Re: [Rats] Verifier Input instead of Endorsement?

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Laurence Lundblade <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > Sorry, didn’t say that right.

    > If we’re going to minimize description of what is above the Verifier,
    > then the term “Endorsement” should be replaced with a more general term
    > like “Verifier Input” or “Attester Trust Criteria” or other.

I comprehend your point.

    > I think there are three problems with the term “Endorsement":
    > - It implies a specific style of input (a signed document) that is too
    > narrow for a general architecture

I don't agree that it has to be a signed document.
I think it could well be configuration information.
But, it might be that, being largely TCG-ignorant, I like the term because I view
it without TCG-approved-eyewear.

    > - It is ambiguous and/or not clear it is even correct. The room in
    > Berlin of experts agreed that Endorsement can’t have keys in them, but
    > there must be a key input to the Verifier.

I would appreciate if Henk, or Dave could clarify this comment.
I can't see why it can't list a set of trust anchors to be used to verify
Evidence.  I assume that's the kind of keys you speak of.

    > - It is TCG-specific. The term is not used in FIDO, Android and
    > TEE-based projects that I’ve worked on.


    > Some text like this?

    > Verifier Input

    > Inputs used by the Verifier to establish trust in Attester, evaluate
    > Attestation Evidence and produce Attestation results. It may include
    > cryptographic keys, known-good/reference values, static implicit claims
    > and policy configuration.

I'm okay with this description, but I don't understand the dislike for
endorsement.

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


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