IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 19 June 2019 19:47 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 3AF8C120A8A for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:47:29 -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 JvY448gNYQbG for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:47:26 -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 5EEA212008F for <rats@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8529438185; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 15:45:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 49894E9E; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 15:47:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 464BAE97; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 15:47:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Smith, Ned" <ned.smith@intel.com>
cc: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>, Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com>, "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <6744BE53-4071-4349-ACB5-23FDE107F16E@intel.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> <7B05ABC3-FE60-4879-9DEE-B896DD15507D@intel.com> <4607.1560537962@localhost> <6744BE53-4071-4349-ACB5-23FDE107F16E@intel.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: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 15:47:24 -0400
Message-ID: <20112.1560973644@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/b82U--kStfSZ2Rt_9ewB8BioQ1g>
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: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 19:47:29 -0000

Smith, Ned <ned.smith@intel.com> wrote:
    >> The TUDA draft seems to resemble (i). (Henk can correct me).

    >> The yang draft seems to resemble (ii). (Henk can correct me).

    mcr>     I'm trying to figure out what to do this statement.

    nms> If there is value in categorizing the attestation approach taken by
    nms> various proposed RATS drafts in terms of (i) implicit attestation
    nms> and (ii) explicit attestation then it seems TUDA
    nms> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-birkholz-rats-tuda/ ) may be
    nms> classified as implicit attestation. Since TUDA is also using
    nms> time-based exchanges Henk may think it doesn't fit well into this
    nms> categorization. The YANG module draft
    nms> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-birkholz-rats-basic-yang-module/
    nms> appears to me to be a case of explicit attestation.

okay, but this is an analysis what the implementations/protocols provide,
whereas the usecase document is trying to categorize what the users need :-)

I'm violently agreeing that the terms are useful, but I don't think they
belong here.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email