[Rats] Re: AD comments on draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap

[Laurence Lundblade <[e-mail]>]

I am enthusiastic, but I will self-classify as in the rough and go cause trouble elsewhere.

LL

> On Sep 22, 2025, at 2:25 PM, Deb Cooley <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> And if this keeps up, I'm going to return the draft to the working group.  Clearly consensus has not been reached, or Usama, you are in the rough.  Which is it?
> 
> Deb
> 
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 3:49 PM Muhammad Usama Sardar <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> 
>> On 22.09.25 21:27, Thomas Fossati wrote:
>> > On Mon, 22 Sept 2025 at 21:08, Muhammad Usama Sardar
>> > <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> >> On 22.09.25 20:52, Thomas Fossati wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 22 Sept 2025 at 20:44, Muhammad Usama Sardar
>> >> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 22.09.25 20:21, Laurence Lundblade wrote:
>> >> (2) We need the current CMW feature set in more than one place: aTLS,
>> >> aCSR, Arm CCA attestation, device assignment and more, and we need it
>> >> now.
>> >>
>> >> I understand and maybe that is the overriding reason.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe not. At least for attested TLS, this is surely not "we need it now". There is a dependency on CMW in the current attested TLS draft but that draft has not even been adopted; even the WG has not yet been formed. So from that perspective, saying "we need it now" for attested TLS is a huge overstatement.
>> >>
>> >> Feel free to remove aTLS from the lot if you don't think it's
>> >> necessary
>> >>
>> >> To be clear, I didn't say it's unnecessary. I said it's not urgent. WG is to be formed. Draft is to adopted. Consensus is to be developed whether CMW is to be used. So that's just not "we need it now".
>> >>
>> >> Anyway, all the other stuff stands.
>> >>
>> >> Could you precisely clarify what is the other stuff? I am asking this because:
>> >>
>> >> I am aware of two drafts on CCA: draft-ffm-rats-cca-token-02 and draft-ydb-rats-cca-endorsements-02. Both are not yet adopted.
>> >> For device assignment, the closest I know is: draft-poirier-rats-eat-da-02. That is not yet adopted.
>> > In this case, the fact that the RATS WG has adopted the technology
>> > (for example, CCA token) is not a decisive factor.  If the technology
>> > is to be used in real-world products, it is important to ensure that
>> > anything it depends on (in this case, CMW) is reasonably stable.  By
>> > definition, a WG draft (in this case, CMW) is a work in progress and
>> > therefore does not meet this criterion.  For this reason, it's better
>> > to make CMW into an RFC sooner rather than later.
>> 
>> Out of this jargon, I couldn't establish where is the justification for 
>> "we need it now" to ignore Laurence's enthusiasm to put ASN.1 within 
>> this draft rather than a new one. Could you please clarify in plain 
>> words what is the urgency to ignore that?
>> 
>> To my knowledge, there exists no real-world product which uses Arm CCA. 
>> To my knowledge, the first real Arm CCA product (Fujitsu-Monaka) is 
>> planned for 2027. Please correct me if I am wrong and update me there is 
>> something planned before that.
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]