Re: [Rats] Where Do Interaction Models Go?

Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com> Thu, 23 July 2020 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
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 AD4CA3A0A96 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Z3quPfMVV5cF for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x92d.google.com (mail-ua1-x92d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 006993A0A93 for <rats@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x92d.google.com with SMTP id r63so1954167uar.9 for <rats@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0XClYQYqVTM51LRQh1YEPgQZVU7FmhMyW0SArgJsjSw=; b=Ev48IIFoYnAdvMD9uDeEqprIIHBQLJWIe6jSSa8LddgW0qnuUH+kSdGYB4u990QOkk EK34Ot1fc+EnziNZrBK3LxeY8RXCFq5SF3oLNYkCcM3F0/kKQMoxpA8B46545zIg6XHP 3q+p8kvpvy1i4LsQnP6p3gpcV0XcYbCRXpSDhxsXXcfRuvRoo38ghGfangdan4tqKrCg Wt5POP7djh5Zyh+Gi9WtaVy6b1SkT25lD1YK4fw4gjh/i7sFBTo4WfUbIDlVEFjsR9S0 qiKP8tMjK1rYClJQq+rHHCQbcwlifC9LElsC/N0W56AYO/tjpGRfEBSvXR4YPLOVc5Qj 9W9w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0XClYQYqVTM51LRQh1YEPgQZVU7FmhMyW0SArgJsjSw=; b=mI+/XiIK3D/IVugQxYEtkXmyK8QPgftM4B+U1s924lPVs8HFxblTNKNddQl2YnGuo2 Z/nR28tVNewEYKAVKChIrzs5tycIW8yO9lEeVjmL6CppA3uYo8EcLV6rlR5uXOcHVQFI QrheTnGHxYsKZM6WNo87HiphhkNPCjJPuza3hmV8o2p8vokI+0KEqK50Db2jpdIxETbv EBH0OmJJPAeUY2C9Ecf0stKGE0UvO/PHduzzIpYFHrh4nlQHYuATSfIi7rs+VcTnA+NJ gtEStWW7qqRHMFFcRzs9XkP3poZTrrrbjxiBLO7gb9xKRMfLVFwPXPrPoDwCxQPnZgSg cZgA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5311hy+U4cqzb41T6uWYcedR5q5LnCmhc5ywJRvU3iMc+/ujtJ3C q+BkkJS9qECVtDuCYwzrEqk20Dikxt4u/u1uQ2k=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwio4cVuZ2XNeAY/QcPZTF4L6k6gMe4w1LIZILuwUP9G/ALEBT3DFdDQQs32kmskigk7iEY5sxDGGyI/0ejCpk=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:3b2:: with SMTP id 47mr4645403uau.139.1595519296986; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <b3f54d3a-2483-52a2-89c8-c31825ecc238@sit.fraunhofer.de>
In-Reply-To: <b3f54d3a-2483-52a2-89c8-c31825ecc238@sit.fraunhofer.de>
From: Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:48:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CAN40gSuWfYa8dCA0-j0Y89qdNJaURt=eRDUs+mesFCUSLzcPRA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
Cc: "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000eddf8405ab1dc85a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/Eku9l0aqrFGUR_L_zgjiAEvYjTw>
Subject: Re: [Rats] Where Do Interaction Models Go?
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, 23 Jul 2020 15:48:20 -0000

Hi,

I strongly favor option 2 (one I-D for all models).

Cheers,
- Ira


*Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)Co-Chair - TCG Trusted
Mobility Solutions WG*

*Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG*








*Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WGSecretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer
Working GroupCo-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WGIETF
Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIBBlue Roof Music / High North
Inchttp://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
<http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>mailto: blueroofmusic@gmail.com
<blueroofmusic@gmail.com>(permanent) PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434*


On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 9:08 AM Henk Birkholz <
henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de> wrote:

> Hi list,
>
> our first virtual session on July 28th is approaching. At the last
> meeting, we highlighted the question: where do interaction models go?
>
> Context: there are three quite common interaction models (plus minimal
> requirements and information elements for them) that can be used to
> convey RATS Conceptual Messages, such as Evidence or Attestation
> Results. Most Conceptual Messages should include only up-to-date content
> (commonly referred to as "fresh") to be feasible. As a result,
> interaction models directly support methods to show that content is
> fresh (challenge-response & streamed remote attestation) or don't have
> to because the content shows that by itself (time-based remote
> attestation).
>
> Problem: Reiterating how the common models work and how they are related
> in every solution draft can prove to be error prone, ambiguous,
> difficult to compare in English, or simply be redundant.
>
> Solution: Describing them once and then referencing the bulk of it
> eliminates the need for text cloning, danger of inconsistencies/subtle
> deviations, and redundancy in general.
>
>
> The remaining question is: where should this content about interaction
> model go?
>
>
> At the last meeting four options were presented:
>
> * Option 1: standalone (one I-D for each model)
> * Option 2: standalone (one I-D for all models)
> * Option 3: all three models merged into the architecture I-D
> * Option 4: each model merged into a separate solution I-D
>
> Each option has pros and cons. So, I'd like to bring this question to
> the list (,finally... I can be quite slow).
>
> There is of course the current reference interaction model I-D that
> talks about the three models and how direct anonymous attestation can be
> enabled by all three of them. Please have a quick look, maybe that helps
> to provide some feedback here :) Five drafts reference this one at the
> moment:
>
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-birkholz-rats-reference-interaction-model/
>
> We will dedicate some time to this topic on Tuesday and hope for some
> feedback!
>
>
> Viele Grüße,
>
> Henk
>
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> RATS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
>