IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rats] challenges of building dependant specifications against Internet-Drafts -- a way forward for EAT

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 30 November 2020 12:37 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 CC6773A0A06 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 04:37:07 -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 XYFS7FAsrX_f for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 04:37:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 702553A09E5 for <rats@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 04:37:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10185389AA; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 07:38:44 -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 RHSjP4GJ7JFX; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 07:38:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0BFF389A9; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 07:38:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F32E70D; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 07:37:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com>, Giri Mandyam <mandyam@qti.qualcomm.com>, "rats\@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR08MB37160A782B8CDC941DCBC45CFAF50@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: <24519.1606681083@localhost> <AM0PR08MB37160A782B8CDC941DCBC45CFAF50@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.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: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 07:37:02 -0500
Message-ID: <5038.1606739822@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/N9cbCvyfPn6EkNjZ5gVnMMOvczU>
Subject: Re: [Rats] challenges of building dependant specifications against Internet-Drafts -- a way forward for EAT
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: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:37:08 -0000

Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com> wrote:
    > In his presentation Giri pointed out that companies and industry groups
    > want to see progress on the EAT specification.

Right, and yet, the WG can't really guarantee a schedule.
If you read to end, you'll see that I propose a way in which the various
industry groups can receive official EAT claim #s from the not-yet-created
IANA registry.
That allows them to do interop while EAT specification progresses.
Whether they wish to "release" before EAT has an RFC# or not, is up to them.

    > In this specific case, Giri was talking about EAT being used by the
    > FIDO device onboard specification. But the same is actually true for us
    > (at Arm) and for Qualcomm, who are using EAT today.

    > A discussion about the FIDO device onboarding spec is IMHO distinct
    > from the EAT topic.

Distinct, and yet they are related because FIDO's voucher specification seems
to be an EAT rather than a constrained-voucher.

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

v2.8.10 | Report a Bug | By Email