Re: [Rats] Call for adoption (after draft rename) for Yang module draft

If a tree falls in a forest, even if no one hears it, there is a log.

LL

> On Nov 18, 2019, at 5:09 PM, Dave Thaler <dthaler=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> I do think it would be useful to keep your statement true, so I will think about how to define Relying Party since I suspect there’s a way around it that we would both like.
>  
> From: RATS <rats-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:rats-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Dave Thaler
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 5:04 PM
> To: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com <mailto:lgl@island-resort.com>>
> Cc: Smith, Ned <ned.smith@intel.com <mailto:ned.smith@intel.com>>; Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de <mailto:henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>>; Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) <ncamwing@cisco.com <mailto:ncamwing@cisco.com>>; rats@ietf.org <mailto:rats@ietf.org>; "Schönwälder, Jürgen" <J.Schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de <mailto:J.Schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>>; Oliver, Ian (Nokia - FI/Espoo) <ian.oliver@nokia-bell-labs.com <mailto:ian.oliver@nokia-bell-labs.com>>
> Subject: Re: [Rats] Call for adoption (after draft rename) for Yang module draft
>  
> If all you do is log, then there is no enforcement, and since the device doesn’t talk to the log, you can’t call the log a “Relying Party”.
> I didn’t say there was never a Relying Party (if you do enforcement and kick the device off the network or something then yes there’s a Relying Party), I said “might be no”.
> So I disagree with “Attestation always has a relying party” based on my discussion with Nancy.
> Before the hackathon I would have agreed with that statement J
>  
> From: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com <mailto:lgl@island-resort.com>> 
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 4:59 PM
> To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com <mailto:dthaler@microsoft.com>>
> Cc: "Schönwälder, Jürgen" <J.Schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de <mailto:J.Schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>>; Smith, Ned <ned.smith@intel.com <mailto:ned.smith@intel.com>>; Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de <mailto:henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>>; Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) <ncamwing@cisco.com <mailto:ncamwing@cisco.com>>; Oliver, Ian (Nokia - FI/Espoo) <ian.oliver@nokia-bell-labs.com <mailto:ian.oliver@nokia-bell-labs.com>>; rats@ietf.org <mailto:rats@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Rats] Call for adoption (after draft rename) for Yang module draft
>  
>  
> On Nov 18, 2019, at 4:52 PM, Dave Thaler <dthaler=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:dthaler=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
>  
> Case 1) The network notices anomalous traffic coming from a device already on the network, which triggers a verifier to ask the device to attest to its health (which may have changed since it was last attested).  Here there might even be no Relying Party involved per se. 
> Case 2) The network has not noticed anything odd, but wants to proactively query a device anyway, e.g., because the network's appraisal policy of what is considered trustworthy has just changed.  Again there might even be no Relying Party involved.
>  
> I would call the network the relying party. Attestation always has a relying party because there would be no point if no one cared (if a tree falls in a forest…)
>  
> LL
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> RATS@ietf.org <mailto:RATS@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats>