Re: [Rats] Call for adoption (after draft rename) for Yang module draft

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

{why do people insist on CC people who are on the list?
Do you enjoy getting three copies of emails with different headers}

Dave Thaler <dthaler=[e-mail]> wrote:
    > I have not yet seen a compelling reason to use a pull-based mechanism
    > instead of a push-based mechanism via another protocol the routers
    > already support.

I agree.

    > In order to know who to pull data from, the Verifier has to have some
    > indication from the Attester that triggers the attestation request
    > indicated as Step 1 in draft-fedorkow-rats-network-device-attestation.
    > So in reality, there has to be a step before step 1,
    > whereby the Attester does something that makes the Attester
    > discoverable by the Verifier.   That step could have included the EAT
    > or the TPM data

I have a todo item to write up:
  1) a use case for Attestation at BSKI onboarding time.
     (really this is a RIV sub-case, I think)

  2) a document explaining how to carry EAT in BRSKI voucher-requests and
     RFC8366 vouchers.

That works well for initial attestation before a device is accepted onto a
network, but does not manage the ongoing safety of the device.  An open item
in BRSKI is finding a way to signal that a device supports RESTCONF, and
should have it's configuration loaded in that way.
That signaling could very well indicate that attestation is available that
way; well actually I think that once RESTCONF is up, the controller can
discover that it supports our EAT-YANG-module.

Having said all of this, I was surprised that my question on Friday's meeting
about what claims would be in the EAT that be returned from
entity-attestation-token-challenge-response did not elicit more understanding
and aha.

I want to be clear: I object to including the EAT in the *TPM* module,
because:
  1) it's mixing two different things and there is no reason a device
     that supports one should have to support the other.
  2) I believe that the use case is completely different.
  3) returning EATs is way too important to get it wrong like this.


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


--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-