[Rats] A quick question about different message flow models of RATS architecture:
"Xialiang (Frank, Network Standard & Patent Dept)" <frank.xialiang@huawei.com> Sat, 16 November 2019 10:34 UTC
Return-Path: <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>
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 D2B4F120026 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 02:34:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 Un7hVjxsVZZP for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 02:34:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 58B09120019 for <rats@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 02:34:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 51CE7522C36C7388AC45 for <rats@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 10:34:51 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEMM404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.212) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 10:34:51 +0000
Received: from DGGEMM531-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.245]) by DGGEMM404-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.212]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 18:34:45 +0800
From: "Xialiang (Frank, Network Standard & Patent Dept)" <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>
To: "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: A quick question about different message flow models of RATS architecture:
Thread-Index: AdWcaLSXt4ZnbTW/T8mp21C+ZFHK2A==
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2019 10:34:45 +0000
Message-ID: <C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F13EA39686@DGGEMM531-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.52.32.53]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F13EA39686DGGEMM531MBSchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/1LK8rsSxN_H8sw9cEK7-Opewzkk>
Subject: [Rats] A quick question about different message flow models of RATS architecture:
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: Sat, 16 Nov 2019 10:34:55 -0000
Hi, >From my understanding, background check model is suitable for device onboarding stage for network access control, and passport model is suitable for device running time permission of specific service request. If the above understanding makes sense to certain level, is it possible a network will use both of them, but for different life circle stage of device? B.R. Frank
- [Rats] A quick question about different message f… Xialiang (Frank, Network Standard & Patent Dept)
- Re: [Rats] A quick question about different messa… Dave Thaler