IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rats] Entity vs. role

Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com> Thu, 24 March 2022 10:45 UTC

Return-Path: <lgl@island-resort.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 BD9093A190D for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Mar 2022 03:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 KxQwjv_FYWdb for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Mar 2022 03:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plsmtpa09-03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa09-03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [173.201.193.232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC65B3A1961 for <rats@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Mar 2022 03:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-809e.meeting.ietf.org ([31.133.128.158]) by :SMTPAUTH: with ESMTPSA id XKxbnTUl2Frs4XKxcnysNG; Thu, 24 Mar 2022 03:44:57 -0700
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=J5hvUCrS c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=623c4ba9 a=evEcgHmhfWX9km1CD+uJ7A==:117 a=evEcgHmhfWX9km1CD+uJ7A==:17 a=AUd_NHdVAAAA:8 a=XXO65KEN3rTB_f6wUcAA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=th2NyRkz7msJ3YrHnSUA:9 a=4oYiFGnfISDg9IZW:21 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10
X-SECURESERVER-ACCT: lgl@island-resort.com
From: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>
Message-Id: <70179B54-6E99-4AD0-B28D-00284AA6BC86@island-resort.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CE3569F3-11A3-48ED-88C0-57258F4BC7E3"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 11:44:55 +0100
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR11MB3135EBAF7783D637C7BBA04AA1189@SN6PR11MB3135.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: Thomas Fossati <tho.ietf@gmail.com>, "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>, "Smith, Ned" <ned.smith@intel.com>
To: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
References: <3407CFB9-B713-4E13-BDA3-08EC7B5A905E@intel.com> <CAObGJnOxU0vfxzzZ9tv1J64KHDigxLcEMrgx0gDy97bE7NQJcA@mail.gmail.com> <E20F61DD-8775-4E68-8E56-E6EC92682A18@island-resort.com> <CAObGJnOv8ePE=R6vvdg5uib3Y9=WS8A5vcOdpWY0sREXA98aPQ@mail.gmail.com> <2BC14C43-80D0-4611-BEA0-9D9B9948BE0C@island-resort.com> <BYAPR11MB31255F64BDB773DB93A0C6CCA1179@BYAPR11MB3125.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <9BFD1E45-569D-4E2F-BCD7-5DA6FF5A1BDF@island-resort.com> <SN6PR11MB3135EBAF7783D637C7BBA04AA1189@SN6PR11MB3135.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfEdC0Lsqcdw/ndJpAroT/yAh5xZ51QbhW498YaivLGKUBiBfCcLB1WCgP6uGhdM+6/atVCYauRdMbv47koJiZj087DPiGnxM9v0by67ArrV3BvIldjYp Veo7b5OYzxi+5Taaws5wx3bz7sQTnDKNz6wQMqlztL3k0P3YxgN+zZAaGYZIqrYJ1fPLyYPE3BYEppt8SLd7tfeL0fX/N3aFSdRBP3A9MNeFYUl3twx/yqHd cg80P/VGE9J+xTVFaOI+kBp6KV3fpOyw3rUXQmY05wNCasAXIY/ynFzodmtWeyHN
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/i400yLN5DH-xudnggGT453-efKA>
Subject: Re: [Rats] Entity vs. role
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: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 10:45:06 -0000

It seems to me now that we need to sort out some of these use cases a little better as Henk suggested in the room in Vienna.

> On Mar 23, 2022, at 1:54 PM, Eric Voit (evoit) <evoit@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> From: Laurence Lundblade, March 23, 2022 4:03 AM
> ...
>  
> Ironic in a way — I want to forward/passthrough Evidence in Results, you are forwarding/passingthrough Results in Evidence :-)
>  
> <eric> It is not me that puts Results in Evidence.  It is the definitions in the architecture document which requires it *must* be specified this way.

5.1 describing the passport model does not imply or require (or preclude) two verifiers. 

Section 5.1 does not require that AR be embedded in a new AE message when sent from the device to the RP. It puts no requirements on that transmission. I don’t think it even Requires the Results be relayed by something that has security properties.

None of the examples in section 16 work this way. 

I think the design is a fine and good, but I don’t see it in my read of the architecture document. (I searched for occurrences of “passport”). Apologies in advance if I’ve missed something in the architecture document.

LL

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email