IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rats] EAT Profiles

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 16 September 2022 11:53 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@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 C4F96C1526E8 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 04:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jr83fYWPlQ5g for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 04:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [IPv6:2a01:7e00:e000:2bb::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC9BCC1524A4 for <rats@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 04:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (safest-wave.imp.fu-berlin.de [160.45.38.252]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3668A1F480; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 11:53:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id ECF7B1A024D; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 13:53:52 +0200 (CEST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Smith, Ned" <ned.smith@intel.com>, "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <193AEE1A-4BEF-4BCB-804D-3C4B0D96DAA3@intel.com>
References: <71934.1663019954@dooku> <6D74BAE0-3B37-4A1F-9966-96EB60B9D675@island-resort.com> <193AEE1A-4BEF-4BCB-804D-3C4B0D96DAA3@intel.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Smith, Ned" <ned.smith@intel.com> message dated "Wed, 14 Sep 2022 19:03:20 -0000."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7.1; GNU Emacs 27.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 13:53:52 +0200
Message-ID: <240982.1663329232@dooku>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/E0JsoOQ-I2tcikoYUzK08rWePMA>
Subject: Re: [Rats] EAT Profiles
X-BeenThere: rats@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 11:53:55 -0000

Smith, Ned <ned.smith@intel.com> wrote:
    > Maybe I’m not following the intent of this thread. Is it providing
    > feedback regarding a TEEP profile and if so, is there some aspect of it
    > that reflects on EAT (or any other RATS draft) that motivates a change
    > to the draft?

I'm saying that the RATS WG is making the TEEP WG work too hard.

    > If TEEP defines a profile, wouldn’t the TEEP WG own definition,
    > publication etc…?

Yes, but we have no business giving them silly options.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email