IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rats] Where does a EAT end? - consensus?

Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com> Sat, 04 June 2022 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <lgl@island-resort.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 C8381C14F74A for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jun 2022 11:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.929
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.929 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 eVKqRXKrbzxN for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Jun 2022 11:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plsmtpa09-04.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa09-04.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [173.201.193.233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70397C14F728 for <rats@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Jun 2022 11:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.4] ([75.80.148.139]) by :SMTPAUTH: with ESMTPA id xYLOnahqMjD1mxYLOn98Fs; Sat, 04 Jun 2022 11:17:51 -0700
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=NqIUz+RJ c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=629ba1cf a=qS/Wyu6Nw1Yro6yF1S+Djg==:117 a=qS/Wyu6Nw1Yro6yF1S+Djg==:17 a=4H4PNi7YAAAA:8 a=NKjCQmDe8l0v9jkqOBQA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=kPnbPn6pyCceANPZUNMA:9 a=MD-5254FLNGgXW1F:21 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=SFsxeN8iWzPLxVZVBD6_:22
X-SECURESERVER-ACCT: lgl@island-resort.com
From: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>
Message-Id: <9598B1FF-D1CC-4342-B7EC-62C3502EFC76@island-resort.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BF769DF7-7CC8-442B-A6CE-B50C77158579"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2022 11:17:50 -0700
In-Reply-To: <7111A53F-C5C9-4764-B4E7-FF7F1CC1A5B7@redhoundsoftware.com>
Cc: Thomas Fossati <Thomas.Fossati@arm.com>, "Smith, Ned" <ned.smith@intel.com>, Giridhar Mandyam <mandyam@qti.qualcomm.com>, "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
To: Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com>
References: <5CCD6415-B43B-4BB5-BD05-E7A2B7839B3A@intel.com> <C857641A-8673-4F81-8D9B-D99D6529A836@island-resort.com> <D13E3D0F-CDEB-47F5-856B-A355CE464E55@intel.com> <DB9PR08MB6524D995AA5019EE917995E49CA09@DB9PR08MB6524.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <7111A53F-C5C9-4764-B4E7-FF7F1CC1A5B7@redhoundsoftware.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfDnmRtBUrIJZLlDK6KNX2b60w4ejkxZ9llH7Z5WPqqmSeLkNNB8xQu+cl/3ikXk4n54aZhMljsx0wJQcHQF8qGknkJZchicdVKzbUIvrkRpyE4HMPu5d /9zHHsPQV+hEU16dXBRtwFrLySrHKc3g9/Xhz7cK1FUOpvrbjbFGqfBWzGOy/EbwnnzfCDhV2XsRQWwxCboyFERIAWDL+moENyJiIitM8mOIVep3rC4zOZYc jL5i6lLGLA5ONGOLnXToB4DnZ8uaudYpGFU/xFb17v6M2Q8t8LPWehUWJSNncNghhpK6ldGkJgq8zBiTnJXW8nW7RTJ1LXIjmhGZx05A9/w=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/X_Lx7Mfj-F9koTsc9nCJXaTR2AA>
Subject: Re: [Rats] Where does a EAT end? - consensus?
X-BeenThere: rats@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sat, 04 Jun 2022 18:17:56 -0000

> On Jun 4, 2022, at 8:14 AM, Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com> wrote:
> 
> [CW] Why would a registry be superfluous? All four of the options in RFC8126 section 4.9 have registries.


Hi Carl,

One reason we don’t need a registry is because the number of items is very small. Right now there are 6 items and we only really want to end up with 8.

We don’t really want to encourage extension of EAT to more formats. That just makes interoperability more difficult. It starts to turn into an n^^2 problem.

The only reason there is an extension point here is because UCCS and UJCS are in a separate document. If they were in the EAT document, I wouldn’t have made the top level format a socket.

There’s also some cost to each registry.

LL

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email