Re: [Rats] Attestation key material in architecture document

[Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Laurence,

I updated issue #65 for you:

> https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/architecture/issues/65

This will make it easier for the editors to address your two alternative 
proposals. I think it would help, if you are present when we discuss this.

MCR: do we plan for an editor's meeting next Tue?

Viele Grüße,

Henk

On 29.07.20 22:14, Laurence Lundblade wrote:
> I presented this slide below the IETF 108 RATS meeting today. I believe 
> it is critical that the RATS architecture allow for all uses case in the 
> slide.
> 
> In particular RATS architecture must allow for symmetric keys. TPMs and 
> public-key based crypto is too expensive for low-cost, large-scale IoT. 
> There are real use cases supported my multiple companies using symmetric 
> keys. Symmetric keys can be made secure at the verifier — we secure keys 
> for TLS at servers all the time using HSMs and such.
> 
> I do NOT want to put this taxonomy into the RATS architecture document. 
> I don’t think that is necessary. I created the taxonomy as background 
> information and as illustrative examples of real world designs.
> 
> I think there are options for adjusting the architecture document to 
> accommodate this.
> 
>     Option 1) Expand the notion of an Endorsement quite a lot.
>     Endorsements are not longer just static documents like X.509 certs
>     and/or COSE/CMS signed blobs. They are anything that conveys the
>     attestation key material into the Verifier or allows Verification of
>     the attester. They must support confidentiality.
> 
>     Option 2) Replace the term “Endorsement” with something like
>     “Verifier Input” or “Attester Trust Criteria” in the architecture
>     document as the means by which key material goes into the Verifier.
>     Endorsements still exist, but are just one type of Verifier Input or
>     Attester Trust Criteria just like EAT is one kind of Attestation
>     Evidence.
> 
> 
> I have a slight preference for Option 2). I’m interested in opinions of 
> which option to choose.
> 
> This is issue #65 
> <https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/architecture/issues/65>, opened in 
> GitHub four months ago. It is not a last-minute/new issue. I believe it 
> is in scope with the RATS charter as the charter explicitly mentions 
> attestation key material in the Program of Work.
> 
> LL
> 
> My main point of this taxonomy was to affect the RATS architecture 
> document. There was discussion today of it being a separate document 
> perhaps outside of RATS. I’m happy for that to happen, but I don’t want 
> to write it because I have enough RATS/EAT work to do. I’m very happy if 
> other folks want to pick it up and use in other documents :-).
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
>