Re: [Rats] draft-thaler-rats-architecture (was Re: Use case -> architecture document)

Kathleen Moriarty <> Wed, 16 October 2019 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5286512093D for <>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 07:28:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FR6VOy5-mEBX for <>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 07:28:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A016120934 for <>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 07:28:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 83so20214201oii.1 for <>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 07:28:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tG90i/ri3N66gbV6nlXNoFvQt8bwAMzSPubOZyNhOuI=; b=VY4HJQdRSCePxh7TaqwCWOkjjtsUTMHMPgNBIUhehVdzpxQHwLMXoMBZUEBf0B21sg mLwyR3TcMhofJ6AKAttddiUWp3oFR9yiCqaJD7RqhjnUt8d9ifju+Qua4knsXNuojjFW 6nHcyjM+7fA0NAc4oDYe/Oo7B4FZ8kzy3wthiloJiJ4EOD7/XzP0tpptwtVCsvv9qtYd DsUaT9AqAF5FrNPvqesT21V7xcmJHxeMW4XDzrQmjcjO16cKjo2PJsWIwBkbqmbZ/UDc dUDHxoRsMYWtZBe9agay/LAG9HdqtY97kcx+VCGEJxHuBj3RVpyAq4A3A0EHwL6cDMMr XnGw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tG90i/ri3N66gbV6nlXNoFvQt8bwAMzSPubOZyNhOuI=; b=lI5/dfrCKeNJu5kiACs12QXk5AslsOCPm+4TqYlnuKikfmBGbF2vJ2LHSJfWjty6LH ENuTFau1HDlykpOa6ewbv3HTt1GEc5Dwb99F/kJWdAld9p/ib7UIyNq+8Vwahi67OaIB 2QK7GL3WOhf+8poBvqJcG1tIj8BWxctNsjEg+DEUrDfuf/8K7V1PSkWtestEAb0bBUpw WmebXHJvtegOv8f1Hi3sW2FtUI6In/rQqr8c/Gpr39xIho0oFVUTg0wWsEA8QG5S+dSy k/zOv1tS4rDu37R/5F8FJ0z94iNCIwWuf5NCTeOXTOesrYJwAoQ75w3VX3lhgiWDoz3N ixPQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXR1Ub4m++VGrIu0iQxH2zMml/kD40NpykjMOAuX4cZcpm5SP4Z vDvZ7Z+R0mfl2prESz1j0QGQaPk3clVZQtwesq8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz0hwqt8i6Pz9eEv5thpWGYOHRNFWzHt+HZm3OmObFO013h4CjLfYuZ/ph/PZXgtbgXhj4xmEO1uSRz5/F1r/U=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:4744:: with SMTP id u65mr3613835oia.164.1571236092718; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 07:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:27:36 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7Zud8OkbGRlciwgSsO8cmdlbg==?= <>
Cc: Michael Richardson <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002a3375059507e96f"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Rats] draft-thaler-rats-architecture (was Re: Use case -> architecture document)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Remote Attestation Procedures <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 14:28:15 -0000

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:10 AM Schönwälder, Jürgen <> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 02:04:24PM +0200, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >
> > I still find the terms Attester and Verifier confusing.
> >
> > I think that when the Verifier signs/creates the Attestation Results,
> that
> > this is an act of Attestation, and this the Verifier is the Attester.
> >
> This took me off as well when I started reading about RATS. :-) Henk
> told me that the industry has settled on somewhat confusing terms in
> this area and it might confuse this part of the industry if the IETF
> picks different terms... Not sure what is the right thing to do.

I gave a keynote at the TCG meeting yesterday and it was a very well spent
day.  They were receptive to learning more on the IETF and related work
areas that could be of interest to the TCG and participants.

As for terminology, it was stated that the terminology is confusing for
them as well in their space and they'd like to see it easier
to understand.  This may not be the opinion of everyone that was in the
room, but no one argued the point.

One of the main purposes of the talk was to enhance collaboration in this
area of work, and to help those in TCG understand how to engage in the
IETF.  Additionally, I wanted to (and still do) learn more about their
other work in the area of attestation.  Many of us, including TCG
leadership (lunch discussion) are interested to see a clearer picture of
the space painted and to reduce the chance of overlapping work.  Hopefully,
we will see additional TCG participants begin to review and weigh in on
RATS WG items.  I also hope that some more of their work may transition to
this working group, but that may take some time.  This could help to paint
that larger picture and distill the numerous set of use cases.

Best regards,

> /js
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <>
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list


Best regards,