►
From YouTube: RATS Architecture Design Team, 2020-03-06
Description
RATS Architecture Design Team, 2020-03-06
B
C
C
B
E
C
C
B
B
So
probably
have
a
couple
more
people
flow
in
ways
that
he
wouldn't
make
it
as
I
think
it's
1:00
a.m.
or
so
there
and.
B
F
A
B
Know
either
I
just
I
said
clearly
that
didn't
work.
So
usually
it's
the
question
of
yeah.
You
need
to
reboot
base
your
changes,
because
what
you've
checked
sent
is
essentially
at
all
the
changes
that
we're
already
in
some
other
other
thing.
So,
okay,
so
Hank
is
not
here.
Why
he's
just
in
chat
with
me
another
window?
Why
isn't
he
here.
B
Okay,
well,
we
have
these
I
think
it's
now
one
fewer
pull
requests,
because
I
I'll
close
that
one
this
one
I
haven't
looked
at
at
all
and
that
one
we
were
just
looking
at
you
Dave
and
I
and
I,
don't
know
if
someone
would
like
to
just
I
want
to
just
grab
Ned
stuff.
Take
me
a
minute
while
Hank
joins,
if
you,
if
the
rest
of
you
want
to
look
through
the
pull
requests
that
are
at
this
location,
I
will
put
in
the
chat
case.
You
want
to
copy
and
paste.
B
B
C
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
C
That
looks
like
older
text,
so
the
to
255,
258
I
think
is
text
that
was
before
the
red,
stuff
and
so
I
think
that's.
It
needs
to
be
reverted.
I
suspect
that
was
not
intentional,
meaning
that
the
whole
the
whole
change
there
I
don't
know
if
there
was
some
other
change
in
there
that
I'm
missing
but
I
think
I
recognize
all
that.
As
being
part
of
the
previous,
the
Green
was
changed
to
the
red.
E
C
F
B
I
copy
this
MD
file
over
top
assuming
it
looked
like
it
was
the
top
of
the
branch,
but
it
was
not
so
okay,
so
7/18
software
is
running
made
me
yes
running
a
weak.
C
A
B
C
B
E
D
C
D
B
C
A
C
B
A
C
C
I
think
the
deletion
of
the
comma
in
796
is
incorrect
because
of
the
comma
in
793.
I
think
it
is
me
the
one
that
has
not
changed
any
solution
that
conveys
information
used
for
security
purposes.
Comma
comma
needs
to
support
and
integrity
protection
right.
That's
it
that
the
comma
needs
to
be
like
a
closed
kana
of
the
open
comma
there.
F
B
Apparently,
because
they
expected
to
get
paid
on
stat,
holidays
or
comma,
you
know
blah
blah
blah
and
they
meant
to
say
anything
else
and
the
people
said
well,
no,
it
says
here
it
says:
if
you
wanted
it
to
be
this
or
this,
you
would
have
put
an
Oxford
comma
in
instead,
it's
the
closing
of
the
previous
phrase,
and
so
we
do
get
paid
for
that
stat
or
something
like
that,
interesting
and
yeah.
It
was
totally
like,
oh
really,.
B
Anyway,
okay,
so
I've
made
that
change
to
the
comma
and.
B
C
C
C
I
was
looking
up
the
definition
of
the
verb
at
transit
because
it's
affected
somebody
else's
Park,
West,
okay
and
the
definition
of
transit
is
to
pass
through
or
across
an
area.
The
new
large
shift
will
be
too
big
to
transit,
the
Panama
Canal,
so
in
other
words,
the
subject
of
transit
is
the
thing
that
moves.
Not
the
thing
that
moves
it,
and
so
the
transiting
entity
would
be
the
entity
that
moves
I,
don't
think.
That's
correct.
An
entity
doesn't
move
as
the
message
it
does
and.
C
C
B
C
On
right
again,
because
there's
more
of
the
definition
I
want
to
make
sure
there's
not
a
number
two
on
here
and
there
is
not
okay,
so
either
pick
a
different
word
or
yes,
if
you
want
to
keep
using
the
word
transit,
then
it
would
be
that
transits
rule
or
is
passed
through
would
be.
If
you
want
to
pick
a
different
word
than
friends,
it
that
passes.
C
C
C
B
C
B
B
C
B
C
Sure
can
you
go
to
the
files
of
you,
so
you
can
see
the
context
around
it
yeah
so
here
I
have
a
problem
with
the
phrasing
of
the
second
sentence.
The
second
sentence,
I,
think,
is
talking
about
conveyance
protocols,
not
topological
models,
in
other
words,
whether
something
is
pushed
by
one
hand
or
pulled
by
the
other
end
or
whether
it's
done
by
an
intermediary
who
pushes
from
one
end
and
push
the
pull,
pull
this
from
one
end
pushes
the
other
end.
C
This
is
a
thank
you
active
in
terms
of
implications
on
the
conveyance
protocol,
which
is
not
what
this
section
is,
in
other
words
whether
the
attest
or
sends
evidence
to
verify
or
whether
the
verify
sound
was
listening.
Pick
the
verifier
since
attestation
results
the
relying
party
or
whether
the
relying
party
pulls
attestation
results
on
the
verifier
or
whether
some
intermediary
pulls
it
from
the
verifier
and
insensate
derailing
party
is
something
that
this
section
is
agnostic
to
and
so
I
don't
think
the
section
belongs
in
my
reading.
B
C
E
B
A
C
What
I
so
I'm
trying
to
answer
your
question
about
is
the
first
in
its
controversial.
If
you
look
at
the
table
of
contents,
which
was
Ali's
doing
on
my
own
machine,
this
is
a
forward
reference
to
multiple
sections
farther
down,
yeah
and
so
I.
Don't
think
it's
appropriate
to
refer
to
a
figure
that
appears
like
three
sections
later
in
the
document.
C
C
D
C
A
I
would
say
it's
ambiguous
because
we
have
different
types
of
models:
data
flow
and
topological.
We
have
to
use
those
qualifiers
and
wherever
the
word
model
is
used,
so
there
are
multiple
possible
topological
models
and
then,
if
we
do
keep
text
at
4:26
in
the
green,
the
data
flow
shows
basic
data
flow
model
for
communications,
Laurie.
C
It
looks
to
me,
like
the
main
point
of
the
change,
is
there's
multiple
other
possible
models,
but
in
4:26
it
says
it
shows
a
basic
model
for
communication,
implying
that
there's
other
things.
Besides
data,
the
data
flow
diagram,
I
think
that's
false
I
think
there
are
thuggin
all
which
I
think
is
what
Ned
was
pointing
out
right.
One
is
a
data
flow
model
and
one
is
a
topological
model
and
we
probably
should
never
use
the
word
model
as
referring
to
what's
in
the
data
flow.
C
C
No,
no
we're
saying
the
data
flow
regardless.
Okay,
for
how
you
improve
that
data
flow.
There's
multiple
models
for
implementing
the
data
flow,
there's,
not
alternatives
to
it.
There's
just
multiple
ways
to
do
it,
and
this
is
showing
different
models
for
doing
that
same
data
flow
means
that
this
text
is
currently
implying
that
there's
alternatives.
The
data
flow
diagram
because
it
shows
or
26
shows
a
basic
model
and
429
says
there
are
other
possible
models.
C
C
This
point,
I
I,
would
since
way
he's
not
on
the
call
I
would
not
merge
it
and
leave
it
open.
A
B
E
C
B
B
A
It
worth
adding
a
you
know,
elevating
this.
This
diagram
as
a
third
model,
give
it
a
name
ask
for
it
or
background
I,
don't
know
yeah,
that's
pork
background
in
I,
don't
know
I.
A
C
A
E
C
An
issue
I
agree
with
you
today:
yeah
I
agree
with
you
I'm
just
reading
your
comments
and
I
agree
your
comments
Michael
so
so
so
I
think
no
my
opinion
right
now
after
reading.
This
is
don't
make
any
change
for
now.
I'm
happy
to
leave
these
open
until
ways
on
the
call
to
have
this
discussion,
but
I
don't
think
we
should
make
a
change
to
document
before
Monday.
B
I've
discovered
that
web
RTC
that
there
is
some
kind
of
big,
lock
and
browsers
that
mean
that
that,
while
the
audio
continues
to
flow,
you
can't
do
anything
else
with
your
browser.
Until
until
something
happens,
there's
there's
some
big
lock
like
I,
can't
I
can't
switch
tabs
I
can't
I
can
go
to
other
windows
and
do
anything
I
like,
but
but
I
can't
do
anything
with
my
browser,
so
it'll
it'll,
unlock
in
a
moment
or
I'll,
have
to
disconnect
and
reconnect
okay.
So
you
see
if
I
uncheck.
B
B
F
F
All
right:
okay,
okay,
we
can
go
over
the
PR
I
think.
So,
if
we
go
back
to
the
presentation
I
made
on
Monday
I
was
talking
about
uses.
What
I'll
just
call
on
sign
on
time.
Tokens
yeah,
you
know,
I,
think
a
commented
in
a
that.
You
know
such
token
could
be
quickly
trusted
by
the
verifier
so
many
times,
I
think
I
believe
a
tank
section.
He
has
a
something
in
the
running
quit
the
trust,
they're,
trying
to
add
an
example
of
where
inclusive
trust.
E
F
Actually
be
associated
with
a
bigot,
you
know
it
with
the
lack
of
token
signing
so
for
anything
yell,
for
instance.
If
for
some
reason
the
verifier
says
my
transport
connection
CEO
my
transport
between
the
attachment
verifier
is,
you
know
anchored
it
over
to
trust.
Like
you
just
said
your
communication
thankful,
then
he
may
just
say
pretty
you
know:
I,
don't
really
need
any
additional
six
appear
on
the
attestation
evidence
that
was
my
intent
and
I.
Think
William
commented
over
in
evening
and
getting
on
there
tonight.
Kind
of
his
comments
were
constructive.
C
So
I
think
you
need
more
than
being
received
across
a
secure
link.
You
need
that
meaning
that's
necessary,
but
not
sufficient
to
make
an
assumption
that
the
that
it's
the
same
as
the
token
itself
being
signed.
What
you
also
have
a
some
assurance
that
that
the
a
tester
isn't
just
a
man-in-the-middle
and
it's
being
relayed
from
some
other
entity
right,
because
there's
not
there's
not
a
binding
between
the
sender
of
the
transport
and
the
token
right.
C
If
those
are
two
different
energies,
you
have
to
have
some
other
guarantee
that
those
are
the
same
entity
right.
Sorry,
Okin
itself
provides
that
bonding,
but
putting
it
in
the
transport
does
not
provide
that
binding.
So
you
either
have
a
security,
vulnerable
security,
vulnerability
or
you
have
to
have
some
other
external
mitigation
or
external
thing
to
go
along
with
that
yeah.
C
F
F
So
if
the
application
server
is,
you
know,
you
know
how
this
is
verifier,
then
the
application
server
can
get
a
it
can
get
meaningful
information
on
whether
the
link
has
been
authenticated
as
root
of
trust
and
the
root
of
trust
would
be
like
a
sim
card.
There's
an
example
but
yeah
I
can
I
can
add
an
example.
If
I
can
get
a
little
bit
more
detail
with
that
yeah.
B
A
The
DCG
community
uses
a
term
implicit
attestation
and
I
think
they're
different
things,
so,
potentially
a
reader,
that's
not
sort
of
crowded
and-
and
that
would
be
good
finish-
to
become
confused
by
that.
So
given
Dave
thalers
comments
about
trust,
really
isn't
implicit,
there's
it's
just
referring
to
some
other
context
or
what
what
the
trust
boundary
is
or
the
endpoint
or
if
it
makes
sense
to
try
to
avoid
using
the
term
implicit
trust,
be
more
explicit
about
how
the
trust
can
be.
A
C
B
B
C
B
B
C
Yeah
so
I
think
the
intent
is
good,
but
these
number
of
chromatic
alysha's
that
are
in
here
right
now
that
may
be
easy
to
clean
up
dead,
pointed
out
some
I've
pointed
out
some
other
ones.
I
think
I
agree
with
I'm
fine
with
the
intent
of
changing
composite
the
tester
should
composite
device,
obviously
okay
and
then
I,
don't.
C
A
C
B
E
B
Not
okay
and
I
do
also
I.
Don't
know
why
it
says
that
I
have
to
read
the
rest
of
the
thing
better
to
understand
it.
I
don't
know.
If
any
of
you
have
an
explanation,
I,
don't
understand
why
I
thought
we
all
we
all
decided.
We
would
go
with
the
term
lead
a
tester,
so
I,
don't
know
why
he's
removed
it
I
kind
of
liked
it
I
didn't.
C
B
Mandarin
speakers
is
that
the
word
leader
is
a
much
more
generic
term
to
them
than
in
English.
So
we
would
call
this
our
manager
or
my
boss.
They
would
call
their
leader
and
so
the
word
a
managing
tester
would
be
their
leader
and
lead
a
tester,
and
that
was
kind
of
an
interesting
thing
to
understand,
and
so
we
have
a
transiting
again
here.
That's
one
of
the
places
I
didn't.
C
I,
wouldn't
even
use
that
I
would
say
either
the
Lita
tester
or
a
tester.
A
in
his
terminology
collects
I
like
to
just
keep.
The
word
lead.
A
tester
is,
if
you
look
back
at
that,
read
403,
that's
what
I
used
to
say
the
Lita
tester
collects
in
his
terminology.
It
might
be
a
tester
a
collects,
but
then.
A
A
B
B
B
Push
to
I
can't
push
to
his
yeah
because
he
did
it
a
fork
and
not
a
branch
right
exactly
so.
Okay,
so
I'll
try
to
do
that,
but
because
I
think
the
rest
of
the
changes
from
a
tester
to
device
are
all
desired.
Things
and
I'll
try
to
get
Ned's
comment
in
here,
but
I
don't
want
to
do
it.
I
don't
want
to
waste
our
group
time
at
this
point
on
it.
So
let's
go
on.
B
Minutes
left
before
after
another
call
elaboration
on
introduction.
Oh
this
is
so
this
is
from
Hank.
He
wanted
time
to
go
through
this
I
think
his
text
I
think
his
text.
What
I
read
was
relatively
good,
but
I
think
it
probably
needs
a
read
through
bye,
bye,
everyone
to
there,
so
that's
file
changes
can.
C
I
get
an
opinion
from
others
on
the
appraised
verb.
None
of
it
was
in
the
call
when
I
gave
the
intro
here.
So
he
made
a
bunch
of
changes
throughout
just
a
background
that
changed
like
evaluates
to
appraised
or,
in
a
couple
cases
assess
I,
had
a
comment
on
the
very
first
use
which
he
yeah
there.
Thank
you.
C
D
C
B
C
C
C
C
C
B
A
C
No,
that's
just
a
diff
weirdness
to
diff
weirdness,
we're
so
knows
it.
What
he
did
was
he
changed
the
formatting
so
that
then
the
down
each
definition
has
two
lines
so
that
the
word
and
the
definition
are
in
separate
lines
and
in
the
career
prior
one,
its
word
:
definition
and
so
the
difference
with
it.
The.
B
Other
reason,
the
other
reason
is
that
so
in
in
this
format
like
this,
that's
not
a
definition
list
for
markdown.
It's
a
point.
Uh-Huh
becomes
a
point
that
happens
to
have
a
colon
in
it,
whereas
this
actually
becomes
a
definition
list,
which
is
a
word
followed
by
a
line
with
a
colon,
and
that
means
that
it
uses
the
proper
word
definition
thing.
So
that's
just
a
kind
of
reef
formatting.
Yes,.
C
A
C
C
Let's
fill
in
something
that
we
don't
have
to
argue
about,
and
so
he
pulled
it
out
of
the
Charter,
which
I
think
he
hopes
that
nobody
could
argue
with
us
just
taking
text
out
the
Charter,
and
so
we
may
still
want
to
refine
it,
and
maybe
that's
your
point
Ned,
but
at
least
as
a
starting
point
is
better
than
more
text
to
be
added
here.
So
that's
why
I
said
to
Michael.
Yes,
I
agree
with
merging
this
now
and
then
continuing
the
discussion.
Ok
wall
of
text
comes
from
wall
of
charter
text
got
it.
B
Yeah
and
I
kind
of
like
the
the
the
hint
about
the
going
through
in
the
forward
lots
of
people
will
pull
up.
The
document
will
go
scroll
down
to
pages
to
the
introduction,
get
into
this
wall
of
text
and
go
that's
really
cool,
but
this
is
not
the
document
I'm
looking
for
that's
enough
right
for
them
to
know
right,
I,
don't
care
about
this
document
done
or
you
know,
I'll
pass
this
on
to
George.
Who
cares
about
it?.