IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 04 December 2019 22:41 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 0117D120048 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:41:08 -0800 (PST)
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 6jU8mqYxjYd1 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:41:05 -0800 (PST)
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 8C70312002F for <rats@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:41:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DF3B3818F; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 17:37:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0C26AAB; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 17:41:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Guy Fedorkow <gfedorkow@juniper.net>
cc: "Smith, Ned" <ned.smith@intel.com>, "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR05MB4248CE2260A526DE940D0E3ABA4A0@BYAPR05MB4248.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <8B173958-FC2A-4D1D-A81C-F324AB632CD7@cisco.com> <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> <10511.1574490818@dooku.sandelman.ca> <8363AFEC-C92C-466D-8F2C-CE7A3E94370B@intel.com> <BYAPR05MB4248CE2260A526DE940D0E3ABA4A0@BYAPR05MB4248.namprd05.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: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 17:41:04 -0500
Message-ID: <22846.1575499264@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/cuNfteUYuj6dhXQPjJs8_S2OkIE>
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: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 22:41:08 -0000

Guy Fedorkow <gfedorkow@juniper.net> wrote:
    > The Step Zero I've been keeping at the back of my mind is RFC 8572,
    > which already has a number of complicated mechanisms to reach out and
    > obtain configuration information.  I think a RIV-style attestation
    > exchange could be added to the steps without deleterious interactions.

Yes, in particular this is a use case where the YANG TPM module would be
rather useful.

    > That's not to say that RFC 8572 is the only applicable environment,
    > it's just one that seems like a good match.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email