[Rats] Re: what/where to work o geographic/positional remote attestation

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Diego R. Lopez <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > As a follow up of my previous message, I fully support the idea of
    > keeping a single standards track document with a common environment
    > proof, and leaving measurement mechanisms to their own documents,
    > in most (if not all) cases. What is more, those documents would
    > belong to the relevant groups, within or even beyond the IETF
    > limits.

The suggestion here is to extend draft-richardson-rats-geographic-results with another
section or two next to section 3 (Claim definition) with additional,
*orthogonal* claims about energy source, energy consumption, cooling, waste
management, and maybe even entropy.

All of the content would be Attestation Results / Endorsements, *not* Evidence.
Verifiers and Auditors would produce these artifacts via mechanisms specific
to them.  These might be published as std track RFCs, Informational,
Experimental, and also by other SDOs or associations.

Whether or not a RP accepts what the Verifier/Auditor has done is up to the RP's
Appraisal Policy: the IETF isn't going to debate or endorse the evaluation mechanisms.


--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

**       My working hours and your working hours may be different.         **
** Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours **