Subject: [Rats] Ben Campbell's Yes on charter-ietf-rats-00-00: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 20:13:30 -0800

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-rats-00-00: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-rats/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am balloting "yes", but have a few minor comments. These need not block
external review, but might should be considered prior to approval:

- "The WG will also evaluate prior work such
as NEA and proprietary attestation technologies."

Since I assume the group plans to create standards track specifications, there
is a good chance any given "proprietary" technology will have restrictions that
prevent its use. It might be worth adding a few words about any such
proprietary standard being sufficiently open for IETF purposes.  (I'm
specifically not thinking about patents so much as license restrictions on the
specifications themselves.)

(nit): I find the repeated use of "assertions/claims" a bit jarring. Are they
assertions? Claims? Both?

Please consider whether item 1 under "Program of work" needs to be published as
RFCs or can be published via some alternative channel (e.g. Working Group wiki).

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 17:54:01 -0600

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-rats/

I think I covered this (and proposed text I don't want to use) in Martin's
ballot thread.

> assertions? Claims? Both?

They can be either, depending on what worldview's terminology you're using
(and, to some extent, what verification workflow as well).  I think this is
just going to have to wait for the terminology document.

> RFCs or can be published via some alternative channel (e.g. Working Group wiki).

The thread that Roman forked from Alissa's ballot thread has made some
progress on this, splitting off the use cases into a separate item (which
currently I have marked as "not expected to be published as an RFC"; I
believe the implication is that the terminology and architecture are
intended to be so published.

-Benjamin