Re: [Rats] AD Review of draft-ietf-rats-architecture-15

["Eric Voit (evoit)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roman,

> Roman Danyliw, May 3, 2022 5:54 PM
>

<snip>

> 
> ** Section 16.  Can the thinking of this section be explained.  It seems
out of
> place, and borders on being a solution.  The rest of this document talks
about
> notional roles and architectures.  This text is focused on a particular
nuance of
> message flow.  I'm wondering if we need it.  My thinking was to move this
text
> to draft-birkholz-rats-epoch-markers.  

I believe there is value in Section 16 remaining in the architecture
document.  An example of this comes from draft-ietf-rats-ar4si where Section
2.4 says:
"All freshness mechanisms of [I-D.ietf-rats-architecture], Section 10 are
supportable by this specification."    As I-D.ietf-rats-architecture Section
16 provides examples of how to accomplish what is highlighted in Section 10,
it helps ar4si readers understand the possibilities.  (Note that all three
of the Section 16 examples are valid embodiments of draft-ietf-rats-ar4si
Section 3.2 which detail a "Below Zero Trust" state machine.)   

> As an aside, I did notice that draft-
> birkholz-rats-epoch-markers is using the amount of text on this topic in
this
> document to motivate it's existence.
> 
> My concern is that this text begs questions such as
> 
> -- Why isn't a nonce or getting treatment in Section 4 as a
consumer/producer if
> this is going to be first order item being exchanged?

I believe all freshness mechanisms of Section 10 are equally valid.  Nonces
are well understood, so don't need the same level of description.
 
> -- Why isn't an Epoch ID Distributor depicted any role or architecture
diagram?

I wouldn't argue if one was added.  The most important thing to me is
ensuring that solutions based on this architecture are free to choose from
any Section 10  mechanism.

Eric


> Regards,
> Roman
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats