►
From YouTube: RATS Architecture Design Team, 2021-03-30
Description
RATS Architecture Design Team, 2021-03-30
A
A
A
D
A
B
F
A
B
E
A
B
Ccc
just
created
a
sig
specific
to
attestation,
and
so,
for
example,
if
there's
anybody
that
has
an
open
source
implementation
of
the
each
spec.
That
would
like
to
be
interested
in
donating
that
to
the
ccc
as
a
legal
home
on
the
linux
foundation
that
this
would
be
an
appropriate
place
to
home.
Such
projects.
A
G
G
So
you
guys
were
just
talking
about
days,
so
the
the
critical
thing
was
that
I
can't
be
in
the
meeting
next
next
week.
The
sixth
I
have
a
demo
exactly
at
the
same
time
that
I'm
supposed
to
lead,
and
so
I
was
asking
whether
we
could-
and
I
also
would
prefer
not
to
be
in
a
meeting
on
the
13th
because
of
another
scheduled
event
outside
my
control.
So
my
question
was
whether
we
could
replace
the
those
some
twos
at
tuesday
meetings
with
friday
meetings.
G
If
you
guys
want
to
go
ahead
without
me,
next
tuesday,
that's
fine
too,
and
then
we
had
the
conversation
about
where
I
wasn't
sure
how
many
people
actually
would
be
willing
to
show
up
on
what
might
be
a
stat
holiday
on
the
second
of
the
friday.
The
second,
but
it
sounds
like
everyone
could
do,
the
ninth
and
noting
that
dave
prefers
11am,
and
then
I
guess
you
guys
are
talking
about
your
other
obligation
on
the
friday
at
11..
G
G
But
so
it
was
unclear
whether
or
not
that
meant
that
it
was
only
with
thomas
or
whether
there
was
other
people
involved.
So
since
it's
my
fault
for
changing
this,
I
I'm
willing
to
go
with
whatever
you
guys
prefer,
but
including
just
go
ahead
without
me.
So
I
thought
your
your
original
proposal
was
fine,
so.
B
E
E
G
A
G
Right,
well,
I'm
sorry,
I
just
don't
want
us
to
lose
our
our
our
momentum
because
I
feel
like
we
have
it
and
that's
the
my
main
concern.
Okay,
so
there's
something
so
yeah,
let's
yeah!
Let's
come
back
to
this!
Maybe
people
think
about
it
for
a
moment
and
and
there.
So
let's
come
back
to
this,
so
there's
a
bunch
of
there's
a
bunch
of
pull
requests
that
I've
gotten
a
few
review
a
few
thumbs
up
review,
so
I'm
gonna
come
back
to
them
in
a
moment.
G
So,
but
I
wanted
to
start
with
this
because
it's
big-
and
I
think
we
can
finish
it-
okay,
so
what
I
did
is
so
there
were
two
places
where
dave
asked.
Why
are
these
sentences
been
removed
and
I
found
in
for
me
in
reviewing
them?
I
found
it
really
difficult
to
come
back
to
figure
out
what's
going
on
and
to
look
through
it
again.
So
what
I
have
done
is
I
created.
G
I
took
all
of
the
commits
from
this
one,
and
I
put
them
in
this
this
one
except
for
the
commits
that
removed
those
sentences.
I
think
okay
so
and
it's
rebased.
So
there
was
already
some
conflicts
that
had
to
be
sorted
out,
and
so
I've
done
that
in
the
last
few
minutes.
So
this
is
all
all
the
commits
that
I've
already
been
through
and
we've
already
went
through,
and
there
should
be
no
comments
on
this.
That's
all
so.
G
So
so
that's
actually
great.
Thank
you
dave,
because
what
I
was
worried
is
that
we
had
missed
comments
and
that
it
was
being
hard
to
review
the
the
many
different
things
with
there.
So
so
this
comment,
thank
you.
That's
that's.
That's
was
a
question
I
was
going
to
ask.
I
wasn't
sure
if
we
had
actually
had
dealt
with
that
question
or
not,
so
we
need
to
revert
all
of
many
of
these
or
well.
B
I
think
hink
was
going
to
make
a
pass
and
revert
some
of
them
and
look
at
them
one
by
one,
and
so
I
commented
on
the
ones
that
would
be
questionable
that
I
don't
know
if
I
should
be
reverted,
but
my
guess
is
lawrence
would
probably
want
them
reverted,
but
certainly
there's
one
on
fido,
that's
probably
more
strong.
This
one.
A
A
B
D
A
B
G
G
B
G
A
G
B
A
G
B
A
Maybe
it
did
not
show
just
right
now
so,
but
we
maybe
have
a
conflicting
suggestion
that,
wouldn't
I
don't
know,
create
a
singularity
of
birth.
I
don't
know
how
that
works.
Actually,
but
the
the
the
the
you
are,
the
graphical
user
interface
accepted
the
suggestion,
which
means
that
you
did
not
provide
one.
A
G
B
G
G
D
I
B
A
G
G
G
B
B
A
B
B
A
B
B
F
A
G
G
G
Oh,
no
now,
of
course,
it's
merged.
So
it's
the
same
thing,
so
I
reb
so
the
the
two
commits
that
I
pulled
out
of
that
the
what
was
there
before
I
put
them
in
this.
So
actually
what
I
did
is
I
rebased
I
rebased
this
this
one
on
the
other
one.
Oh,
I
see,
okay
and
so
that
removed
all
the
things
that
were
already
done,
leaving
just
the
things
that
that
the
convention.
D
G
G
A
A
A
D
I
D
G
A
B
B
B
A
B
A
A
B
B
G
B
A
A
B
B
Yeah
I
saw
and
in
the
ones
that
we
just
merged
hank's
and
could
change
draft
to
document
which
I
liked,
and
so
I
would
tend
to
agree
that
documents
would
be
more
consistent
with
the
rest
of
the
rest
of
the
thing,
even
though
the
template
has
the
status
of
this
document
at
the
top.
So
I'm
sorry,
it
says
this
memo
is
that
yeah.
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
I
I
A
B
J
B
I
B
B
I
think
I
think
in
journalism
when
you
have
a
because
often
the
titles
of
articles,
you
know
the
headlines
are
questions
and
there
are
ones
for
which
the
answer
is
not
known
right,
and
so,
if
you
read
the
article,
if
it
starts
with
a
question,
the
answer
is
not
no
it's
not.
Yes,
it's
we
don't
know.
Yet
it's
an
open
question
and
the
point
of
the
article
is
to
elaborate
on
what
the
question
is.
So
that
does
not.
I.
A
A
This
is
basically
saying
this
is
clickbait,
so
so
that
you
you're
just
proposing
preposterous
things
with
this
style
and-
and
I
really
don't
like
it-
this
is
hank
only
hank
speaking,
there's
no
editorial,
meaning,
there's
just
hank's
opinion,
and
so
so
that's
why
I'm
saying
as
a
editor,
please
don't
mind
me
if
everybody
agrees
with
something
else,
but
I
would
think
that
it's
not
journalism,
it's
bad!
Writing.
J
I
D
G
G
A
The
question
of
how
one
system
can
know
that
another
system
can
be
flustered
has
found
new
interests
and
relevance
in
a
world
where
trusted
computing
elements
are
maturing
in
process
architectures.
I
think
that's
a
pr
title
now,
so
that
is,
that
is
just
a
little
bit
of
a
buzzword
with
a
little
bit
of
reality
with
a
little
bit
of
luring
people
in.
A
A
A
D
G
G
G
G
A
Yeah,
so
I
I
I
thought
about
this
a
lot
and
the
the
concept
conveyed
in
the
reds
architecture.
Actually,
I
might
be
an
epoch
id,
although
the
solution
later
might
extend
on
the
identity,
slash
identifier
of
of
an
epoch
and
and
convey
more
data,
and-
and
I'm
not
sure
if
we
want
to
capture
that
here,
but
I
have
to
at
least
acknowledge
the
notion
that
the
concept
that
is
intended
to
be
captured
here
in
the
architecture
is
the
id
of
an
epoch.
I
G
G
A
G
No,
of
course,
becomes
yeah.
I
don't
mind,
I
don't
mind
that
this
architecture
says
that
this
is
something
that
looks
like
this,
but
that
there's,
but
that
it's
a
non-normative
appendix
I
think
it's
it's
not
normative
to
the
architecture
because
it
doesn't
put,
it
doesn't
put
any
requirements
back
in
the
architecture.
Rather,
it
explains
how
some
pieces
can
go
together
at
an
abstract
level,
and
I
think
that's
fine.
I
don't
think
we
have
to
have
an
implementation
draft
to
point
to.
A
A
Things
you
know
so
so
that
it's
a
term
from
there
and
and
I
I
actually
accept
the
analogy-
and
I
think
it's
better
than
an
id,
because
id
is
too
abstract.
I
think
personally,
but
also
I
am
going
with
consensus,
of
course,
because
editor,
so
these
are
two
heads
heads
on
is:
I
am
fine
with
each
of
the
resolution
as
long
as
consensus
head
off.
A
A
I
exactly,
and
I
still
think
that
people
agreeing
to
enter
in
a
room.
It
does
not
mean
a
reflection
of
the
meaning.
I
really
have
to
stress
this
as
an
editor,
and
that
is
not
a.
This
is
not
a
outcome
specific.
This
is
outcome
agnostic.
I
I.
What
I
really
know
is
that
an
agreement
in
a
room
on
one
occasion
is
not
reflecting
the
intent
and
content
of
a
document
and
so
that
that
necessary
has
to
reflect
that.
Sorry,
let
me.
G
All
right,
so
what
I'm
hearing
is
that
we
might
want
to
accept
this
as
bet
as
an
improvement,
but
that
we
may
still
want
to
go
back
to
the
working
group
and
say
we're
not
entirely
sure
that
we
have
consensus
of
the
working
group
on
this.
Particularly
we
had.
The
word
id
is
what
happened
during
the
meeting,
and
we
have
not
taken
this
consensus
test
to
the
to
the
working
group.
A
Exactly
so
because
I
would
really
issue
that
question
and
now
hank
is
taking
a
specific
head
on,
and
that
is
another
contributor's
head,
and
this
will
ripple
out
into
other
documents,
so
I'm
fine
actually
as
heck
to
accommodate
whatever
term
we
use
here.
I
can
work
around
these
with
visa
words.
That
is
not
a
problem,
but
I.
G
G
A
Then
we
can
take
up
that,
I
don't
know
whatever
finding
period
of
a
good
term
and
there.
So
again,
I
I
started
this
with
the
notion.
I
think
the
architecture
focuses
on
the
id
part
and
it
is
fine
for
the
architecture
to
do
that.
I
just
think
it
is
misleading
to
other
things
out
there
and
therefore
will
push
the
responsibility
to
remediate
that
misnomer
too
and
sorry,
that's
a
hyperbole
a
little
bit.
This
is
most
normal
to
the
related
document
and
which
is
typically
not
fair
of
an
editor
to
do
so.
B
B
J
B
G
B
G
Let's
merge
this.
Let's
then
take
the
this
to
the
mailing
list
as
something
that
we've
done.
We've
changed
it
from
handle
to
id
we're
not
completely
attached
to
id,
and
we
don't
want
to
we're
not
putting
any
constraints
on
downstream
documents
that
they
have
to
use
this
term
if
they're
implementing
this.
Thank
you.
That
is
all.
A
B
I
B
G
B
A
Significance
means
you
can
of
course
say
the
architecture
say
calls
it
this.
We
in
our
solution
calls
it
this
it.
It
augments
semantics
here,
profiling,
it
does
not
matter.
Profiling
is
narrower.
If
you
go
broader
with
the
semantics,
that's
a
problem,
I
think
id
does
not
suffice.
Typical
employment,
the
deployment
scenarios-
and
that
is
hank-
not
an
editor,
and
so
so
I
I'm
fine
with
with
peter's
comment.
Would
the
text
please
highlight
this?
It
doesn't
do
now.
A
G
B
B
G
B
A
I
B
B
So
I
know
how
to
create
a
request,
because
I
can
imagine
at
least
two
different
ways
to
do
this,
one
and
maybe
you'll-
think
of
a
third
way,
which
is
the
way
that
you
want
so
okay,
okay,
talking
about
supporting
dave!
Please
look
at
this
one
as
early
as
possible,
it's
most
certainly
before,
because
I
am
willing
to
do
work,
but
I
don't
want
to
start
work
in
the
wrong
direction.
B
G
B
B
B
Yeah,
I
don't
know
if
we
have
that
working,
do
we
yeah?
We
did
because
I
just
did
it
so:
click
on
editors
copy
and
then
on
the
far
right
side.
Okay,
so
there
you
go
so
scroll
down
all
right.
So
look
right
here!
Stop
okay!
So
in
section
three
you
see
architectural
overview,
that's
where
our
data
flow
diagram
is,
and
then
we
have
appraisal
policies
and
reference
values.
Okay,
now
scroll
down
to
section
eight
and
you
see
evidence,
endorsements
and
attestation
results
right.
B
So
the
question
is
endorsements
and
reference
values
are
in
completely
different
sections:
okay,
they're
both
lines
right
next
to
each
other
on
the
diagram.
Neither
of
them
are
in
scope
for
standardization,
so
conceptual
messages
right
now.
The
question
is
conceptual
messages
section.
Is
that
scope
to
be
all
the
lines
or
just
the
ones
in
scope
for
standardization?
Because
right
now
it's
neither.
B
B
Into
section
seven
into
section
three
well
section:
three
is
where
reference
values
and
appraisal
policies
are
right.
This
came
up
when
I
was
doing
one
of
the
other
pull
requests
and
I
needed
to
add
a
section
reference,
and
I
was
trying
to
figure
out.
Do
I
reference
section,
eight
or
section
three
for
this
collection
of
stuff,
and
so
I
that's
when
I
first
noticed
this
for
the
first
time
so.
G
J
Well,
we
said
we
said
early
on
that,
even
though
it
was
out
of
scope,
it
was
okay
for
the
architecture
to
talk
about
these
things
yep,
so
that
we
had
a
complete.
You
know
picture
of
what
what
it
was,
and
if
I
mean
I
don't
know
what
the
difference
is
between
an
architectural
overview
and
a
conceptual
message,
an
architectural
overview
that
describes
conceptual
messages,
but
doesn't
call
them
that
and
a
section
that
calls
them
that,
but
then
omits
them
as.
G
So
I
I'm
also
okay
dave
if
we
were
to
move
this
up
to
be
consistent
and
then
we
were
to
also
then
mention
briefly
these
reference
values
and
endorsements
again
down
here.
You
know
if
we
had
something
more
tangible
to
say
about
them,
but
I
don't
know,
what's
going
to
be
left,
I
don't
actually
know
what's
in
this
text
here.
Oh
that's!
Quite
a
lot.
Okay,.
G
B
You
scroll
up
right
above
there
is
the
data
flow
diagram
that
has
all
those
lines
right
above
3.1
yeah
there
and
you
can
see
endorsements
reference
values,
appraisal
policies.
So
those
four
lines
if
endorsements
move
up,
then
those
four
lines
are
in
this
section
and
the
bottom
lines
of
which
the
in
scope,
one's
evidence
and
attestation
results
are
down
below.
In
section,
eight.
G
I
B
I
mean
another
possibility
is,
and
I'm
not
saying
this
is
right,
I'm
just
thinking
of
the
list
of
things
that
we
could
pick
between
right.
Another
one
would
be
take
three
one
and
three
two
appraisal
policies
and
reference
values
and
move
them
both
down
into
conceptual
messages,
so
everything
is
under
section
eight
right,
so
all
those
are
possible
yeah.
I
I.
D
I
G
B
J
I
B
J
J
D
B
I
will
take
a
look
and
see
if
it
makes
sense
to
just
move
them
up
there.
I
don't
know
yet,
but
it
may
just
be
moving
it
entirely,
but
we'll
see
if
it's
more
complicated
than
that
in
context.
So
maybe
forward
or
reverse
references
won't
flow
or
something
I
don't
know
until
I
can
go
through
it.
So,
okay.