IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rats] EAT Review Comments

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 07 December 2021 13:25 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 2548B3A161E for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 05:25:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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=sandelman.ca
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 W8s4YHGXjFqy for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 05:25:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95DD63A161D for <rats@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 05:25:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F39E838ABC; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 08:28:44 -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 CnwQCHgOFSNp; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 08:28:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AAC138AB9; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 08:28:43 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1638883723; bh=PfsLsWbFz2OCSqloUvhrAaIglKmrUz89a9Ry17j58+0=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=d/mBq44lhZjsd0n2YTZPmet56AIPb8HYNMMSb5+xhMc+xjAPWKVucFN7lLUrrvJGr BZ159b62BlCH/LVqYtUqfiHMFMREgV+Yb9G1tudkWpoNKSBzeC4mFOVNLRzmkMKFh5 +37tr2ycFe2/GPCyJ74qkk91/hGBoltpMz7pH8epBZ3Ldq0KMveVprmLNhadRJMHI6 x88W3oTogQSxegvFkZpsCa8NHAr7HvIhGJJRTKsevEPrp0ZmfoCtBMfBmK/8tG1xy2 YDq9kR7TuDg1fR0Td10tZRc8BLqwMAx67uUV3U+GdnMpTmucHiOl4wpxtJ+iE+3Ubl vVBwA5poug65A==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91DEF57A; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 08:25:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com>, "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <DBBPR08MB59150EEE386E675005A52124FA6E9@DBBPR08MB5915.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DBBPR08MB59150EEE386E675005A52124FA6E9@DBBPR08MB5915.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: Tue, 07 Dec 2021 08:25:02 -0500
Message-ID: <21389.1638883502@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/OLaQtnjHXdKM46WLkAywZKoF4wE>
Subject: Re: [Rats] EAT Review Comments
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: Tue, 07 Dec 2021 13:25:13 -0000

Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com> wrote:
    > - The spec is long and there is a lot of feature creep. This makes it
    > appear very complex. I believe there are two reasons for this, namely
    > (a) there is suddenly a lot of architectural discussion in this
    > document. This is unnecessary given that there is a separate
    > architecture document. There is no need to repeat the content here as
    > well. Do you expect a reader to go through the architecture document
    > before reading this document? (b) There are claims in this
    > specification that may sound good but I wonder whether they are ready
    > for prime time already. This document does not need to collect all
    > claims that relate to attestation. Most likely there is not much
    > experience implementing some of these claims either, which reduces the
    > quality of the specification. Sometimes less is just more.

Thank you for articulating this.
I feel the same way.
I think that the document could be significantly shorter.

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

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status