Re: [Rats] EAT implementation (hackathon report)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 12 November 2020 21:58 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 C99553A0A2B for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 13:58:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 sssHTZvo16J7 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 13:58:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07F803A0A13 for <rats@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 13:58:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E520389BC; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 16:58:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 0BuJye9flX3c; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 16:58:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E496C389B3; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 16:58:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EEEBD2C; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 16:58:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Thomas Fossati <tho.ietf@gmail.com>
cc: rats@ietf.org, sergei.trofimov@arm.com
In-Reply-To: <CAObGJnPZ1dkhKkUehowH-H0hy8MPvT6k5YENHymPEon6VAYWOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAObGJnPZ1dkhKkUehowH-H0hy8MPvT6k5YENHymPEon6VAYWOw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
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-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 16:58:21 -0500
Message-ID: <13175.1605218301@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/EQSbCnNmFFnesJwqvBtrxWIn5G0>
Subject: Re: [Rats] EAT implementation (hackathon report)
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: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 21:58:27 -0000

Amazing Thomas!

Thomas Fossati <tho.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Here are a few random things we noticed in the process and that we
    > wanted to share with the EAT editors as well as the wider group:

    > 1. It's not clear what is the story around the extensibility of single
    > claims?  E.g., if I wanted to expand the semantics of "Debug Disable"
    > or "Security Level" with my own local semantics, how would I do that?
    > This question popped when discussing whether the decoder should accept
    > values not currently listed and make them available to the user?

At the least, it should be tolerant of them.
It should make them available, I think.

    > 5. The CBOR interoperability section should have normative language
    > where needed and double check that there are no copy-pasted
    > requirements from other documents without an explicit ref -- e.g., the
    > stray "Duplicate map keys are not allowed." should have a ref to 7049.

!Yes.

    > 6. Some typographic thoughts about Debug Disable claim.  The "disable"
    > in "Debug disable" is redundant; it'd be better renaming it as just
    > "Debug" or "Debug status". A bit more consistent wording wouldn’t hurt
    > too. e.g.:

That makes sense.

    > I think that's it; Sergei might have something more.

    > I can make Issues and PRs for all of the above if needed.

Do you have examples you might want to put into to the document?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide