Re: [Rats] AD Review of draft-ietf-rats-architecture-15

[Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roman,

Thanks a lot for your review.

On one point, since you explicitly ask for WG feedback:

On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 10:54 PM Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]> wrote:
> [Roman's comment on -13]
>
> I found the level of detail on this section on freshness out of place and inconsistent with the level of abstraction found in the rest of the test.  In most other section, generic interaction of roles, artifacts, their associated topologies, and high level security properties was noted.  This section delves into specific implementation choices.  In particular, is the WG sure that it needs all of the details of Section 10.3.  Even among all of the Section in 10.*, this stands out. It doesn't seem to provide enough detail to be create interoperability but goes beyond simply introducing the concept.
>
> [Roman's comment on -15] Thanks for the extra paragraph to explain why this section is here.  I will confess that I still don't understand why these details are here and stand by my original comment.  It's much more than I would have expected for an architecture (especially considering the extra material in Section 16/Appendix -- 10 pages/almost 20% of the document is devoted to time issues).  If the WG feels like it needs it, I won't push back.  However, if this is the watermark of the level of detail, let's make sure that there is equal treatment for other security issues too.  See my feedback on Section 12.

Section 10 really helped me understand the role of freshness in
attestation and why it is so fundamental (e.g., WRT updates of the TCB
software, binding attestation to secure channel establishment, etc.)
Besides, the Epoch-Id discussion (including the security
considerations in § 12.3) provides a pretty good introduction to a
concept for which I could not find alternative references.
On the practical side, it has helped me to design better APIs.  So, I
reckon both the content and the level of detail are fine as-is, at
least for me.

Cheers!
-- 
Thomas