Re: [Rats] Question about WG Procedure -- Re: 答复: Use case -> architecture document

Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de> Wed, 16 October 2019 17:34 UTC

Return-Path: <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>
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 960A91207FD for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 o692sZI-E9W2 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailext.sit.fraunhofer.de (mailext.sit.fraunhofer.de [141.12.72.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01150120116 for <rats@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:34:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sit.fraunhofer.de (mail.sit.fraunhofer.de [141.12.84.171]) by mailext.sit.fraunhofer.de (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-10) with ESMTPS id x9GHYSmS018217 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 16 Oct 2019 19:34:29 +0200
Received: from [172.20.2.249] (199.243.96.171) by mail.sit.fraunhofer.de (141.12.84.171) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.468.0; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 19:34:22 +0200
To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <ncamwing@cisco.com>
CC: "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>, Thomas Hardjono <hardjono@mit.edu>, "Smith, Ned" <ned.smith@intel.com>, Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>
References: <CAHbuEH7f0jjquR=iZDgof4DkgpZKgxEP86NcQ0A1NQ=SP+_FHA@mail.gmail.com> <C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F13E9560C0@dggemm511-mbx.china.huawei.com> <1571169312645.46550@mit.edu> <08D3CA59-6797-47D8-86CE-3A3B1E5EEE7A@intel.com> <1DCF08C6-A75C-4725-9CED-321D288CB4D3@island-resort.com> <F31B1F51-0A3E-42C4-8C45-F6481FFF9AB4@cisco.com> <CAHbuEH4_ArK_KbMeJwZr7fWDOMYB91kesgTxMB47LS+3eMce1g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>
Message-ID: <31090c22-3bbd-9a3b-1cc5-3274a3ba8ff4@sit.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 19:34:18 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHbuEH4_ArK_KbMeJwZr7fWDOMYB91kesgTxMB47LS+3eMce1g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [199.243.96.171]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/Kidfib3UlvLCobYLuElM_ZrtQQc>
Subject: Re: [Rats] =?utf-8?q?Question_about_WG_Procedure_--_Re=3A_=E7=AD=94?= =?utf-8?q?=E5=A4=8D=3A_Use_case_-=3E_architecture_document?=
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: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 17:34:41 -0000

Hi all,

I 2nd this for the first YANG module, too. +1 to Nancy's summary.

We explicitly illustrated during chartering that the architecture should 
grow and be inclusive to be able to represent the evolution of other WG 
items and be able to map solutions outside the IETF.

 From my subjective point of view today, EAT might actually have the 
least dependencies as it is intended to be quite versatile by design.

Viele Grüße,

Henk

On 16.10.19 19:21, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:01 PM Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) 
> <ncamwing@cisco.com <mailto:ncamwing@cisco.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi,____
> 
>     Comments below:____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     *From: *RATS <rats-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:rats-bounces@ietf.org>>
>     on behalf of Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com
>     <mailto:lgl@island-resort.com>>
>     *Date: *Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 08:50
>     *To: *"Smith, Ned" <ned.smith@intel.com <mailto:ned.smith@intel.com>>
>     *Cc: *"rats@ietf.org <mailto:rats@ietf.org>" <rats@ietf.org
>     <mailto:rats@ietf.org>>, Thomas Hardjono <hardjono@mit.edu
>     <mailto:hardjono@mit.edu>>
>     *Subject: *Re: [Rats] Question about WG Procedure -- Re: 答复: Use
>     case -> architecture document____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     __ __
> 
>         On Oct 16, 2019, at 8:13 AM, Smith, Ned <ned.smith@intel.com
>         <mailto:ned.smith@intel.com>> wrote:____
> 
>         ...____
> 
>         The original milestones suggested that the timing could lag that
>         of other drafts (that seem to address more immediate needs.)
>         Maybe that is no longer the case because of a need to agree on
>         terminology, attestation workflows or connection endpoint
>         semantics?____
> 
>     ...____
> 
>     EAT is not being held up by lack of a completed architecture
>     document. The same might be true of the yang draft. ____
> 
>     [NCW] Fully agree….and  we did state (perhaps it was during the
>     BoFs) that the architecture could be done in parallel as on several
>     occasions the architecture gets “tweaked” based on the adoption of
>     the actual schemas, protocols and interfaces adopted.____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     i think it is still true that architecture can lag the other
>     documents.____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     Lots of use cases already know what to do about end-end flows and
>     architecture. FIDO and Android attestation already have their flows.
>     They could use EAT without any IETF architecture document.____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     Seems like the architecture effort is attempting a unified field
>     theory of attestation across all use cases. I think this is of
>     value, but hard to do.____
> 
>     [NCW] Abstractly, I think there is general agreement on most of the
>     roles despite the naming of the roles and how they potentially
>     fllow.  That, to me, can be the basis for the architecture, the
>     models that Dave describes are more of the interactions that define
>     the interfaces or communications between the roles.  I’m not
>     convinced yet on the hardship other  than the discussions on the
>     terminology
> 
> 
> +1 - I agree with Nancy's responses.
> 
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
> 
>     ____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     LL____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     RATS mailing list
>     RATS@ietf.org <mailto:RATS@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> RATS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
>