Re: [Rats] CoTS and CoRIM

[Muhammad Usama Sardar <[e-mail]>]

I support both points made by Hannes.

Cheers,

Usama

On 14.12.23 14:02, [e-mail] wrote:
>
> Thanks for the quick response, Yogesh.
>
> Two points:
>
>   * The reason why I believe that the trust anchor functionality
>     should be part of CoRIM is that it is a core feature rather than
>     an extension. I understand that there is some history about how
>     these documents came into existence but this should not prevent us
>     from doing the “right” thing.
>
>   * Using trust anchors under the umbrella of endorsements makes sense
>     to me. This needs to be more clearly articulated in the documents
>     though.
>
> A word about the process: Decisions about the directions the document 
> take should be made on the mailing list rather than in private 
> meetings. The chairs should be more strict about this.
>
> Ciao
>
> Hannes
>
> *From:*RATS <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Yogesh Deshpande
> *Sent:* Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2023 12:31
> *To:* muhammad_usama.sardar <[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Rats] CoTS and CoRIM
>
> Hi Hannes,
>
> To your question:
>
> /I am wondering why the two documents <draft-ietf-rats-corim> and 
> <draft-ietf-rats-concise-ta-stores> aren’t merged./
>
> //
>
> The work on Cots started at different point in time (by different 
> authors) and hence the CoRIM base document does refer Cots but is not 
> fully integrated.
>
> We will discuss the possibility and implications of such in our 
> regular CoRIM meetings.
>
> Regarding Trust Anchors as per RATS document (RFC 9334) to the best of 
> my knowledge it comes under the heading of Endorsements.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9334#name-endorsements
>
> RATS treats Trust Anchors as a type of Endorsements.
>
> Hope this information is helpful.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yogesh
>
> *From:*RATS <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Muhammad Usama Sardar
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 14, 2023 8:21 AM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Rats] CoTS and CoRIM
>
> Hi Hannes,
>
> On 13.12.23 21:24, hannes.tschofenig=[e-mail] wrote:
>
>     I am wondering why the two documents <draft-ietf-rats-corim> and
>     <draft-ietf-rats-concise-ta-stores> aren’t merged. Reading through
>     the RATS drafts I often get the impression that trust anchors have
>     somehow been forgotten and were added later, as an afterthought.
>     The RATS architecture RFC does not list trust anchors as an item
>     in Figure 1. In some other document trust anchors are then
>     portrait as belonging to reference values – somehow. That does not
>     feel right to me either.
>
> I think it is completely wrong to consider trust anchors as Reference 
> Values. Can you name the document which presents this view?
>
>     Ciao
>
>     Hannes
>
> Cheers,
>
> Usama
>
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended 
> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose 
> the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or 
> copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
>