From nobody Tue Dec  7 05:25:15 2021
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

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


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.

=2D-
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 I=C3=B8T consulti=
ng )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide





--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEbsyLEzg/qUTA43uogItw+93Q3WUFAmGvYK4ACgkQgItw+93Q
3WW7owgAgm3T/L2T6mCzM7XzDBI/Mi9rkHq5qfSxR1JtPeApUWP1yUZGLjK2obh7
OeQfPMsqVv0A7cPdpiWbk1UCtHZxfzSg/Cs/7inyfYbBuc+Mkqs3SOcEna/C9s8L
CgVVwYB6zkx/8LJ2z/RtEDv+FxYiKRUph14ex4N22tmTm84blFowataQ7s6l7Hr/
U6RFvpyjs71trxtH07XU2taNuDNstAZl8SLbGf+bfjzZSGdO5I9XWNH8tK+JdeXa
urpy16FhLLcASS4D0ULQpX8OWSIolTE8N2ARSiUycMAD7CoaWrCktGYSfyeH2v8k
2VJtqrekWGYoitrDmecUCJJlhUWUpA==
=Ypop
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--

