Hi Rich, Fabiana,I guess by "FATT review" Fabiana seems to be referring to my wording in the email [0] that she is replying to where I was explicitly quoting and explaining the context for the following clause in the FATT process [2] (which BTW is a specific part of the link [1] you mention) -- please note the clause explicitly mentions "review by the FATT."
If some formal analysis has been done then the chairs will request that the FATT point person for the document take the analysis that has been done for review by the FATT during WGLC. This request will contain a link to the current document, a link to the analysis, and WGLC time frame. The FATT will be requested to provide an assessment of whether the document meets the claimed security properties. [0]Fabiana, could you please confirm if my email [0] and the above clause in FATT process [2] in that email is what you were referring to? If so, thanks in advance. If no, sorry for the misunderstanding and please clarify in this case. Thank you!
On 10.06.26 13:58, Salz, Rich wrote:
*
FATT review of formal analysis artifacts
That is not what the FATT does.
They work with the author(s) of drafts, and advise the WG if analysis is needed and, if so, might suggest what tools and methods would be most useful.[1]
That's /part/ of the FATT process but not /all/ of the FATT process. See [0] for my reasoning and process [2] and please tell me what's wrong in my reasoning. Thank you!
Best regards, -Usama [0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/NPOK-YKZGoRYE1xZA_57mULvoEg/
[1] https://github.com/tlswg/tls-fatt
[2] https://github.com/tlswg/tls-fatt#working-group-last-call-wglc
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
