Re: [Rats] Use case -> architecture document

Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de> Wed, 09 October 2019 11:56 UTC

Return-Path: <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>
X-Original-To: rats@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rats@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D253E1200B7 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 04:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X0VIdVv7tr1Z for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 04:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailext.sit.fraunhofer.de (mailext.sit.fraunhofer.de [141.12.72.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B21D012008B for <rats@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 04:56:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sit.fraunhofer.de (mail.sit.fraunhofer.de [141.12.84.171]) by mailext.sit.fraunhofer.de (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-10) with ESMTPS id x99Bu3Fv022348 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 9 Oct 2019 13:56:04 +0200
Received: from [192.168.16.50] (79.234.112.245) by mail.sit.fraunhofer.de (141.12.84.171) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.468.0; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 13:55:58 +0200
To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, "Xialiang (Frank, Network Standard & Patent Dept)" <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>
CC: "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
References: <CAHbuEH7f0jjquR=iZDgof4DkgpZKgxEP86NcQ0A1NQ=SP+_FHA@mail.gmail.com> <C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F13E9560C0@dggemm511-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CAHbuEH7WkqeyUW3sL5bdw5N25B6O7ZEF0Qkx03fE5c42Sd4M5w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>
Message-ID: <b91baad2-2fc3-a5e4-6898-e2cddcda300d@sit.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 13:55:57 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHbuEH7WkqeyUW3sL5bdw5N25B6O7ZEF0Qkx03fE5c42Sd4M5w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [79.234.112.245]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/0YaW6PxdNgToWi9PSY4D4YNHZ8w>
Subject: Re: [Rats] Use case -> architecture document
X-BeenThere: rats@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Remote Attestation Procedures <rats.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rats>, <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rats/>
List-Post: <mailto:rats@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats>, <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2019 11:56:21 -0000

Hi Kathleen,
hi list,

it would help everybody, if you could explicitly highlight what the 
exact issues wrt readability in the current architecture I-D are - 
always in comparison with the use-case I-D, if it is doing a better job 
in that part?

Jürgen provided a good example of what he found confusing as a first 
time reader - and that was really helpful and is resulting in ongoing work.

Please mind, not everything is fleshed out in the architecture (e.g. the 
workflows derived from the use-cases). The plan was to aim for a stable 
nucleus, address the issues raised by the list, go through adoption, and 
finish the document via the issue tracker in a structured process.

In summary, without an actual understanding why you (or others!) think 
the document is still hard to read, there is no way of compare 
readability later on also. It would be really good to get more precise 
feedback on that.

Viele Grüße,

Henk




On 09.10.19 13:31, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
> Hi Frank,
> 
> Thank you for voicing your concern.  I think some may hold off until the 
> updates are provided, but please do voice your opinions.  I agree that 
> this work is too important and as such, readability is a high priority.  
> If you read through the TEEP and SUIT architecture drafts, they are 
> quite easy to follow and understand.  That is critical for wide spread 
> adoption.  We may be able to find a balance, but I think this exercise 
> may speed progress as we have not decided to adopt this draft yet as a 
> working group item.
> 
> As it stands, the use case document is not an architecture document, but 
> it could be shaped as such and I'd really like to see if we can do that 
> in short order to have a comparison prior to an adoption call.
> 
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
> 
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 6:53 AM Xialiang (Frank, Network Standard & 
> Patent Dept) <frank.xialiang@huawei.com 
> <mailto:frank.xialiang@huawei.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Kathleen,____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     I am very concerned with this new direction and I strongly object.____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     Current architecture draft goes through a lot discussions and
>     reaches many consensus. Right now, it really helps IETF (Teep for
>     example), FIDO, TCG and many others. The only issues are on
>     readability, the standards track and the completeness (e.g.,
>     passport and background check are still missing). It is an very good
>     document and correct terminology is very important for remote
>     attestation.____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     About use cases document, Its goal is just to clarify a sample list
>     of scenarios that remote attestation can apply to and then deduce
>     the requirements and the following concrete protocol drafts. It is
>     not fit to be an architecture.____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     The current architecture is too important for telecom and network
>     equipment vendors and service providers. I have strong doubts that
>     current EAT and OTrPv2 alone is suitable for the (virtualized)
>     network infrastructure situation.____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     B.R.____
> 
>     Frank____
> 
>     ____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information
>     from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose
>     address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein
>     in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial
>     disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than
>     the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail
>     in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and
>     delete it!____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     *发件人:*RATS [mailto:rats-bounces@ietf.org
>     <mailto:rats-bounces@ietf.org>] *代表 *Kathleen Moriarty
>     *发送时间:*2019年10月8日19:25
>     *收件人:*rats@ietf.org <mailto:rats@ietf.org>
>     *主题:*[Rats] Use case -> architecture document____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     Hello!
> 
>     I read through the latest version of the ‘use case’ document
>     yesterday and found it very easy to read and understand, meaning I
>     think it is written well and could be easily understood by many
>     without having to climb up a learning curve. ____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     First, this could be a very useful document to register claims for
>     the use cases.
> 
>     Second, if the workflow for the passport and background check were
>     added and put in terms of the open trust protocol v2 from TEEP, we
>     have a fairly nice architecture document that’s easy to read and may
>     gain adoption.  The workflows cover the various interactions between
>     roles and TEEP has actively broken up OTrP in v2 to
>     accommodate using EAT tokens, this would help create that link and
>     make it very clear.
> 
>     The other thing I like about the use case document and think we
>     should expand on is the references to other work items.  This makes
>     it an architecture document that maps out the full plan of the WG. 
>     One like that was extremely well received by all the ADs that don’t
>     like informational/helpful documents.
> 
>     I’m a bit nervous with the terminology being defined and would love
>     to see something like this that’s simplified and more easily
>     adoptable. ____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     I appreciate the work done to improve the architecture document, but
>     I do think the structure changes to the use case document as
>     suggested could result in an easier to understand (and therefore
>     easier to adopt) document.____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     While the architecture document is more readable, I think we can do
>     better.  Adoption is important and our timeliness matters a lot for
>     this work.  EATs can be used for may use cases with OTrPv2, so let's
>     keep it as simple as we can.
> 
>     Thoughts are appreciated.
> 
>     Best regards,
>     Kathleen-- ____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     Best regards,____
> 
>     Kathleen____
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> RATS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
>