Re: [Rats] draft-richardson-rats-usecases-00
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 08 May 2019 19:22 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 18F121201F0 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 12:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LtTaGhbNovnv for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 12:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B77E1201CA for <rats@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2019 12:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A190D380BE; Wed, 8 May 2019 15:21:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 50657F47; Wed, 8 May 2019 15:22:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DF5CCBE; Wed, 8 May 2019 15:22:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com>
cc: "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <DBBPR08MB4539242330D4322BCA6C0E56FA320@DBBPR08MB4539.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DBBPR08MB4539242330D4322BCA6C0E56FA320@DBBPR08MB4539.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 08 May 2019 15:22:24 -0400
Message-ID: <18439.1557343344@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/9eJFwDq4hgHKOwnrLklZlQUsZ24>
Subject: Re: [Rats] draft-richardson-rats-usecases-00
X-BeenThere: rats@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 08 May 2019 19:22:27 -0000
Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com> wrote: > I read through your document. > I am confused about the mismatch between the title and the content. I > am also not sure about the direction it should go. > Currently, the document is an attempt to survey existing technologies > that contain attestation functionality. That’s not a use case > document. There is also an attempt to define terminology in the > document. I agree. I am doing the survey in order to capture the terminology used, so that we can discuss the use cases with unambiguous terminology. > Are you going to change the content of the document to turn it into a > use case document or do you plan to change the title? Yes, I plan to adapt the document towards this. I'm finding that it's very difficult to determine use cases from the different technologies, and I'm finding that surprising. But, there have been quite a number of comments on the document since IETF104, and I will get the document updated in the next ten days (or earlier if the virtual interim date is the earlier dates) > Doing a technology survey is useful but of course only a snapshot in > time because the organizations are still working on their protocols and > mechanisms. Additionally, the most interesting information is very hard > to collect (such as deployment information). > Doing use cases is useful if they let you identify design constraints > or new requirements. Getting meaningful use cases is, as I had to learn > the hard way myself, difficult. My aim is to help focus the WG by trying to elucidate the commonalities and differences, and making the scope of each technology clear. For that we need use cases, and I agree the document is lacking. Thank you for being appropriately grumpy :-) -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
- [Rats] draft-richardson-rats-usecases-00 Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Rats] draft-richardson-rats-usecases-00 Michael Richardson
- Re: [Rats] draft-richardson-rats-usecases-00 Hannes Tschofenig