Internet Engineering Task Force RATS Architecture Design Team, 3 Jul 2020

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: RATS Architecture Design Team Meeting, 2020-07-03

Description

RATS Architecture Design Team Meeting, 2020-07-03

A

Hey this is saying so many invite updates yeah.

B

So Google likes to put in their Google meet every time. If you don't click. No, now that's kind of abusive of them.

B

I've, nothing against using Google meet. It's not what we agreed a.

B

Really good I really get conversation with Owen Friel who's in summers in call our on pool, or you know almost exactly the other side of the planet over Google meet last night. It was, it was really amazing. It was like you're in the same room, no, no latency at all.

B

But it's probably due to the fact that we both have non sucky internet connections more.

A

Than Google meet expect.

B

All right, so we have a whole a whole bunch. Thanks to Thomas, we have a whole bunch of things to walk through good Dave is here.

B

Dave, did you just get an update? Did you see an update to the the invite as I deleted the Google meat link that they'd unhelpfully provided.

C

Yes, it just arrived: I just sent email saying: I was having problems connecting to the WebEx cuz. The link was saying there was no meeting today, even though the invite said there was yeah.

B

That's because I don't have the recurrent set for Friday properly, so I have to explicitly hit start catch.

C

B

Tardy doing that so.

C

But yes, I was already joining the update, came in at two minutes after the hours, so I just now got it in my box. Okay,.

B

I just concerned that I confused some people, we thought okay, so Thomas gave us to a bunch of Kathleen edits. I suggest we start with those. If that's okay, sure, maybe we can figure out Thomas. If you want to point us at a specific one, that's low-hanging fruit. Let me define the stupid window, put it on the screen.

C

Go through them in numerical order, those.

D

That are PRS already, they should be relatively and they was it I, wasn't sure about and been converted into issues. So.

B

You had some yeah, you have PRS yeah, so so I sir I'm just.

E

C

Find the right one 17.

B

Yeah so I'm just trying to bring it on the screen and I'm, not just finding I have too many open windows and the window list there we go I figured it would be the last one. So you said what did you say? One numerical.

C

Order showed 117 117.

B

No you've been through them.

C

As well already dude just said o'clock, maybe walking just at 7 minutes ago, I opened the first. You.

B

May consist of sounds reasonable should include, includes.

B

B

Let me commit those objections, suggestions from Dave.

C

The only one that didn't look like it, the only phrase here that didn't look like a simpler rephrasing. He just wanted to call people's attention to when I read it. I thought it was okay is line. 394 mentions the term root of trust where that term was not in this section, at least in that paragraph. Before.

B

Yeah, the underlying component is the root of trust in the nest. Stage-Door changed at a taste that has changed attestation evidence produced yeah.

C

That was the biggest change in this PR was the addition of that sentence. I.

B

Just want to be picky and start these, these on new lines, sentences on new lines.

B

If that's okay, because it's much easier Oh get it right, because it makes it much easier if there are subsequent edits.

B

The other one had the same problem yeah just.

B

Okay, so you are specifically we're talking about this I'm saying my.

C

Sentence is okay, but since that one is the biggest change in here, I just wanted to call that wind. Everybody else is in tension. I.

B

Actually think that's a really good addition. I think that that that it ties the the the fact that yeah there's all this complexity, but the the unifying thing I think that's a really good thing to say: yep, no I think I'm, okay with it I just.

C

Didn't want to gloss over and make sure everybody's okay with it, but yeah sounds like you and I are fine with it. So yeah.

D

Okay, I'm screwed, so.

D

B

Gonna hit this button and while I'm this is clicking zinzin, Phan, yo, tech, I I, don't know your name. Do you want to introduce yourself for a moment I.

F

Probably mangled your name Chinchin.

F

G

Everyone I'm sure I, don't cook without free. A diode has a focus on building the block king and the trust IOT device. I.

B

C

I owe tax just joined the company competing consortium. Is that correct? Oh yeah,.

G

C

And so welcome glad you can participate in the Rasch discussions as well. So that's great to see ya.

B

Cool nice to have you here. Thank you, okay, so um great! So let's continue through number one 18 I.

C

Started on this, one I didn't get to the end, but so here I, don't remember whose text was the multi chassis router was that Eric's text, because I had a question that it looked like? This is a change in the meeting, but since wasn't my times need to confirm, you can see the old text says the multi chassis, router, bla bla can be logically treated as one as re by interconnecting multiple routers right and logically created by one router and says among these routers meaning among the interconnected, multiple routers.

C

There was only one main router that connects to the verifier right. So my.

B

And then it became multi chassis, which is not know.

C

B

What the same thing yeah.

C

Well off alone, because the first part is right right because in the 468 said it says the multi chassis, router, blah blah blah can be logically treated as one router for simpler management. That's the first phrase: the multi.

A

Says here provides.

C

A management point, that's fine buna says, is the only one that connect to the verifier that's wrong in their old text, because the only one is not referring the multi chassis router. It's talking about one major router, that's among the routers and that are connected, and so the latter part of the sentence then n is the only one I think is wrong.

C

Is the multi chassis router is not the thing that connects the main router. Sorry, it's not going to connect to the verifier one of the interconnected. Multiple routers, which is the main router, is the one that connects not the multi chassis router per se. So.

E

Good good morning, Dave and others good afternoon and evening to those that's what this is: Elliott I think what you're hitting here and I apologize for, jumping in as I normally do but I think what you're hitting here is that are a couple of different models for multi chassis devices, right, one of which is you have one guy, that's always master, another of which is there's an elected after another, which is you know some other thing which I can't even speak to and so I, don't I, don't know how to generalize the text but I think that's what you're aiming for right, Dave well,.

C

It's not my text, I'm, just observing that the old text and Kathleen's new proposed at least I seen was Kathleen's text have a very different meaning and unless somebody tells me technically that the old meaning was wrong, then I would want to preserve the meaning, because I personally don't know any better.

E

B

Eric's not on this call. What if we remove the word only.

C

The problem is, there are two phrases here right and what I see right? It provides a manager point. Yes, the a multi chassis router is the only one that connected the verifier incorrect.

C

The old sentence said among the interconnected routers. There is one that connection the verifier, which is a very.

A

C

Meaning than saying the multi chassis router is the only one, the only one of what right. So, why don't we undo this change.

B

E

Can I make a.

C

E

Well, I mean I, can't read Kathleen's, mind or anything, but what, if it's it I think what is intended is the multi chassis, a multi chassis router, provides a managed point, a management point that connects to the.

D

E

D

C

Okay, that's also a changing meeting, but if you're saying technically that that's correct I'm fine with that, but I, don't know that my system, that's.

E

C

E

Accept this change, but maybe propose it because I think that's probably what what is meant well. This.

A

E

To give you an idea, we have the 9000 series and the 3800 series that are stackables, but you only you only connect to one man and when they're stacked, do you only connect to one management, interface right.

B

There is only one the other ones are make. You know just disappear from the thing now, if.

A

B

If that cable fails, does it become a multiple router and continue to operate with full heads or.

C

Ready to just change, which one acts as a management plate.

E

That I would have to look into, but there's.

A

A group do such a me, but technically all these things. There are composite composite device, just a redundancy group and amongst these redundant routers, which one of them is a part of his message. As it was a redundancy group, they are the one that is connected to the verifier I think that is what the people are trying to talk about. That's so true effectively, because, typically, if you do multi chassis, also multi chassis, big innovation groups and therefore you have typically more than one path to the verify.

A

Otherwise, the multi chassis concept doesn't make a lot of sense. So Eddie, please correct me if I'm wrong here so I, don't even think it is true.

A

It doesn't be one router connected as a verifier and this redundancy group.

E

You know what leave it open and I'll run it past Eric and a few other people inside Cisco just to see, if I, to see. If my understanding is incorrect, but I'll send a note now and you can. You should move on okay and I'll comment back to the group: okay, okay,.

B

So, let's just look at the second diff: okay.

C

B

Died back I'm, sorry, yet so I gotta read: verifier verifies them using okay. So that's a reasonable changes to just use his endorsement obtained the same way as any other verifier in the verification process. So basically we just added this.

E

C

Iii got it she's changed, it verifies them, uses them and the verification process. Yeah.

B

I think that's just a yeah bility I have no problem with that. Yeah. Okay,.

A

Elliot's gonna.

B

Come back with us as to whether this is this is a meaningful change or not and Wilkin. So actually am I able to assign this to you Elliot. Yes, I am able to assign it to you, assuming that you're in this group, but you're not.

C

He's doing at home idea.

B

Yeah, you've never never commented so it's had some difficulty finding.

C

C

B

You were in a comment right now. You could take control, you could do something with it now and we'd. Remember it was you and you'd remember with you.

E

Put the URL into the chat and I will do so.

E

B

1:18 there you go.

B

So chopped out some text as a result, the engine now.

C

We're gonna slow down because I have to actually go through and read each line so yeah.

A

B

Sorry, I, probably.

A

B

I, don't think it'll matter, okay, what order.

B

They just look like grammatical. The second part just looked grammatical to me and the first one is deleted as sentences or something.

B

I'm not sure the advantage of removing the sentence, but I'm not sure the advantage of yeah.

C

I think it's good to agree with the sentence. Yeah I, like that part I'm staring at the bottom paragraph.

A

C

A

It's collapsed does not make a lot of sense without the sentence that says rolls collapse before that.

C

A line break in front of what used to be line which I read 661. She just added a line break at the end of the the same sentence. These collaterals.

B

This is just just oh I,.

C

Saw, though, comments added along break.

B

So but it does move this sentence to beginning the next paragraph and that's probably not- or maybe that was splits the paragraph and maybe more useful here- is it I I.

C

Read it it looked like moving, it was fine to me. I, don't know your opinion differs but well.

B

This blank line here was gonna start a new paragraph right I, don't think that we should start a new paragraph. There.

D

Michael is an artifact I, just my VI, that's probably inserted the name line there.

B

So, do you want to keep this I think that what you want to do is do this.

B

Yep I think you want to let the Newt next line start a new paragraph. I. Think that's the point.

C

So now, I think I understand Hanks point that these collapsed roles only I'm, just gonna repeat what Hank said write these collapsed roles. That phrase only makes sense after the sentence that says can aggregate more than one role into itself right because referring to the aforementioned ones, and now you have enough where I mentioned it right now,.

A

C

Includes at least one right at least one, it seems to have a disconnect when you say these collapsed, so I agree with Hanks point out.

B

All right so uh I think we should not do this. We should leave the sentence and tax the I like deleting the sentence that starts as a result.

C

And but not deleting the other sentence that Hank called out.

B

B

We can do this.

C

I think you have to put it back in on the green line, so I think you're.

B

B

C

No I'd say delete that line. I mean don't put that one back in, but sterling.

B

With the bernal, so oh yeah, we don't want this, we don't want yeah and.

C

We don't need the word additionally either, because that's an edition of the Senate is removed. It's just an entity can yeah. Yes, yes,.

C

Yep and then put the line break after that yeah. It's Rawls in this document moves up to the top.

C

There you go see that looks like.

B

C

I'm, no, no, no, no, no I'm, still staring at the bottom. Paragraph I had a word issue in the bottom paragraph: I, don't like the word may in 679, because an entity that has a role it says may well know. Actually it's more like a must. So I would you say, creates and consumes it's not like. You could have roles and not do the messages that doesn't make sense. So yep.

C

Now you can see in the old text was also creates and consumes right and so I'm fine to leave the word also, but keeping the phrasing as it was before, with crates and consumes so.

C

Yes, no, but change is just the deletion of one word.

C

C

C

Thanks Elliot, happy holiday to you too,.

B

Are you are, are you a Swiss citizen yet Eliot, but.

E

Hopefully, soon at another time we can discuss have a great weekend, everyone, but.

C

So, yes, today is the holiday for me I'm on this call, just because of you guys.

B

Yeah I wasn't sure if the US was doing it. If you you're getting a day off on the yeah.

C

Yeah, because tomorrow is the actual day, but of course, since tomorrow's a weekend, then they make the adjacent weekday, be the holiday.

B

My wife always complains, she says: I, don't want the day of off. I want the day after off, yeah.

C

So what did you guys do for Canada there's.

B

Just Wednesday, okay.

C

B

Wife was went to work on Thursday morning. You know was asleep. Wasn't bed by 10:00 p.m. the real adventure is that we went to the airport last night at 8:30 p.m. to pick up her brother who arrived from Korea mm. We did this in our Volkswagen van which, where he actually can be six feet away from us for Betty, take him to to take him to his mother's house, who is not at his house at that house.

B

So he can quarantine there for two weeks, but on the way to the airport, the alternator died, and so.

F

B

Yeah it was like: can we make it home on the battery nope it died? Oh, it died in the in the pickup and the arrival aisle while waiting for him to get his bags and then we got it towed home.

B

So that's what you get from driving 29 year old cars and so I.

B

Take drive without quotes around it because it moves like once every two weeks right, especially this time during lockdown, we have nowhere to go we're not going camping.

B

So this sentence was added here: no.

C

B

To come up into.

C

Two sentences yeah.

B

C

I guess that one's okay and.

B

Then we have a whole new sentence here. I thought that's familiar to me. It does. Oh age was moved up. Okay, so interesting.

C

Why was it moved up Oh, interesting.

B

C

D

That she said that she wanted to progress around I.

C

Think I originally altered this text so I see if the flow still works, I think no disagreement in principle, but whether the flow work yeah.

C

Yeah I think it works. I think the flow works between the first paragraph and the second one now yeah.

B

Okay I mean originally, we introduced this as a technical, yeah yeah. Technically, what it's about and then later.

A

On we explained.

B

Why why we called it that you know, but in this way we we've explained the terminology. First, the knowledge.

C

B

And explain the technical yeah, okay it'll rank better for most people than.

C

This paragraph, what's.

B

C

Iii think so in 532 I think we always need to keep the word attestation in front of results. So we stick with the terminology term.

A

Doesn't like residing resides so that's that's a problem.

A

Okay, yeah, okay, I think at the station now.

C

Let me do it again here. That's right, so delete for something is examined by is not a change. There's just a change in the line break I wonder maybe you insert the line break back in just to keep the disks easy just because you like having new sentences beyond new lines.

C

It's it's gonna, be easier, do multiple lines, but anyway, yes, as I, think the rest is not an actual change. I think the only that changes, the deletion of the word, resulting if I understand, right line break in between the end results. Yeah, okay, yep,.

C

Okay yeah now it's clear that page dilution of one word: that's fine and that anything down below this. It was just the deletion of the last paragraph that was moved.

B

Yeah then there's this okay. So then we have it same thing done for background check. Okay,.

C

Yeah all right, let's check the flow yep I think the move of the paragraph is fine. I.

C

See differences in line breaks they're the neck. It hurts.

A

C

That's what it looks like to me.

C

And the addition, the fray, is performing both functions together. I.

C

Think this is okay.

E

C

Yep I'm. Okay, with that paragraph I've been over the next one, which also has line break changes that make it harder to review.

B

It's not going to be particularly easier because that's sentences on this different, yes,.

C

Can you keep the line if I know edit again, because you can see I think in the last sentence? There wasn't changed, in other words as such, and the bottom line move it up to the previous line, because then I think there will be no changes in the last one yeah.

B

Yeah, so that's very clear, so comma B comes dot new sentence and or for different flying parties and or different use cases period, for instance, a network device. Then we that was a parental to a different network device Gainax to the network and to a server holding confidential data to gain access to the data. As such, both models, oh I, could show Joey move that up.

C

And ringer I think it's okay is his thing: I don't care anyway,.

C

Now that I've verified it.

D

Yeah, please check the sentence, starting at, for instance, 620, because Catalan suggestion wasn't exactly this FA I think she she misunderstood. The example and I mean.

B

So he's crazy, it's clearly his, for instance, yeah.

C

No I, you did it right. Yeah.

B

Exactly correct yeah, I, I.

C

Did check that closely and yep you did it right. Okay,.

B

Let's do this okay, this! This is a good change here.

B

One's good hot, moving to us, your I have no idea.

C

It's like a logically separate company, so I.

B

Know I know yeah, just like you'd have ipv6 on github. It seems so simple because it's all behind a single it was all behind a single pair of IP addresses all right, a single load, balancer or something or I. Don't know some monster load balancer. They bought.

C

So this one looks like a bunch of wine great changes that yeah they get harder to review here. I, don't if we can restore the line breaks to where they used to be, to make it easier to see what the change is.

B

It might appraise the trustworthy, and so we have or operating system goes.

C

B

System component provided about it under the assumption, provided.

C

By it the current about it goes to next line any.

B

Is true, a new sentence, a stronger.

H

C

Okay, but physically the index line goes to the hardware is physically right before physically and then break before implicitly trustee.

C

Yeah: okay, push that.

B

All right so now we see that we've had or comma and assurance added. That's it. Okay read this.

B

The great Oxford comma.

B

B

C

B

Really it has conflicts, how can I have conflicts.

C

Click on resolved and see see what it says: Oh.

C

Plays it language the braces at the bottom there's.

B

Diff trap in it: okay, no.

C

Down at the bottom, is it just an empty line or what is it yeah.

B

C

B

C

You can so, for example, you can just delete all of the lines. Twelve, eight thousand three, whatever yeah and then.

C

Because if you scroll, if you use the the rightmost scroll bar up at the top, you can see Merkers resolved yeah.

I

C

Then commit merge.

C

More language that.

B

Let's fix this.

C

I'm, the only top paragraph yeah I.

B

Guess we're gonna have to do all of it. Yeah all right.

C

Or moves I think wait, wait a minute yeah! You got it never mind, you did it right.

C

You just right before support the security properties anywhere between support and properties. There's the security, our new words you could break after security or whatever, so we're.

B

Okay, and at which point we, we diverge completely I, think yeah.

C

B

Is it a Zed or an ass.

C

In American English, it's a Zed in British English, it's an S and so usually RFC's tend to follow American, spelling and so.

B

Apparently, if you consistently use British the RFC, let you get away with it, but I've never seen that actually happen. That's.

C

What I understand to you, if you are white.

B

I think I'm surprised my browser complaints that I'm I'm in a British but I've never figured out how to convince it. That of that fact, you know I. Don't.

A

Know why the lines again and then you know you.

C

Must know that you're in Canada guess.

B

So and guess it knows why can't I commit spending okay, think spending we're waiting for the github to do something yeah at one point, I learned that the I should set my uh I should set my.

C

B

C

Cal exactly yeah.

B

It's except my system locale to Dutch in order to get the right combination of of of language, dollar signs and date, formats.

B

But I don't think that works anymore cuz they went to euro but anyway, why is it doing it says pending I, don't know what it's means you.

C

Still have to commute it I think doing yeah.

B

C

B

There no you're changing.

C

No no blow the change what's done by them. Yeah, it's great out, that's weird: okay, I, don't know, and everything that breather.

H

Because you'll start our review, you need to finish your review under alright.

B

H

B

Guess you're right.

H

B

I did it wrong I thought I clicked on the right. You see ya, get really flow to match line, breaks.

B

I do I want to comment. I guess I want to comment: okay, yeah, okay, now it's comment and now I can commit the suggestion.

B

I'm confused by that, because I didn't think I did the right thing. Okay, here we go all right all right, so we basically got rid of two lines of I. Think.

C

It was because you hit your system locale set to Dutch. Obviously,.

B

And the Dutch locale says: please consult brussels before passing legislation.

B

Okay, so the major part is added this. This line here. Okay, these words move a little bit.

B

Door, sment appraisal policy, authentication cut, so this was all wrapped up in one one piece: it's now spread out here. Okay, so personally,.

C

I find it harder to read the addition of the words the security properties of and I would find that sentence far easier to read. If those four words were deleted in 996, what do you think it says must support the security properties of confidentiality, integrity and ability versus must support confidentiality, integrity and availability? Much.

D

C

Which is closer to the old word, anklet.

C

Although I can see where she got it from because she's back in the in red 97, where it said additional security protections- and she probably didn't like the word protections and I- was trying to change that to security properties and trying to preserve that phrase. But I don't like preserving. It was necessary.

B

Do you like considerations just getting down to that sentence.

C

And there's also redundancy, although yeah.

B

I mean they say it here: blah blah.

C

B

Then we say in here so.

C

In the old text, let's see it talked about integrity and replay and then often authentication, confidentiality, integrity and so on and now she said, confidentiality has moved out to be a must. Where previously, it was often.

C

And so that one is a technical change in meeting, because she's elevating confidentiality from I should to a must.

C

But it's not a normative must well it's a form of document, but still that the meaning is it's now basically sitting now the text applies in its mandatory, rather than only often and so I don't know. If that's correct, is it I.

B

So when is it that so, when do we not support needs sub to support and and integrity.

C

That part it was already in need and I agree with that right needs.

B

To support entertainment, awesome.

C

B

As often needs to support additional security protections, so.

C

For example, there is a bundle old text where it duplicates integrity replay in 998 that one I agree that doesn't block there. So so often, we.

B

Need to support these other things, replay, denial of service and privacy, and so the implications are some use cases where either we are unable to do replay denial service or we just don't need to.

C

Now, if you look at read and I-96 replay attack, prevention is in the needs to right. So that's why I believe in the read 998. Yes,.

B

C

And replay should have been deleted from 998, because in many use cases it needs to support up in line 96, so those two words should be deleted. I agree with that meaning I claim that which means yeah there's problems in both the red and the green texts, though.

B

All right, so, what's the problem in the green text? We've, elevated, confidential integrity and availability are always must needs, as.

C

Well and different changes here, number water, it's elevated, confidentiality too, and needs to instead of a often or in many cases, I. Don't know that that's true. There may be cases where all the information is public, because there's no PII right, maybe you're doing attestation of you know traffic lights or something like that. That's already a public city device that there's no PII associated with, and so maybe attestation of such devices does not require confidentiality, for example, that.

B

C

That's problem number one in the green text that was fine in the red text.

C

Problem number two: is that green, nine I six inserts the word availability availability was never talked about before, and so we should discuss that one and what that's great protocol support, availability and what it means for a service to support availability which has to do with you know: what's the percentage earnest SLA of time, that kind of thing? What does it mean for protocol to support that I'm, not sure it's.

E

The availability is true of every internet protocol. You.

C

Think actually was connected, yeah I'd be available, it may have high or low availability, but it has availability. I mean.

F

It's an on statement. It's like yeah.

C

B

A protocol that most transfer bytes right so I agreed, so that was problem. Number two I interpret that to mean essentially some kind of defense against being unavailable, meaning you know whether that means redundant architecture or like that. True of every protocol right.

C

Right I I agree with Laurence. It's kind of an on statement that you shouldn't have to have text that says that.

C

So it also I just I'm, just in numerating problems right I'm, not trying to propose a solution to another problem. It used to have replay protection that list and now it's moved down. Maybe that's not a changing meeting.

B

So I believe that this is a solution is this is about that conveyance is more than the total protocols. Well, this is security, still considerations.

C

That is true, conveyance is not necessarily a protocol. You are right, no flash drive. The sneakernet is an example of conveyance. That's not a protocol.

B

Point is that this is not a requirement on the evidence container. It's a it's a it's a. It seems to be a requirement.

A

B

The thing that conveys the evidence container, true and, and so the evidence container, might support confidentiality and integrity, meaning we don't have to do that when we convey them, but yeah.

C

Well, no I think I I think your observation is correct.

C

So I guess there's a bunch of stuff that I don't like about the green I. Think your point is right: Michael.

C

What was that point again? What I didn't understand that this text is talking not about the requirements for the eat, but requirements for the protocol that carry they eat and so, for example, if the eat has its own integrity than the requirements for the protocol that carries the eat is weaker because the eat already takes care of it at the data level.

C

C

Now so, if you can carry and eat with integrity protection, you can carry it across a protocol that doesn't support integrity protection. You know, maybe it's a unreliable sneakernet or something that's carrying the heat. Yeah. Okay,.

C

You're won't match when you try to pass through them and you had a purse to eat so.

C

All right, all right so I'm wondering if we should leave this one open and do head do another pass on it or if you want to see it's probably gonna, take us 10 minutes to fix this. Do you want to go onto the Kathleen's other issue or 8 minutes.

C

But at least I agree that there were some issues in the old text that should be addressed so.

C

At least uh Thank You Thomas to filing the port request review. This was good, but.

D

Yeah so reforms, sorry for all these line. Braixen yeah.

C

I, don't know if somebody else wants to sign up, take a shot at this one. Otherwise, if you leave it, I might be able to get to it by Tuesday, but we'll see I mean I'm, not gonna, do it until Monday, but I may be able get to it on Monday. Not so many that's new before then and I'll just do merges into this, because the branch here is a branch in the regular repo right. This is not a fork. It's in a branch right tell us yeah.

D

C

Ok, so then I can, or anybody else can commit to that same branch. Just like my boys do okay.

B

I wonder if this is Kathleen Kathleen, Moriarty, kme I, don't.

C

Know she's yeah, well, I, MC, dill, maybe II use for EMC I don't know. Does.

B

It say that no.

C

It doesn't you'd have to look in the profile in.

B

E

H

E

You bring this.

H

B

Attention I think I. Think you reply, you sent a message with all of these links, one back to her attention. That would be great, so, okay, so mr.

C

One more that we haven't looked at right, which one we looked at was that 118 and 120. We.

B

Gave this back to Elliot, okay,.

C

Gotcha gotcha Kathleen's.

B

Looked at them all, so so, let's, let's just take again here so this is this- is Hanks fix. I tried to Unruh, based the text and I ran into kind of a bunch of, and part of the issue is I'm not happy that I can revert some things cuz, because I have to revert them with no commits no verify because they wind up with something not working anyway but seems to have gone through and I think removed the parts that were a problem, but though wasn't CC one of the ones we didn't like.

A

B

A

Pyaar, so I did not create conflicts here and.

C

Right and I'm fine with that, meaning since that's decoupled, for it I think in just glancing at this when I did not open this in before the call. But so things thanks for putting us in together, but it looks like I- would prefer this one be split into two different PRS one that.

C

Now I'm open to your being convinced otherwise, but you can see right now. The end result of this one is: it has both example, three and an example for I think my preference is to put example 3 back in, but only merge example for at such point as there becomes a referenceable document.

C

That's not just an individual craft, in other words, as soon as the working group adopts a document that includes the handle based stuff, then example: 4 gets merged in I thought that that's what we talked about last time, I'm open other possibilities, but that would be my preference yeah.

A

I, don't again, this would be a blocker if this takes its time. That's my only concern if you find out that, then we can do this this way, like your proposal.

C

B

Gonna say so: we could throw in an X X X. This requires a reference and we could remove it if we don't get it in that.

C

I said I can live with that. That's not my preference, but I can live with that.

B

Can I can I insert here? Is this where the right place would be.

C

B

An adopted, referable, referent trouble, I, don't know document.

B

Preferable the word reference site of all stop site oval document.

B

That was probably misspelled to a.

C

B

Of all and says, should have a so.

C

No machine I would see if this one is addressed. One of my other points on there, which is now off the screen, so I just opened enough to see what was done here and looking for the diagram.

C

Is there a diagram and the distribution sections yeah? So, okay? So one of my bullet points from last time a human 11 is not addressed in this one.

C

Well, we looking at the diagram. The diagram wasn't changed anyway, so maybe you addressed it some other way this had to do with whose clock is time, HD, measured in terms of which entity.

A

So there is a text description, yeah.

A

C

Doesn't matter you tell me where was it addressed.

A

C

Mentioned I haven't read this before they call so he's point me to where I should read so and III should read this after the call, but that's where at two minutes, but.

A

Latency judged between all entities involved is assumed to be less than the time drift of local clock. So you can see that sensible, teasley by the distributor and then there is introduced, but we assume that it is less than the clock, drift variance. Okay,.

C

So here's the problem that I have them to refer to two lines line in the Green, Line, 12 or 12, and line 12 24, and so if we can get both of those on the screen at same time, 12 12 and 12 24 on the screen. At the same time,.

C

You can expand it's in the collapse person. It's in the collapsed version.

B

C

Right so 1212 says that handles are be well. Okay, it handles can be nonces right. So if handles are nonces not signed to time stamps correct as I'm thinking it I'm gonna walk down that that thought branch. Okay. So let's pretend those are nonsense. Okay line 1224 says what gets communicated across a protocol. Is time, HD, hey what.

C

Goes on the line you can see all the ones on the law and the horizontal lines are all you know our message: content. Okay, the ones on the vertical lines are just tiny times. According to clocks line.

A

C

Lines are message content, so this one says we're putting a time stamp into the content in line 12 12 says no. That.

A

C

A

This is a diagram expression issue. That's.

I

What I was calling out that one was not addressed so.

B

You're saying that that that it shouldn't say time HD, it should say handle yes.

F

C

Is on a horizontal line? That means that the that the actual time stamp appears in the message yeah.

A

That's, of course, okay, it's in the text, but it doesn't have to so so. Where do you want to have the time HD before the end? Well,.

C

I think Michael was suggesting 1224 I should say handle instead of time HD or something yes. So.

B

C

B

So the handle is sent by the the third party time entity right.

C

Which is none of those three entities, if I'm not.

B

Any so time HD doesn't actually show up on this de Graaff. If, in that, there's.

C

Logs coming all three of those that come from a four thinkety-think.

C

Stand right if I understand right, you have a handle distributor, which is none of those three entities. It's a fourth R or the handle distributor. Why not? Because if the diagram showed that and then there are three lines that come from the handle distributor, one that goes to a tester that carries the handle one that goes from the handle distributor to the relying party that carries the handle and one that comes from a handle distribute to the verifier that carries handle.

C

You showed that as separate lines, that would be more clear if that's the intent, yeah.

A

I cannot draw.

B

It I'm not gonna, try to do it here, but I. Will you put it over here on the right agree? Okay, um maybe I can draw it. I, don't know.

B

Distributor and.

C

Yeah, it sounds like maybe a Michael. You want to take the next shot, we're after eight o'clock right now, my time so, but it's 1:00 so I'm just helping to explain which problem of mine is not addressed. Yet this is one part of it and then, if we scroll down, there's gonna be one other piece of it, which is. Let me get the line number for you here, 12:46 that one and.

B

And so, and that it would go down to connect to I'm gonna hit, cancel because I don't really want to do this. Yeah.

C

I agree: where you're going Michael what'd, you say: I'm.

B

Down to connect to this line here, select the open beer dream and I.

C

Would personally do it as three separate horizontal lines? Yes,.

B

C

Physical lines, three.

B

Horizontal lines I agree, and actually you know what one nice thing about that, if you do this, Hank put them in a non-obvious order: okay, like relying arguing their eye or a tester okay, because you were signing up to do this Michael I can do it I just clearly I, don't think I can do it in this. In this thing, because I know I can't edit this part, I can't make suggestions. Do.

C

It on your own machine or something by I, don't know Tuesday or something I can.

F

C

I should not, but I wanted to have a comment on 1246 before I dropped, so okay, 12:46 is the one that has the inequality right in the actual security check here with the deltas here. This makes sense if, and only if time, HD was communicated. If you replace the handle.

C

A

Doesn't have to be in there.

C

C

This text needs to be fixed. It's broken right now is.

B

It the time of the HD, is a measurement that the verifier makes, which is when he gets the HD. It's not.

C

B

In the protocol.

C

No, no! No! No! No.

B

C

Is time HD is that.

B

C

At the handle distributer not the time at the verifier, those are to notice cuts.

A

C

That case, the table is wrong because the time at which is received by the attest err, the time at which is received by the wrong party time, is received by the verifier, are different right and so on. That's.

A

A

C

All right so to 1854 1055 is broken in my reading right now, because it's phrases.

A

C

Distributing applies to me sent, but then it talks about received by all entities. You can't have a time that's received by all entities because it receives at a different time by each entity. I think.

B

I understand your point, so so: okay.

C

So anyway, I would.

B

Right now, shorten.

C

To clarify what I think the problems are, you guys can fix them.

B

C

B

Right all right, so I guess we're gonna end the call here, yeah Hank, if you.

B

C

B

C

I think it's easier to split this into two peers did I think when it can be merged immediately, and then we can still be iterating on the other one, but which part do you think you can be merged immediately? The second.

B

Part that adds.

C

Back in example, three because I just restore his text that was already in there.

A

B

Will do something to split that up and I'm gonna edit this this line a little bit because I think I agree that I, don't think I think it has to be the time that you it's a time that you measure the reception of HD locally. Alright, thank you. Michael for voluntary, okay.

C

Getting volunteered.

B

B

Tory, the fireworks.

B

Are they? Are they their fireworks, remote, controllable? Yet.