IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rats] draft-ietf-rats-endorsements-00

dthaler1968@googlemail.com Thu, 14 December 2023 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <dthaler1968@googlemail.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 CE235C14F61A for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 09:28:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.855
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.855 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M-wzF2XqjX8G for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 09:28:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x135.google.com (mail-il1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::135]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B97F1C14F5EF for <rats@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 09:28:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x135.google.com with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-35f87c7fa54so670715ab.0 for <rats@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 09:28:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20230601; t=1702574926; x=1703179726; darn=ietf.org; h=content-language:thread-index:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version:message-id:date:subject:in-reply-to:references:to:from :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=UKuiQnAQjg1ICfKmEOpgi1HihVGGcmGyW5LVrRiHGI0=; b=L0HU5nog/uVbCM1+TYbyxySIKoGEuVDyy+Zcw9UGrndcdgrh/G2jBX7SF0+jMcKdPr DfOWQWmOZYcfyTb+S+mTmbyhADzuu+z5lAjQIJM9mzx3HO56STqTECXZLlwpvtGYMLNa Gjn3UuS0v4yDlxdvJYPmbaAEgEvoHK7Y21iY8b1te+76u+1obqbqoAQuaH65gBL8Ja19 e+9hcE8X1N86uLt4fiwLMgchrizOXUhhbnguzEyvL32T9VJNKmlMagsn7vL3ngQTP4ul 8/tKvUTzlczlJrJ5BSdKECOwjIRTUQUWn6+up5VfMHtN3rD0xiHO/fYJXJ5RtF0RsVxv 9Saw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1702574926; x=1703179726; h=content-language:thread-index:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version:message-id:date:subject:in-reply-to:references:to:from :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=UKuiQnAQjg1ICfKmEOpgi1HihVGGcmGyW5LVrRiHGI0=; b=Q+fCdGxm0rZVRLiR/vgIJpm1LlMeoNuvXyCXAEqp2U3B1JWrwcXuD4wnKcFOegjD3C XUf39BzttNpKHsK0+XO5mXjZ+hX3AqAmdexA4tMlLDXKLDVadJJYpSUj075JgbQJ9pJz DJ47Aq4rdXxeyNgoMeFnp5Ygv39WjWp5oaT6AZ1+woRdtl4vpI7ooTLPGPtzKs+Dp+Ye 0NEm8Mk8xownRenvGTx2FEzlpT9LtkizloRXFSzjcmZsaDPDjZk5MJsBNffaVOWmXPtf wo2Xw1ZiFNQt+KoBjmK12+ekS1J3k3QRT0B9pDVEHQCoGemONa4vjEJ8nX/UE8AZVKFT pQpg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzaEwsG07KcRsTIM/gkc658T1DIWUCpMFOe6UFUhzVsrfYhxp2h b1NqHHmKsmOSDH4czS5ErbaOz8oONBy6Mkcs
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IERVqwTo7ESY4tUYwDu64Yy2zvRzegcP63EeW64ndw4ZLUhVhX8yz6x5Wq4K0VU/91XGi6FoQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a92:cda4:0:b0:35f:7492:5af2 with SMTP id g4-20020a92cda4000000b0035f74925af2mr4230540ild.49.1702574925773; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 09:28:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ArmidaleLaptop (c-67-170-74-237.hsd1.wa.comcast.net. [67.170.74.237]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h25-20020a02cd39000000b0042acf934cbasm3469240jaq.72.2023.12.14.09.28.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Dec 2023 09:28:45 -0800 (PST)
From: dthaler1968@googlemail.com
X-Google-Original-From: <dthaler1968@gmail.com>
To: 'Henk Birkholz' <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, hannes.tschofenig=40gmx.net@dmarc.ietf.org, rats@ietf.org
References: <007101da2e02$b7cf0120$276d0360$@gmx.net> <15c62c91-5e4d-bbaa-9790-ab290d8e083e@sit.fraunhofer.de>
In-Reply-To: <15c62c91-5e4d-bbaa-9790-ab290d8e083e@sit.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 09:28:42 -0800
Message-ID: <03a101da2eb2$fccbc500$f6634f00$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQHSdY4VGCckwguhuCGEtT6pLqjuWAJcf6MYsKWWl1A=
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/4TDkW_XcJiZO9Zt3IRkmYUk_nKw>
Subject: Re: [Rats] draft-ietf-rats-endorsements-00
X-BeenThere: rats@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 17:28:50 -0000

I'd still prefer to keep it as a separate document that does not Update
RFC 9334, under the rationale that I'd like to keep the retain that
RFC 9334 is "done" and not something that needs to be "fixed" per se.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: RATS <rats-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Henk Birkholz
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 6:46 AM
> To: hannes.tschofenig=40gmx.net@dmarc.ietf.org; rats@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Rats] draft-ietf-rats-endorsements-00
> 
> Hi Hannes,
> 
> I think you are correct that draft-ietf-rats-endorsements is an addition to RFC
> 9334 (as is, for example, draft-ietf-rats-daa) and it is definitely not ready for
> submission today. draft-ietf-rats-endorsements'
> content was not in the scope of the initial RATS charter, which is why that
> content is not in RFC 9334 (also, for example, CoRIM has evolved quite a lot
> since then).
> 
> The goal of draft-ietf-rats-endorsements is to provide more architectural
> context for how appraisal procedures of Verifiers work in principle, and in
> consequence it provides the architectural bridge-head to I-Ds, such as CoRIM
> - a CBOR encoded document format to explain Attesters to Verifiers that can
> convey the conceptual messages Reference Values and Endorsements.
> 
> There are pros and cons to a -bis as the scope of a -bis can grow over time.
> Maybe we should work a little bit more on the actual content for a while
> before deciding where content goes?
> 
> 
> Viele Grüße,
> 
> Henk
> 
> On 13.12.23 21:26, hannes.tschofenig=40gmx.net@dmarc.ietf.org wrote:
> > I read the RATS endorsement draft and was wondering whether the
> > document shouldn’t have become a section in the architecture document.
> > I am unclear about the direction it will take. Currently, it reads a
> > bit like a transcript of a hallway conversation.
> >
> > Wouldn’t it be better to create a -bis of the architecture document
> > and to include the content of this document?
> >
> > Ciao
> >
> > Hannes
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > RATS mailing list
> > RATS@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> RATS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email