Re: [Rats] Where Do Interaction Models Go?

I prefer Option 2 (one I-D for all models). This supports more 
consistent models

and is simpler to reference by other standards (which is the overall 
objective).

Monty Wiseman

On 7/23/20 11:48 AM, Ira McDonald wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I strongly favor option 2 (one I-D for all models).
>
> Cheers,
> - Ira
>
> /Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG/
> /Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG
> /
> /Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
> IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
> Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
> http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
> http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
> mailto: blueroofmusic@gmail.com <mailto:blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
> (permanent) PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434/
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 9:08 AM Henk Birkholz 
> <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de 
> <mailto:henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>> wrote:
>
>     Hi list,
>
>     our first virtual session on July 28th is approaching. At the last
>     meeting, we highlighted the question: where do interaction models go?
>
>     Context: there are three quite common interaction models (plus
>     minimal
>     requirements and information elements for them) that can be used to
>     convey RATS Conceptual Messages, such as Evidence or Attestation
>     Results. Most Conceptual Messages should include only up-to-date
>     content
>     (commonly referred to as "fresh") to be feasible. As a result,
>     interaction models directly support methods to show that content is
>     fresh (challenge-response & streamed remote attestation) or don't
>     have
>     to because the content shows that by itself (time-based remote
>     attestation)..
>
>     Problem: Reiterating how the common models work and how they are
>     related
>     in every solution draft can prove to be error prone, ambiguous,
>     difficult to compare in English, or simply be redundant.
>
>     Solution: Describing them once and then referencing the bulk of it
>     eliminates the need for text cloning, danger of
>     inconsistencies/subtle
>     deviations, and redundancy in general.
>
>
>     The remaining question is: where should this content about
>     interaction
>     model go?
>
>
>     At the last meeting four options were presented:
>
>     * Option 1: standalone (one I-D for each model)
>     * Option 2: standalone (one I-D for all models)
>     * Option 3: all three models merged into the architecture I-D
>     * Option 4: each model merged into a separate solution I-D
>
>     Each option has pros and cons. So, I'd like to bring this question to
>     the list (,finally... I can be quite slow).
>
>     There is of course the current reference interaction model I-D that
>     talks about the three models and how direct anonymous attestation
>     can be
>     enabled by all three of them. Please have a quick look, maybe that
>     helps
>     to provide some feedback here :) Five drafts reference this one at
>     the
>     moment:
>
>     >
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-birkholz-rats-reference-interaction-model/
>
>     We will dedicate some time to this topic on Tuesday and hope for some
>     feedback!
>
>
>     Viele Grüße,
>
>     Henk
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     RATS mailing list
>     RATS@ietf.org <mailto:RATS@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> RATS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats