Re: [Rats] Where Do Interaction Models Go?

[Guy Fedorkow <[e-mail]>]

Hi Henk,
  I'm fine with Option 2 -- separate draft that doesn't impede closure of the Architecture draft.
/guy



Juniper Business Use Only

-----Original Message-----
From: RATS <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Henk Birkholz
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 9:08 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [Rats] Where Do Interaction Models Go?

[External Email. Be cautious of content]


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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bir
> kholz-rats-reference-interaction-model/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!SYqBRt5nXIi2cw
> gezjeQbps4FpiEHZvAX2DbPXFG2ODk1Ck9LDvFE-AvEHZwiEJWJEs$

We will dedicate some time to this topic on Tuesday and hope for some feedback!


Viele Grüße,

Henk

_______________________________________________
RATS mailing list
[e-mail]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!SYqBRt5nXIi2cwgezjeQbps4FpiEHZvAX2DbPXFG2ODk1Ck9LDvFE-AvEHZwtdYEfZk$