Dear WP3 Participants, Thanks again to all who attended our WP3 kick-off meeting on July 11th and for participating in the very fruitful discussions. Based on our discussion, we have updated our first version of a roadmap skeleton/template we presented during the KoM. Just a short wrap up: we decided to specify several roadmap units. The roadmap committee will select the most appropriate 'units' to be integrated into the SPARTA roadmap step by step. During the meeting we identified appropriate criteria to select these units. During KoM TUM has promised to define a template to specific roadmap unit candidates. Attached, you will find the template for each unit that should comprise the following extensive description (in Table 1) covering all points which we have highlighted during the KoM (we also attach a shortened example that can be used as a reference): (1) A problem and opportunity description, which describes the addressed challenge, (2) the status quo with respect to, e.g., technologies/solution/methods already available to address the problem, (3) an estimation until when the challenge/problem should be solved; (4) as we would like to focus on research and innovation (TRL level up to 5), the roadmap unit should describe in a comprehensive manner: which concrete research questions should be addressed; (5) since the challenge should be beneficial for the industry as well, the industrial needs should be elaborated; (6) as a unique SPARTA approach, we would like to consider the social aspects of the challenge as well and, (7) the benefit for EU should be made clear. This is very important, as we want t set up ann European roadmap. (8) To be able to understand the importance of the challenge the description should comprise a SWOT analysis that enables to derive the opportunities, but the risks as well. (9) Describe which security domain will be addressed (see JRC taxonomy), as well as (10) which sector or vertical is addressed (see JRC taxonomy). (11) Another USP of the SPARTA roadmap might be our early consideration of emerging technologies. That is why we ask whether the solved challenge might be related to emerging technologies (e.g. post quantum crypto is closely related to the development of quantum computers though the technology is used in normal computer architectures). With these 11 elements, the challenge and its impacts should be sufficiently described. As part of the next step, we can use the template to define the different steps that are required to solve the problem/challenge (by means of the Table 2 and 3). During our meeting, we have emphasized, that we would like to have a combined roadmap which describes the technological development steps (TRL-level) as well as relations to education capabilities that must be developed as well as certification measures. These are the three dimensions of the roadmap and the dependencies between the different elements. To reach the final goal, i.e., to solve the challenge, several (readiness) levels (i.e., several stages in the Table 2) of development are required. Further, Table 2 allows to define relations among different stages. That is, it allows to consider prerequesite stages that need to be completed before we can start with a particular stage. Each stage should be described in more detail in Table 3. Here, we should outline the individual steps, provide an exact mapping to the JRC taxonomy, and state potential obstacles. Next steps: urgent, June, mid of July: According to the SPARTA proposal we have to deliver a first version of the SPARTA roadmap until end of July. As there is an additional need from the EU commission as Thibaud explained during the KoM meeting, to define a comprehensive roadmap as early as possible before end of July, we need the input for the first draft as early as possible, latest end of June. Input required: (1) End of June: responsible actors: 4 program leads We would like to ask the four program leads to fill out the attached template with the challenges that are pursued as part of the individual programs. The filled out templates should be stored on the svn and should in addition be sent to Thomas Jensen from INRIA (cc Sergej Proskurin proskurin(a)sec.in.tum.de). In addition: I ask the leads of the WP lead Education as well as WP-lead Certification to fill out the template with respect to their WPs as well. (2) 10th of July: responsible actor: INRIA INRIA is responsible for compiling the first version of the SPARTA roadmap. To this end I ask Thomas and his INRIA team to compile a first version from the unit-descriptions of the 4 programs. In addition, as discussed during the KoM, INRIA should use their results of the summarized/aggregated classification of the initial 60 proposal-challenges to further derive 2-3 aggregated/bigger challenges that INRIA should describe with help of the template. The initial roadmap comprising a comprehensive report as well as a first visualization /timeline and dependencies) should be delivered to TUM (Claudia, Sergej, Bojan, Mohamad) and should be stored on svn as well. (3) End of July latest: responsible actor TUM Due to task 3.5 TUM will review the initial roadmap compiled by INRIA and will produce the final delivery based on the INRIA report. Please be aware, that due to the tight timeline for the first roadmap deliverable, we kindly and urgently ask you to provide us with the needed information. Please stick to the defined template though it might not be perfect at this stage. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement in a separate mail. This can be taken into account during the next cycle of roadmap maintenance Other next steps: National Associate workshops, Stakeholder Workshops: The initial roadmap should be discussed during the upcoming workshops and should be extended and aligned if necessary. To extend the roadmap with new roadmap-units we kindly ask all WP3 partners to use the template as well during the workshops. Please do not hesitate to contact Sergej or Bojan for any questions you may have. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Best regards, Claudia Eckert --- On 17.06.19 20:56, Eckert, Claudia wrote: -- Sergej Proskurin, M.Sc. Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter Technische Universität München Fakultät für Informatik Lehrstuhl für Sicherheit in der Informatik Boltzmannstraße 3 85748 Garching (bei München) Tel. +49 (0)89 289-18592 Fax +49 (0)89 289-18579