Re: [Rats] challenges of building dependant specifications against Internet-Drafts -- a way forward for EAT

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 30 November 2020 23:17 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 18CCA3A07D3 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 15:17:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 cZE48tAS0qat for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 15:17:02 -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 77EE63A07C4 for <rats@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 15:17:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 185DB389A2; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:18:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id r81e2RQ93p19; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:18:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02D74389A1; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:18:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8891C71C; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:16:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>, "rats\@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <B9175A1C-C024-463F-B438-36C7DDEBD1A8@island-resort.com>
References: <24519.1606681083@localhost> <BL0PR11MB312296BEFD428C6D9CE9A5DEA1F50@BL0PR11MB3122.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <AM0PR08MB371606D3753BED36E71A5754FAF50@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <BL0PR11MB3122D35683FD909A3C80E4DEA1F50@BL0PR11MB3122.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <3849.1606759884@localhost> <B9175A1C-C024-463F-B438-36C7DDEBD1A8@island-resort.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
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-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:16:59 -0500
Message-ID: <24158.1606778219@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/XKyIOBpNbSl3n8oetXhyE_Iqvs4>
Subject: Re: [Rats] challenges of building dependant specifications against Internet-Drafts -- a way forward for EAT
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: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 23:17:05 -0000

Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com> wrote:
    > The trouble is that I think many claims should be in the Standards
    > Action range (-255 to 255).  For example, nonce, ueid, submods section,
    > location, CoSWID and probably a few others should be in the standard
    > space. If I were IANA I would hesitate to register these in the
    > Standards Action range until the EAT document is further along.

The WG can ask for Early Allocation.
It should do it immediately, so that the Expert will provided feedback immediately.

    > It also seems poor practice to unilaterally pre-assign Standards Action
    > range claims in an EAT draft and then use them in a bunch of
    > implementations. Those numbers could be assigned to some one else
    > before EAT is an RFC.

You can do that if a registry you are just creating.
But, yes, you can't do that if you are using CWT.

    > Register them in the Specification Required space (255 to 65535) once
    > and for all. That will result in 3-byte map labels rather than 1-byte
    > map labels, but there’s no transition.

    > Finally, a third proposal:

    > Maybe we can convince IANA to pre-register a small clear set in the
    > standard space? Perhaps just nonce and UEID.

Please go read RFC7120.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [