IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Rats] Re: Hint Discussion in CSR Attestation Draft

Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com> Fri, 21 June 2024 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <carl@redhoundsoftware.com>
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 5A57DC14F680 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:24:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 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, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhoundsoftware.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gb5nyYxnj1Kq for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x829.google.com (mail-qt1-x829.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::829]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4941FC14F686 for <rats@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x829.google.com with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-4403bb543a4so11835541cf.1 for <rats@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhoundsoftware.com; s=google; t=1718994251; x=1719599051; darn=ietf.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:in-reply-to:references :thread-topic:message-id:cc:to:from:subject:date:user-agent:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=W4Zgg3S/R9KLqFtC85ouEty/U6TSk0oLL+V1TAsEA7g=; b=jDsKxDWenCYgw56kqJITDB1WIiTYFvmdb1XfE2LGZKLgStUeg+4hAXGEkv2amrBlqN 32iclCqks4qshPePn5CU4XrrT6zDlN9JfGwZyfFFyaTqNgPlNYn8ZxPgZmHIanYUOjs3 NHQT08PMNzHX/dk49azKJhv8/jqkl5N57PlnY=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1718994251; x=1719599051; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:in-reply-to:references :thread-topic:message-id:cc:to:from:subject:date:user-agent :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=W4Zgg3S/R9KLqFtC85ouEty/U6TSk0oLL+V1TAsEA7g=; b=APy/JNZu378AsK6Ds+5cE83w4Xgs9Jgi1q1WFLgTsJZm1QgWZlZZEl74LiLhqDNAZd 4GMi7j3ajsw5LHjs2X+sxMi4QHEZrdaM10wpHrAJtNzfPlNYa/4C4GvvTdHArTZA+2Qg /RzLz2uMdrdEIeF0Cm54vxhZPuVHsCozE4AGYUeCEUIFjSNNSnTydO6cWMcBXO5GFBWA aaVb1UAy44pjeRobOcF/En1NVH6aPoMTr7Wvzv+se59zEuVx7VFkgQjPP/EluFIzJcIh X50CLuP5Zlj07W1My1D42WE3m9deGziCeQQ46GuzJWnnUNk30byZCECXTtOi7kyABMZ4 8FNg==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVWaf8mGeL0zG7/2QqnR4xJ8UEI5GF2i4BB+F/B+1RZ7XValvlG2jmkG7AmTOBLGJ5csIxBQM7Exd8pye09
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwoUjjI9Cocizx9fLfLJH4olLRfYgHpVrf8+Nfv1xn1qJq0ACEi eNq2jz6hEs6G5DsjYJk1WKLm95ilMBdLGv7U1p3qpcv/S5Iy/MOBuez4XyXjBrM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEej8b8VLxkdCGUgqDJtarh0j6UGxESK2m/SlN/ue3rD0rvko5hTeCy6Yf4DIl/9hcymCA+UQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1213:b0:440:656a:4241 with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-444a7a6af20mr106816731cf.62.1718994250641; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.4.77] (pool-96-255-232-167.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [96.255.232.167]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d75a77b69052e-444c2b367d5sm13751451cf.4.2024.06.21.11.24.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.86.24061443
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 14:24:09 -0400
From: Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact>
Message-ID: <FB01F359-84F4-4AAD-82F7-1CF2356DCD4B@redhoundsoftware.com>
Thread-Topic: [Rats] Re: Hint Discussion in CSR Attestation Draft
References: <AS8PR10MB742727BFEC71CB78468FB0E7EECD2@AS8PR10MB7427.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <0145e095-e684-d2ee-58d5-41aee54a4b3b@ietf.contact> <2627.1718830718@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <2627.1718830718@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID-Hash: JKQFHBNXZAT6HYOGU6DQA5RFURIAEI23
X-Message-ID-Hash: JKQFHBNXZAT6HYOGU6DQA5RFURIAEI23
X-MailFrom: carl@redhoundsoftware.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-rats.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <hannes.tschofenig=40siemens.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "spasm@ietf.org" <spasm@ietf.org>, rats <rats@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [Rats] Re: Hint Discussion in CSR Attestation Draft
List-Id: Remote ATtestation procedureS <rats.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/UTtzKZp3b_W2veScLTCnq_FsEB8>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rats>
List-Help: <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:rats-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:rats@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:rats-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rats-leave@ietf.org>


On 6/19/24, 4:58 PM, "Michael Richardson" <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca <mailto:mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>> wrote:


<large snip>


ht> In the CSR attestation draft we suggested to use a hint,
ht> i.e. information that helps the relying party to select a verifier
ht> that can help process the evidence. Since this hint will not be used
ht> in all deployments, for example in deployments that only have a single
ht> verifier, this hint is optional. As such, those who do not want to use
ht> the optional hint do not need to look at it. For the other use cases
ht> it provides value. Hence, I don’t really understand the objections
ht> and I don’t want to remove the hint!


I guess I've lost track of who and why this is being objected to.


[CW] As an attester, how would you populate the hint field? As a verifier, how would you consume the hint field? Answering those may clarify some objections or the answers may dispel some objections (and inform some changes to the spec). I don't find the mechanism particularly useful beyond the case where something failed and the "hint" is something I might manually review to address the failure. How else could a "free form hint field" be used?



--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca <mailto:mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide








_______________________________________________
RATS mailing list -- rats@ietf.org <mailto:rats@ietf.org>
To unsubscribe send an email to rats-leave@ietf.org <mailto:rats-leave@ietf.org>

v2.27.6 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status