IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rats] Use case -> architecture document

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 07 November 2019 20:56 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 5E72F120980 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:56:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 YEgYhXVaBTXX for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:56:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFD061209A6 for <rats@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:55:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E026B3897B; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 15:52:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DBAF913; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 15:55:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>, =?iso-8859-1?Q? Sch=F6nw=E4lder=2C_J=FCrgen?= <J.Schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
In-Reply-To: <20191104062654.e2q7cgz43auzozok@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
References: <C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F13E9560C0@dggemm511-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CAHbuEH7WkqeyUW3sL5bdw5N25B6O7ZEF0Qkx03fE5c42Sd4M5w@mail.gmail.com> <b91baad2-2fc3-a5e4-6898-e2cddcda300d@sit.fraunhofer.de> <20191009145006.r2pjsoo6jxirah64@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <CAHbuEH6u-6GsJjK8s0eFQPLeSuGjPMgonhyQkmaeA6Q+rp42kA@mail.gmail.com> <9379d880-2b7e-6657-c547-b37bb7a9e466@sit.fraunhofer.de> <CAHbuEH7XfWgPT+=T-Za9Cw-5GRQj0_+WT3L+Kd4aPp6VvU9jAQ@mail.gmail.com> <MWHPR21MB078499E5D4A2A5E697924EC7A3900@MWHPR21MB0784.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <20191015154500.ruv2ie36hsxfb3qq@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <df88e230-53ac-7f52-2534-d1e9dc1a508a@sit.fraunhofer.de> <20191104062654.e2q7cgz43auzozok@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 15:55:50 -0500
Message-ID: <20422.1573160150@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/R9R4R2zT0j65G_kHiawPYWUATvg>
Subject: Re: [Rats] Use case -> architecture document
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 20:56:13 -0000

Schönwälder, Jürgen wrote:
    > I prefer having all relevant interaction models in the architecture.

Do you want exhaustive details, or just enough to say how things differ and
then reference another document?

    > Looking at your architecture draft and "attestation characteristics"
    > (aka attestation principles), then I am not sure I do understand all
    > definitions. For me, 'relevance' seems somewhat unclear. Should such
    > terms be defined in an architecture doccument? Probably yes if they
    > are fundamental for understanding the technology and not covered by
    > generally known security terminology.

I agree: the major contribution of an architecture document is a set of
common terms ... for the components of the architecture.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email