you're,
the
one
that
suggested
appraiser?
Do
you
prefer
a
craze
or
a
praising
party.
D
I
think
appraiser
is
fine,
it's
like
we
say
party,
then
we
say
well.
Is
that
an
entity
or
what
is
it?
Okay?
Fine.
I
don't
know.
C
D
C
C
C
E
C
A
A
C
C
A
E
A
This
part
just
being
a
com
pulling
splitting
the
sentence
up
on
this
okay.
This
is
not
there's
no
editor.
This
is
formatting
yeah,
okay,
okay,
all
right!
So,
let's
go
on
here!
Oh.
C
D
C
You
are
true,
you
are
correct.
I
agree.
A
A
So
I'll
just
do
this
in
my
editor,
because
it's
easier
so
sorry
that
was
993
and
you
want
to
remove
the
word.
Might.
A
A
Yeah
and
you
want
the
comma
would
disappear.
C
B
C
C
Tester
the
appraisal
policy
for
evidence
and
the
appraisal
policy
for
attestation
results
yeah.
You
need.
D
A
So
so
this
is
why
I
think,
let
me
just
I
just
move
the
word.
Let
me
just
see.
No,
I
moved
the
word
come
on.
A
C
So
I
think
king's
point,
or
whatever
somebody's
point
was
that
appraisal
policies
with
that
label
is
not
in
the
glossary,
and
so
that's
well.
That
would
be
the
argument
why
it
doesn't
need
to
be
capitalized
there,
just
like
it's
not
capitalized
in
990,
because
it's
only
appraisal
policy
for
evidence
and
appraisal
policy
for
attestation
results
as
the
autonomy
in
the
glossary,
and
so
we.
A
So
in
the.
B
Again,
sorry,
I
have
to
highlight
that
that
is
written
capitalized,
because
we
at
the
beginning
had
only
one
type
of
appraiser
policies
therefore,
did
not
specialize
it
for
evidence.
Therefore
it
is
a
standalone
capitalism.
It's
an
artifact,
it's
old,
it's
not
consciously
written
that
way
with
evidence
and
ratification
results
both
in
mind.
So
I
have
to
highlight
this.
That's
an
error.
You
want
them.
So
do
you
want
the
inconsistency
consistently
lowercase
then.
B
C
Okay-
and
I
see
what
you're
saying
michael
I-
yes,
I,
it
is
appraisal
policies
exactly
that
way
with
capitalization
several
times
in
the
document
already.
D
C
E
I
mean
because
if
the
appraisal
policy
changes,
who
cares
when
the
evidence
was
generated,
you
know
it's
a
question
when
it's
presented
to
the
appraiser
and
the
only
time
that
you
would
ever
care
is
if
the
appraisal
policy
was
changed
after
you've
already
granted
whatever
service
or
request.
That
was
associated
with
the
trust
decision,
and
so
there's
a
question
about
needing
to
reappraise
and
having
some
sort
of
interval
where
it's
good
for,
but
the
fact
that
the
policy
changed
after
was
generated.
C
I
think
it's
all
I'm
trying
to
point
out
which
is
sort
of
what
you
said.
Let's
say
you
do
the
appraisal
at
the
time
that
you
establish
a
tls
session
and
then
you
send
a
request
across
that
session
by
the
time
that
you're,
acting
on
that
request,
the
appraisal
may
not
reflect
the
current
intended
access
status.
E
D
D
You
know
you
know
it's
sort
of
we're.
I
think
we're
trying
to
describe
what
some
of
the
some
of
the
you
know.
Gotchas
are
relative
consistency
and
there's
going
to
be
consistency,
challenges
both
on
the
policy
side,
changing
and
on
the
evidence,
side
changing,
as
well
as
on
the
endorsement
side,
changing
or
endorsement,
and.
D
E
The
technology,
it's
a
theoretical
limitation,
it's
not
to
hide
it.
If
you
want
to
make
highlight
this
in
a
document,
it
doesn't
really
belong
in
some
discussion
about
freshness.
It
really
belongs
in
some
larger
discussion
about
attestation
and
saying
what
is
attestation
good
for
and
then
here's
a
limitation
that
you're
always
subject
to
this.
This
condition
is
possible.
C
E
C
C
D
C
D
A
A
And
this
is
the
result:
I'd
like
you
to
double
check
this,
so
the
appraisal
policy
on
its
own
shows
up
in
the
diagrams.
A
C
A
There's
one
we
that's
not
the
one
we
just
changed.
A
A
All
right,
10
minutes
to
go.
Today
we
have
a
friday
meeting
scheduled
for
an
hour
later.
C
A
C
A
C
B
Interesting
by
the
one,
five
four,
that's
our
belief:
okay,
yeah,
then
I
edit
my
stuff
to
the
wrong
pr,
apparently
back
to
the
days
right
right.
D
A
All
right,
I'm
going
to
merge
this
one,
assuming
that
it
works
in
the
xml,
and
I
think
that
was
the
problem,
revised
privacy
considerations
and
then
this
was
about
the
systems
examples.
I
thought
we
were
universally
against
that
at
the
time
highway.
B
B
B
So
it
should
not
be
a.
I
don't
know
you
should
not
say
with
this
five,
something
like.
A
B
I
find
this
this
invasive
change
is
very
hard
to
discuss,
because
you
cannot
compare
anything
because
it's
all
gone
and
replaced-
and
that's
that's
kind
of
difficult
for
us
to
have
at
this
point
actually.
So
unless
we
agree
here
that
this
is
really
really
required
to
be
reworded
from
scratch.
B
I
just
fear
that
if
we
lose
something
here,
the
rejecters
there
are
some,
I
don't
know
smaller
bits
that
are
actually
feasible,
that
just
go
away.
So
that's
by
that's
something
we
could
have
asked
lawrence,
but
he's
unfortunate
here
today.
C
Yeah,
I
don't
know
if
there's
anything
important
in
this
one.
I
don't
remember.
B
I
suck
at
this,
so
maybe
I
can
ask
lawrence
to
really
really
consider
not
bringing
this
up,
but
if
he
finds
something
whiter
they
might
have
a
smaller
pr.
Then.
C
A
Okay,
so
we
have
a
bunch
of
still
open
issues
and
I
guess
the
question
is:
is
there
some
things
that
do
I
can
go
into
these?
We
can
walk
through.
C
These
is
132.
Is
that
now
done
with
the
like
the
the
154
pull
request,
we
did.
A
B
A
C
B
Yeah,
okay,
yeah.
Actually,
the
comment
where
I
referenced.
This
here
says
that
it's
basically
done
yup.
A
Yeah,
no,
he
said
say
close
issue.
Not
I
don't
know
fixes
works
because
close
definitely
works.
Okay.
What
are
role
compositions
march?
Oh
my
god,.
D
A
D
C
When
I
read
ned
your
comment,
if
I'm
understanding
your
original
comment
here,
the
second
little
paragraph
is,
one
of
them
has
is
prefixed
with
conceptual
data
flow
four
and
the
other
one
was
not.
You
can
see
figure.
Two
is
layered
test
year.
Well,
the
other
one
is
conceptual
data
flow.
Four
and
it
looks
like
your
last
thing-
is
in
figure
two
to
be
conceptually
data
for
four.
So
I'm
reading
it
as
inconsistency
in
terms
of
conceptual
data
flow
for
versus,
not.
A
Opposite
composite
devices
we
added
a
section,
which
is
why
the
numbering
changed.
C
You
see
what
we're
talking
about
between
figure
two
and
figure
three
yeah,
because
I
saw
and
assign
this
to
me
and
I
will
fix
it
comment
in
there
and
I
don't
know
if
that
there
was
a
pull
request
ever
generated.
C
C
C
A
So
you
want
to
make
it
not
have
to
say
the
word
conceptual
you
want
to
remove
the
word
rather
than
add
it.
Both
places.
A
Do
you
want
to
so,
do
you
want
to
just
it
just
says
composite
device,
or
does
it
say
data
flow,
for
I
would
say.
C
D
So
I
think
it's
just
since
with
a
discussion
on
the
way
that
the
different
different
roles
are
can
interact
with
one
another
and
and
we
give
the
term
so
we
get,
and
so
we
give
we
sort
of
in
one
we
say
it's
a
composite
device
is
a
thing
that
has
multiple.
D
C
C
Intentional
go
back
to
the
composite
device
one.
I
just
want
to
check
my
thought
to
see.
Okay,
so
you
can
see
this
one
has
multiple
attesters.
You
can
see
a
tester
a
b
and
c
are
not
layered
they're,
three
independent
of
testers.
So
this
one,
you
can't
call
in
a
tester
because
there's
multiple
testers
here
in
the
later
tester
there's
only
one
a
tester,
a
single
tester
has
multiple
layers
in
this
one.
You
have
multiple
testers,
which
could
have
multiple
layers.
C
C
D
Yeah,
so
if
you,
if
you,
if,
instead
of
trying
to
trying
to
in
figure
3
instead
of
trying
to
specialize
the
role,
if
you
did
what
we
did
in
figure
4,
which
is
a
type
of
device,
in
other
words,
it's
a
layered
device,
then.
C
A
A
C
After
reading
ned's
issue,
that's
what
I
believe
the
simplest
fix
is
that
doesn't
happen
that
doesn't
cause
us
to
repeat
any
of
the
long
discussions
we
already
went
through.
D
Okay,
so
it's
so
this
section
is
most
of
this
issue
is
a
relates
to
section
five
and
terminology
use
there.
So
I
don't
know
if
that's
still.
C
D
D
D
C
B
C
C
Yeah
verify
it
was
sent
by.
I
got
an
invite
from
michael
and
it's
for
one
hour
later
on
friday,.