Re: [Rats] More use cases for draft-richardson-rats-usecases-00

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 07 October 2019 12:43 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 44394120099 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 05:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 nX-w7fxbNwoS for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 05:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B815120020 for <rats@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 05:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (unknown [80.233.45.41]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 096081F48A; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 12:35:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id BF12F32C7; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 12:54:35 +0200 (CEST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
cc: "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <MWHPR21MB07844715ADB542B9A8AA833AA3F60@MWHPR21MB0784.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
References: <MW2PR00MB03963ABEB87211AD28A16240A6490@MW2PR00MB0396.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <12503.1552447661@localhost> <58E37DB5-098C-4387-9A52-4AECD0F69F25@island-resort.com> <6495.1553219901@dooku.sandelman.ca> <BA6E28A7-0F6A-46A8-AB1B-A64B9229F149@intel.com> <507.1553725386@dooku.sandelman.ca> <24C0968B-32B0-4EF1-99C8-61D3F0955BA1@intel.com> <793F9A34-050F-4914-AF4B-08C072730A06@island-resort.com> <D8C23800.D851F%carl@redhoundsoftware.com> <19652.1553943890@dooku.sandelman.ca> <D8C50A67.D8999%carl@redhoundsoftware.com> <79ccb2d7-09a3-913d-f47d-1e702a23b341@gmail.com> <29183.1560536152@localhost> <9a7e3efe-b021-f255-4afd-649ea0d5772d@gmail.com> <19489.1560973504@localhost> <e43e8f26-9692-0d0e-8eae-2ae74edcf5c0@gmail.com> <404.1562351963@localhost> <BN6PR21MB0497C7CDE96455DE52EED1BAA3F40@BN6PR21MB0497.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <13070.1562624183@localhost> <MWHPR21MB07844715ADB542B9A8AA833AA3F60@MWHPR21MB0784.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> message dated "Mon, 08 Jul 2019 23:05:02 -0000."
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, 07 Oct 2019 12:54:35 +0200
Message-ID: <30481.1570445675@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/fti3HuM8FhuhC9M0eYkxoS7Udk8>
Subject: Re: [Rats] More use cases for draft-richardson-rats-usecases-00
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, 07 Oct 2019 12:43:19 -0000

{catching up on older emails}

Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> wrote:
    >> > * Confidential ML model: Microsoft talked about this category of use
    >> > cases at the recent Microsoft //build conference.
    >> 
    >> Is a reference to the conference itself the right thing?

    > No, you can delete that sentence.  That was just a FYI, doesn't need to
    > be in any doc.

It will be gone in -06.

    >> How is this different from the media and DRM situation?

    > Yes it's probably similar in many ways.  The players and ecosystem are
    > different, with different legal protections (or lack thereof) in
    > various jurisdictions though, so I consider it a different use case.

I think that this is reasonable.
I also wonder if it might differ in the passport/background-check mechanism?

    >> > * Critical infrastructure: when a protocol operation can affect some
    >> > critical system, the device attached to the critical
    >> 
    >> This one seems rather abstract to me.

    > The others are primarily about access to data, or network access.  This
    > one is about access to local peripherals.

I'd like you to speculate on passport vs background-check for this.
I think it would be passport myself.

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