IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Rats] Re: Clarifications in draft-ietf-rats-eat

Deb Cooley <debcooley1@gmail.com> Tue, 15 April 2025 22:03 UTC

Return-Path: <debcooley1@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rats@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: rats@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45ADD1C9459D for <rats@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Apr 2025 15:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hYSUH4OWvgsQ for <rats@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Apr 2025 15:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42f.google.com (mail-pf1-x42f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3B511C94595 for <rats@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Apr 2025 15:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-736e52948ebso6851958b3a.1 for <rats@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Apr 2025 15:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1744754610; x=1745359410; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=YqS+RXH+aFa7yvXEOUW8+E7EEJ7KB2d8xtSrjNsQk7s=; b=PrwlfjWVUMPwNs49DcwbPXygXbedymrSODsUKZjNqYhFMVcvsuyWhpUa5hDnuj0lyB o8YYYEBNBRa3r/gCq2sihfxXYdusWakuhUoByRkIldlZmj+vyw4ZDeDV02VGQ7oOd03L iHmkE9Gl6+cON0ERptgHwAOyKEHkkTXT8EhzRsKg7Kjvr/l/OQGL4EqAhordkJcE2EtQ OBmBE8Zy2sF7kKIP8w91wc28ewTkfcxVCDuXujk5WoIg122NQxmnvkmzpe4lFa2p8IUE WliPwIUeyN/5rUq82nCtMyv9KfhXoQj6YulAWA155Jdo/6e84yc6ECdZSsJugYvIO6fX TsqQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1744754610; x=1745359410; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=YqS+RXH+aFa7yvXEOUW8+E7EEJ7KB2d8xtSrjNsQk7s=; b=FT/zrMWXbTF4IncCxk8lJwLaV6A9VzuIOkavrWLVv/xowB48xzXAJhDS7lVGTdrCg+ 7EPywjZ4sGO8FnhQSUTCYeGMYJms7HjVcgwVnW8lc6+8DgvzOXmctNdHkVfW4+vp2qTz TSuosq7wEY1NNFtaEL9lEr4LBy8jwQRHM6ecinbOFa3U4WwdOYIT5jgJc/wc4HU4ChRO 2C96b5NgUOzUwd1QBgjN10YBC4jv/kG/KT3qjl/3urp/Krk2gzxrTlVPZtq9axpLvZtG qaMki6uX1/SEG1fWc0ekx26UokPizdzIod0wHzmS/bhz0hF1fpUcKj+a60oHrYOAHgko /PYw==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWzKy3tz/47jqw4oRQMLJl7Par2KyzFP8PN2+Kql83ig5E1c97oNKaII3Vcaj+eggbwi8Ry@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxAEsC1pRJvDfA/x0w2JrJaR3R57fLwPaMCHfrTMiWFrIzXn5+F 43BxgYiT+QqRYQCndGy91nDkxf0u+GUgF2MkpPVbrlN50I3XgqFrA4VTlw01CzG4i72jJ8R7+xI GofsMlc0O37EwUC4k4BnAniIidA==
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncuckCmoodVAHtQSKQjeoSrcfyS5PwYfdyCzB5H7rFXA/7OnOPjsvfV9dx4hXWs cBdlLpHJlnLa/qKlUqnioJayVteNMVoz8P3KkXgnnoira6W1O5uTI+YY1QWjJghtP9uxl2GrwRs rtI4fmWReq7zIFHhSMT7pt9o+Rf8qDlp80jxkn/FxNmj+oRpmajML3eyA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH2GfHYkpJ6Yw8uKC0HyPGWMrpL+MLmLHDudYrKYyS8cJyVVL/Nu0ZHlcUE3e4H0KiwFoT97q7J6N/vlEK4gIE=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:c888:b0:2f6:f32e:90ac with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-3085eeb506dmr1258186a91.11.1744754609998; Tue, 15 Apr 2025 15:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4abff904-74ef-473f-8b80-6ba563018744@tu-dresden.de> <D6C150AF-DB13-439C-862E-93CEBF573F34@island-resort.com> <LV8PR02MB100170F5C089781552960B6D0F2B62@LV8PR02MB10017.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <bd70a904-8675-43d6-8113-13ef9107450d@tu-dresden.de> <BN2P110MB11079B13F236A1EC6D6087BEDCB6A@BN2P110MB1107.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CO1PR11MB5169194808C7046C106F8E01E5B32@CO1PR11MB5169.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <f75c13f5-f7fe-4065-9c80-1052f8a2f38a@tu-dresden.de> <CO1PR11MB5169DC365AE65ABCD28287EDE5B22@CO1PR11MB5169.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <92a98a3a-02d0-4ccf-a022-2994cb8bbe7d@tu-dresden.de>
In-Reply-To: <92a98a3a-02d0-4ccf-a022-2994cb8bbe7d@tu-dresden.de>
From: Deb Cooley <debcooley1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 18:03:17 -0400
X-Gm-Features: ATxdqUEzCq8RmKN6HVy9235KKK7MNCCsuO7om7JzXUv0OL-6LGfwgpBeaimae7U
Message-ID: <CAGgd1Odco5en3KxWfXq2oQ6o9C-gRfJx1FgiY8y5WkW8hnsLKg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, "Smith, Ned" <ned.smith@intel.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bfd0490632d85696"
Message-ID-Hash: 3MJ4QQCO3SJ4UDZNEF3GS7533MPP4BOW
X-Message-ID-Hash: 3MJ4QQCO3SJ4UDZNEF3GS7533MPP4BOW
X-MailFrom: debcooley1@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-rats.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Jeremy O'Donoghue <jodonogh@qti.qualcomm.com>, Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>, "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Rats] Re: Clarifications in draft-ietf-rats-eat
List-Id: Remote ATtestation procedureS <rats.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/8qPxkS8hzTSTn1nu_-FTXx13_ik>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rats>
List-Help: <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:rats-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:rats@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:rats-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rats-leave@ietf.org>

I will point out that this draft is in AUTH48 and will be published as soon
as Roman releases it (the WGLC he started ends today).

Is there a reason that more than one year since this draft has been in the
publication process that changes in language are required in the soon-to-be
RFC?

Everytime the working group requests a change increases the chance that an
additional last call (either wg or IETF) needs to be run.  Is this change
worth an additional last call?  FYI, removal of text is still a change.

As Usama says in one of his earlier messages (on 11 April), he's not
pushing for a change to the RFC.

Deb
(not the AD for this draft, but....)

On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 4:38 PM Muhammad Usama Sardar <
muhammad_usama.sardar@tu-dresden.de> wrote:

> On 15.04.25 22:15, Smith, Ned wrote:
>
> > Removal is also an option that seems to work.
>
> Alright, then lets do that, please. A draft doesn't really have to make
> an opinion on something unrelated.
>
> Since this is only removal of unrelated stuff and nothing added or
> edited, I believe it should not invite another round of review by IESG
> etc. So it should not result in any delay at all.
>
> Laurence, Jemery: does that work for you?
>
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list -- rats@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to rats-leave@ietf.org
>

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status