IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 18 November 2019 10:34 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@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 16C88120851 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 02:34:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.435
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 4YasGPCrw6Xs for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 02:34:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [IPv6:2a01:7e00::f03c:91ff:feae:de77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDC461200DF for <rats@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 02:34:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (dhcp-8d1f.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.141.31]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EDC51F450 for <rats@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 10:33:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 9EB3010F5; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 18:33:58 +0800 (+08)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <FADBA46B-5B70-4B21-A159-B22593310B53@island-resort.com>
References: <147F9159-6055-4E55-ABDC-43DFE3498BF1@island-resort.com> <ce5f8206-74dc-36bb-0093-a93045d5c67f@sit.fraunhofer.de> <0A7E3A4F-8534-4E98-BCB7-1454E07699F4@island-resort.com> <C3AE2645-49C8-4313-BCED-02FEB576B614@cisco.com> <1C8A1884-A37D-45E3-8C11-2FC5A083B245@island-resort.com> <HE1PR0702MB375366C5F7FE5C497C35D73B8F740@HE1PR0702MB3753.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <7106C9D3-8ED1-419E-81F8-4CDA799BEDAE@intel.com> <MWHPR21MB07844F61BEFAE03F9E7DD290A3770@MWHPR21MB0784.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <6E7D64B4-2049-4D0A-ADC5-CA3F0647779B@island-resort.com> <MWHPR21MB07840B6CF7BEE0A11ABE54BFA3700@MWHPR21MB0784.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <20191117144129.llvg7fsrqgaqtgkn@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <MWHPR21MB0784B0111EADA4A9A6C766D0A34D0@MWHPR21MB0784.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <FADBA46B-5B70-4B21-A159-B22593310B53@island-resort.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com> message dated "Mon, 18 Nov 2019 16:59:15 +0800."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 18:33:58 +0800
Message-ID: <5993.1574073238@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/cYi7hrhCIwTvn6HJFAu-RHplwck>
Subject: Re: [Rats] Call for adoption (after draft rename) for Yang module draft
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, 18 Nov 2019 10:34:02 -0000

    >> Case 1) The network notices anomalous traffic coming from a device
    >> already on the network, which triggers a verifier to ask the device to
    >> attest to its health (which may have changed since it was last
    >> attested).  Here there might even be no Relying Party involved per se.

    >> Case 2) The network has not noticed anything odd, but wants to
    >> proactively query a device anyway, e.g., because the network's
    >> appraisal policy of what is considered trustworthy has just changed.
    >> Again there might even be no Relying Party involved.

Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com> wrote:
    > I would call the network the relying party. Attestation always has a
    > relying party because there would be no point if no one cared (if a
    > tree falls in a forest…)

I would be even more specific to say that the network's Policy Enforcement
Point is the relying party. 


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email