Re: [Rats] Question about WG Procedure -- Re: 答复: Use case -> architecture document

Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 16 October 2019 17:22 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
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 B38D812020A for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 hOVE9-72w7_R for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:22:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22d.google.com (mail-oi1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01D5C12012D for <rats@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:22:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id i185so20690747oif.9 for <rats@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:22:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gj8tuWIOw73zEs2mM0CBtSJqkzTB6iGiX2qLFLgxxYY=; b=DiaSp4xg4E59JTag5FAfSGxRNqqNawW2MEISx3FPhoZN/caw9veVBr7QQoNomIguSR mNeKPMUy2xXFTWe6gdpDhiwJsC/VrEHzIRKsMcVwsUnvXmHVSpjTKeUL+VTcEJRpLrht P2YByfdWJ8hwSVwWCKpCtOz+dAJU4p8dIZZvlCdmMI5ISmK+WmjwznAq53wfWSRzLlTQ B4C9jhBdDvaOB1EOtONSgpTR5/9X8kcMZTNzu1GR53c8RVZXkUoREkVlebu7KlwIagnD gbtmDFmKpvrNyr42z9/NAuubQudilAGXOsjYplDpuRnUxN3P7H7hrrEBR0sEiFKWQDuK xwyg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gj8tuWIOw73zEs2mM0CBtSJqkzTB6iGiX2qLFLgxxYY=; b=TAJMmEypzxHR5mpFbNlftslLP93bD6Mx+SkSsSIKwQIY/52+YBaDSD0NfDyZTZQIHN sZ+QJxUvEQOuMTWzUu445YWWjlM5CPl5wrr/ExjwWQdoKxCxHghN3ziAKkZdwZLF+wOh ClC6xyt8IvFiuxSDp/Kp9LfqIJHNObGWKG1RyhszOlYFIxssWQ+l+fQ62pP9CX2SswWE YzWbSjg3KnWFZrSK2gOqEKwslt3zyElOAmv6JzBDu1XPd9vjhDFyOEkFPoH4LJzPGb/Z jCl1yLDgKMNyM7O8JY8JAk6MAVNeSYzRNE99b1V47gHG4OEm8kYHNDphFrNY0GbV6u/m 6bMQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXEq9NDPj6OBV8rgKxMvnt0jmJE6SU6ZPhZ5R9rIUGatl0dxCbt QY6JsOfiizVxyJHb7z6fvshkVKNJ7276bQhbG9Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxhrK+LLOOFeBmM0ILEGTFVlfge5O6FKu5bzjb/fkOn4F9qaiPYjXa70zg8dflDSBjBIRBWOpsukrm8/LeUL/s=
X-Received: by 2002:a54:4187:: with SMTP id 7mr4362398oiy.158.1571246525257; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:22:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHbuEH7f0jjquR=iZDgof4DkgpZKgxEP86NcQ0A1NQ=SP+_FHA@mail.gmail.com> <C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F13E9560C0@dggemm511-mbx.china.huawei.com> <1571169312645.46550@mit.edu> <08D3CA59-6797-47D8-86CE-3A3B1E5EEE7A@intel.com> <1DCF08C6-A75C-4725-9CED-321D288CB4D3@island-resort.com> <F31B1F51-0A3E-42C4-8C45-F6481FFF9AB4@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <F31B1F51-0A3E-42C4-8C45-F6481FFF9AB4@cisco.com>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 13:21:29 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbuEH4_ArK_KbMeJwZr7fWDOMYB91kesgTxMB47LS+3eMce1g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <ncamwing@cisco.com>
Cc: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>, "Smith, Ned" <ned.smith@intel.com>, "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>, Thomas Hardjono <hardjono@mit.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fe1cd305950a5676"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/fIxp_-z1Hirp6FTqu_yr4HEphlo>
Subject: Re: [Rats] =?utf-8?q?Question_about_WG_Procedure_--_Re=3A_=E7=AD=94?= =?utf-8?q?=E5=A4=8D=3A_Use_case_-=3E_architecture_document?=
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, 16 Oct 2019 17:22:09 -0000

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:01 PM Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) <
ncamwing@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Comments below:
>
>
>
> *From: *RATS <rats-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Laurence Lundblade <
> lgl@island-resort.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 08:50
> *To: *"Smith, Ned" <ned.smith@intel.com>
> *Cc: *"rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>rg>, Thomas Hardjono <hardjono@mit.edu>
> *Subject: *Re: [Rats] Question about WG Procedure -- Re: 答复: Use case ->
> architecture document
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 16, 2019, at 8:13 AM, Smith, Ned <ned.smith@intel.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> The original milestones suggested that the timing could lag that of other
> drafts (that seem to address more immediate needs.) Maybe that is no longer
> the case because of a need to agree on terminology, attestation workflows
> or connection endpoint semantics?
>
> ...
>
> EAT is not being held up by lack of a completed architecture document. The
> same might be true of the yang draft.
>
> [NCW] Fully agree….and  we did state (perhaps it was during the BoFs) that
> the architecture could be done in parallel as on several occasions the
> architecture gets “tweaked” based on the adoption of the actual schemas,
> protocols and interfaces adopted.
>
>
>
> i think it is still true that architecture can lag the other documents.
>
>
>
> Lots of use cases already know what to do about end-end flows and
> architecture. FIDO and Android attestation already have their flows. They
> could use EAT without any IETF architecture document.
>
>
>
> Seems like the architecture effort is attempting a unified field theory of
> attestation across all use cases. I think this is of value, but hard to do.
>
> [NCW] Abstractly, I think there is general agreement on most of the roles
> despite the naming of the roles and how they potentially fllow.  That, to
> me, can be the basis for the architecture, the models that Dave describes
> are more of the interactions that define the interfaces or communications
> between the roles.  I’m not convinced yet on the hardship other  than the
> discussions on the terminology
>

+1 - I agree with Nancy's responses.

Best regards,
Kathleen


>
> LL
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> RATS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
>


-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen