Re: [Rats] Use case -> architecture document

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:06 AM Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> Schönwälder, Jürgen wrote:
>     > Henk's architecture discusses 'Attestation Principles' that are not
> in
>     > Dave's proposal. I guess the WG needs to decide whether to include
> them
>     > or not. Are these important for understanding or guiding the RATS
> work?
>
> I think that, to the extent that the architecture document includes
> requirements on the technical document must answer, that these principles
> need to be made explicit.   They should be numbered as well so that we know
> which principle to compromise to maintain another one.
>

In a sense, Dave's document covers this idea as it does discuss the ability
for 2 functions to be combined.  I don't think adding a term is needed to
state that though and adding a specific term for that leads to confusion.


>
>     > I also like to mention that there are research papers where the
> remote
>     > attestation process is described more in the form of a challenge
>     > response interaction, where the verifier sends a specific challenge
> to
>     > a device and the device returns a response that is than evaluated by
>     > the verifier. An example is "compute a hash over certain memory areas
>     > within a certain time limit" and then the device returns the result
> and
>
> That's an interesting thing to add.
> I think that this makes for some interesting additions to use cases.
>

And an architectural pattern.

Best regards,
Kathleen


>
> --
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh
> networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network
> architect  [
> ]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on
> rails    [
>
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
>


-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen