IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rats] More use cases for draft-richardson-rats-usecases-00

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 08 July 2019 22:16 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 88FC4120280 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 15:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 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, 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 7IQ_6cmnvkPn for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 15:16:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81C691202E9 for <rats@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 15:16:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25202380BE; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 18:14:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 498FDEC9; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 18:16:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
cc: "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <BN6PR21MB0497C7CDE96455DE52EED1BAA3F40@BN6PR21MB0497.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
References: <MW2PR00MB03963ABEB87211AD28A16240A6490@MW2PR00MB0396.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <12503.1552447661@localhost> <58E37DB5-098C-4387-9A52-4AECD0F69F25@island-resort.com> <6495.1553219901@dooku.sandelman.ca> <BA6E28A7-0F6A-46A8-AB1B-A64B9229F149@intel.com> <507.1553725386@dooku.sandelman.ca> <24C0968B-32B0-4EF1-99C8-61D3F0955BA1@intel.com> <793F9A34-050F-4914-AF4B-08C072730A06@island-resort.com> <D8C23800.D851F%carl@redhoundsoftware.com> <19652.1553943890@dooku.sandelman.ca> <D8C50A67.D8999%carl@redhoundsoftware.com> <79ccb2d7-09a3-913d-f47d-1e702a23b341@gmail.com> <29183.1560536152@localhost> <9a7e3efe-b021-f255-4afd-649ea0d5772d@gmail.com> <19489.1560973504@localhost> <e43e8f26-9692-0d0e-8eae-2ae74edcf5c0@gmail.com> <404.1562351963@localhost> <BN6PR21MB0497C7CDE96455DE52EED1BAA3F40@BN6PR21MB0497.namprd21.prod.outlook.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: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 18:16:23 -0400
Message-ID: <13070.1562624183@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/YcxYuF6xgedDf4eOyx_DqHNj-fU>
Subject: Re: [Rats] More use cases for draft-richardson-rats-usecases-00
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, 08 Jul 2019 22:16:39 -0000

Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> wrote:
    > My comments on draft-richardson-rats-usecases-02 are in the PDF at
    > https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/uploads/prod/2017/05/draft-richardson-rats-usecases-02.pdf

Dave asked about:

2.1. Static attestations
 A static attestation says something about the platform on which the
 code is running.

saying:
  Commented [DT5]: In what sense is this ‘static’? It can
  be updated at any time, and so can a policy as to whether a
  platform is considered compliant or not.

and I gotta say, I don't know.

I'm sorry about my consistent attestion vs attestation!

    > * TEEP: the "Trusted Application Manager (TAM)" server wants to verify
    > the state of a TEE, or applications in the TEE,

I'll find an appropriate draft to point a reference at on next edit.

    > * Confidential ML model: Microsoft talked about this category of use
    > cases at the recent Microsoft //build conference.

Is a reference to the conference itself the right thing?
How is this different from the media and DRM situation?

    > * Critical infrastructure: when a protocol operation can affect some
    > critical system, the device attached to the critical

This one seems rather abstract to me.

I got another revision posted with your changes:

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-richardson-rats-usecases-03&url2=draft-richardson-rats-usecases-04

I've edited your suggested text slightly, but I didn't think I'd have to
chase the references better.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email