Re: [Last-Call] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rats-architecture-21

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Gyan, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document.

Lars


> On 2022-8-20, at 0:56, Gyan Mishra via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Gyan Mishra
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-??
> Reviewer: Gyan Mishra
> Review Date: 2022-08-19
> IETF LC End Date: 2022-09-01
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> 
> This document provides an architectural overview of the entities involved that
> make such tests possible through the process of generating, conveying, and
> evaluating evidentiary claims.
>   An attempt is made to provide for a model that is neutral toward processor
>   architectures, the content of claims, and protocols.
> 
> Major issues:
> None
> 
> Minor issues:
> As this is a architecture specification should this be standards track.
> Normative language should then be applied where applicable.  As the
> architecture of rats is related to security a lot of what is in the security
> considerations to me seems part of the architecture and maybe should be moved
> to the body of the document or appendix. Section 3 describes the environment of
> an attester.  Section 3.2 clearly describes a layered environment, however
> section 3.3 describes a composite environment using a carrier grade router as
> an example.  I think here the composite should be described just as is done in
> the layer environment section but not referencing an environment use case that
> may not be applicable to RAT.  So within a carrier grade router chassis the
> backplane communication is all done vendor proprietary no external elements so
> I don’t see how trust comes into play as well as the backplane communication is
> hardware bus elements for backplane throughput for the LC and then as well
> router OS software component for the backplane communication. I think maybe
> choosing a better example that applies to RAT composite environment would be
> better.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> Throughout the document there are acronyms used and the acronyms have not been
> expanded. Few words like ROM, BIOS, TEEP, TLS, CWT, JWT, X.509, TPM etc
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art