Re: [Rats] RIV and the RATS architecture

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 08 November 2019 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@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 3F0DC120880 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 09:23:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 ObFwTpDiDXxG for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 09:23:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 499D012089D for <rats@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 09:23:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (unknown [209.87.249.16]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D261B1F452 for <rats@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 17:23:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 77322EB7; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 12:23:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "rats\@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <28d293be-d9ed-e1d6-17d1-5416399fb856@sit.fraunhofer.de>
References: <BYAPR05MB4248980FA30CDF1ABCCC7E78BA630@BYAPR05MB4248.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <MWHPR21MB0784B018797AB320A5B7C54CA37F0@MWHPR21MB0784.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <28d293be-d9ed-e1d6-17d1-5416399fb856@sit.fraunhofer.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de> message dated "Mon, 04 Nov 2019 22:22:31 +0100."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 12:23:07 -0500
Message-ID: <12652.1573233787@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/QHUsQW_-i57G-VcSCOqRLKOdfm0>
Subject: Re: [Rats] RIV and the RATS architecture
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: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 17:23:17 -0000

Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>; wrote:
    > we did a "best fit" matching of use cases with the two message flows
    > "passport" and "back-end", and while it is possible to cluster those
    > with some... leniency, the goal is to provide the basis for mapping by
    > using both roles and message flows in the architecture
    > document. "Passport" and "Back-End" flows really helped to streamline

I think that TUDA won't fit into: Passport or Background Check.

-- 
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>;, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-