IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rats] Android comments on EAT draft

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 07 July 2019 21:48 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 706721200B7 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jul 2019 14:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 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] 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 SxRLY-6-mU4P for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jul 2019 14:48:08 -0700 (PDT)
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 32B1D1200C5 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jul 2019 14:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D58473818F; Sun, 7 Jul 2019 17:46:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46AA9BDF; Sun, 7 Jul 2019 17:48:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Shawn Willden <swillden@google.com>
cc: rats@ietfa.amsl.com
In-Reply-To: <CAFyqnhU3KQN_Ww9km8yu7RsdJ1=6ut-bzLmFXtk00H-Zn1ykuQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFyqnhVJ-ps4bdhsyQDOHdzHVZsXeK7_kCDXxUVUcuyDzWS3uA@mail.gmail.com> <29657.1562351277@localhost> <CAFyqnhU3KQN_Ww9km8yu7RsdJ1=6ut-bzLmFXtk00H-Zn1ykuQ@mail.gmail.com>
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: Sun, 07 Jul 2019 17:48:05 -0400
Message-ID: <28574.1562536085@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/WIQUmfNpeAcBKGgrPOHNqLGHG_8>
Subject: Re: [Rats] Android comments on EAT draft
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: Sun, 07 Jul 2019 21:48:11 -0000

Shawn Willden <swillden@google.com> wrote:
    >> These are all intended to be covered under "network attestation", but
    >> now I wonder if that term is mis-leading.
    >>

    > Hmm.  Yes, you're attesting to the device state, not anything about a
    > network.  I guess "network attestation" is because you're expecting the
    > relying party to be the network?

It's a good point, and maybe we can come up with a better term that is well
understood.   The attestations are occuring in order that the network
operator is willing to accept the device is sane.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email