[Rats] Re: Adoption call for draft-richardson-rats-geographic-results

[Serhii Nikolaichuk <[e-mail]>]

Correcting my own citation: the 1ns fibre-proximity example is in the
Introduction, not Section 4. Section 4 is the CDDL definition. The point
stands; the reference did not.

Serhii

On Sat, Aug 29, 2026 07:33 AM, Serhii Nikolaichuk <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Support adoption.
>
> One comment, offered as a question to work out after adoption rather
> than a reason to hold it up.
>
> The draft is deliberately agnostic about how the Verifier came to
> believe a location: "if a Verifier believes that information trustworthy
> for the purpose intended, then it may use the format described here to
> document it's conclusion." I think that scoping is right. But it leaves
> a Relying Party unable to distinguish conclusions of very different
> strength, and I have a measurement suggesting the weak end of that range
> is the common case in clouds today.
>
> I hold 26 hardware-signed attestation artifacts captured from a single
> workload across three TEE families - AWS Nitro Enclaves, AMD SEV-SNP,
> and Intel SGX via Microsoft Azure Attestation - in six cloud regions. I
> searched every signed artifact for anything locational: region, country,
> zone, datacenter, latitude, longitude. There is nothing in any of them.
> The only matches on "geo" were random substrings inside base64.
>
> So for these three formats a Verifier producing a geographic result
> today has nothing locational in the Evidence to work from. Its basis
> would be the region label an operator selected in a console. That may
> well be accurate, but it is a different kind of thing from a GNSS fix or
> the sub-nanosecond proximity measure in Section 4, and a Relying Party
> reading the Result cannot tell which one it received.
>
> I am not asking the draft to adjudicate between those sources - Appendix
> A shows provenance is already on your mind. The question is whether a
> geographic Result should be able to carry some indication of the class
> of input it rests on, so that it is not read as stronger than the
> evidence underneath it. If that belongs in a later revision or nowhere
> at all, that is a fine answer.
>
> Support adoption either way.
>
> Serhii Nikolaichuk
> Austin, Texas
>
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2026 07:08 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Greetings!
>>
>> This message begins the working group 2-week adoption call for:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richardson-rats-geogr
>> aphic-results/
>>
>> Please state interest in adopting or not, with reasons that would prevent
>> or hold up adoption. The draft should not be considered to be in a final
>> state as that is the last call purpose.
>>
>> Thank you!
>> --
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Kathleen
>> _______________________________________________
>> RATS mailing list -- [e-mail]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>
>