From: "Smith, Ned" <ned.smith@intel.com>
To: Muhammad Usama Sardar <muhammad_usama.sardar@tu-dresden.de>, "Michael
 Richardson" <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Thomas Fossati
	<thomas.fossati@linaro.org>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact>,
	junzhang <junzhang1@huawei.com>, Giridhar Mandyam
	<giridhar.mandyam@gmail.com>, lgl island-resort.com <lgl@island-resort.com>,
	"rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Rats] Re: Security considerations of remote attestation
 (RFC9334)
Thread-Index: 
 AQHbNH/DYWfSc7u5cEiooLQ1tlKvsrLG8bIAgAAeFQCAAP5NgIAAKOqAgAElFoCAABMygIAABEUAgAHLkYCAABvQAIAAU4CAgACuqgCAAB+FgIAACOqAgAAFOYCAABAJAIAABnYAgAAWDACAAJbbAIAXILGAgAByDeiAACcGeA==
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2024 23:41:10 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <CO1PR11MB51692C07E2BBB55B6BBF9BA0E5382@CO1PR11MB5169.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <4ffdd034-05ec-4565-9cad-b40ff82f83fc@tu-dresden.de>
 <c7808768-35ce-4783-bece-124d8748ec0c@tu-dresden.de>
 <CAHAF5K1Sh0ruzz3+wUOCyPE1OWC+LWjkf0j5FqJEtCRjBO3xkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6ae884d8-b7a2-4e5d-9f36-a819284f7589@tu-dresden.de>
 <f356d4cfc944484ba53600177001ba30@huawei.com>
 <42365842-ea0e-4129-8469-9f8a22ac0c7d@tu-dresden.de>
 <9006a93d-4fdd-18da-185a-d20606bb3d20@ietf.contact>
 <196f403d-f95a-4f81-b00e-08aace4976cc@tu-dresden.de>
 <CA+1=6yfED4vPA=SJE6OLK7Tpva6QBKGvOnbVpOUexT_nv2T+jA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5073b0a0-e938-4299-936b-0dd644ea3f88@tu-dresden.de>
 <CA+1=6ydHjEf8cBEu0oaa8pHBn_As2dowwoEtrtRHR1U+=Vhscg@mail.gmail.com>
 <92b82fe0-34e6-4a35-b265-a29466cda69a@tu-dresden.de>
 <CA+1=6yffVFhnMxcXo2pwD1xFdWdHKCj60zT2RKgAg=5DyBKDXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <01ede5ee-6e98-4855-b351-5c3c0961f8d2@tu-dresden.de>
 <CA+1=6yfP+RV0MuyKhSw8CkjJh6gX4pG0hreQdYgqb9AZyZ1kvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <b273e32a-8855-48b8-b16a-839a238537ee@tu-dresden.d e>
 <22509.1732828924@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
 <9656e051-450a-43db-a0f9-6cdd323f255f@tu-dresden.de>
 <CO1PR11MB5169A23D48E5401162D7E20EE5382@CO1PR11MB5169.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CO1PR11MB5169A23D48E5401162D7E20EE5382@CO1PR11MB5169.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: 
 =?Windows-1252?Q?cHaMQGqOYnXVLjIwssAx1TWMGow2OKbbLZ4MiZaKRERTn89PBlFq6apk?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?zD3XPtLRzMmXUZyurNqdLMRsTz074Rh3O/5JYZVEwflQZJmcfvUeCrAH?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?VcUxq0HbkbscY5VWIvaGWezbJerKiBYnuLlfrPAePsWEFhnjs50m07Ua?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?XjDpjKwzvOy2WGUtTHbYyQk6+cM/nJ+aSzDAt6PRZbxIgGOyjbccuMHy?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?i5iRuZZ575FF43M8MKQ4yAERO9sr6NV75HWzIEIxqcmXRZfmlNLpxsxu?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?LRR5OEFdine4z+3G/60ZipXyMVPQ57GvD5PQPLfJPl5QM1h1VHLhGkLw?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?NzPZ0W54Z8sisPtDHgxMzxZxsFwP2KoBKUUq17QxP/Y31WFvSK5mHoBI?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?Y2d1kZhrbrKCAbw1Z57jvzs+Cq0se0IFyqlLZo1GHLKKDAYPLIN+IO0h?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?8hZ6wRhNXz4QBssIcSfMstoprNWamWbc3QVvlRlRg+r2SAVmJ8gg7xRj?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?YwJj0leW5mwLvztNdUJ0hiKNeMwMpmUJokNm3XYkNQnethwpcw+RmuIa?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?rsRfDvetggQyxF0Zqt/O5jVHKUV0SAYxppLK0No2cSR67stRxl8/h1Qh?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?ywaR3hgm5UYTTV3Or25CvH5MiZtE8bYuSYbEXyn505CUQjqtJlC2TLeK?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?9pMydJqRZG0eextIpz+etJw7KcxbrhBZXxc99CpK/SZniq6qH8wug+Pu?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?5wqYNFeeiRVVS0kaVqL+6vniN2u7t78r+iyeZbgOgNDhTyJ3bB0K/UAQ?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?uYON+VFe4FfOPh2TJtGrLwJ9pHFFUuxgQCw5tqn1g+54n2Lf80Ukb9JD?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?6aY3t6+D29H4jz/D9bg53z+fF+Wa+SjXYUoWRtCfh3Vv/rjBMJPi8+z1?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?Uczh8tXuebaLO22D2LsIlNjQGhUVY6lYO26X1+Nxtsq2nwTsCNWM2wBy?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?zZ0FwjIRhl6L1jnYFsOTV2xrl9GapKw9zBo9ew3/kih0MtSLhK4qiNbG?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?yx/pFHsIb/E6bozekEH5fvQlyqLlWVATHpVrLnkhFWeI/qSBqsWrfCU8?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?JtjbUArf9pUJv8aKXg92Y5zKAcGgyMIm/gyPHQfqx+A990VJB49OKpQq?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?HisCinq8LhIohAZjl3gsF9aHEKZ1+kkxlAh89ki63NPL2SGDeTGfO4gQ?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?XCzFbew+BDkd2jCTp79DG1Gc0tL5Lb6oGsTIp002t43cROI+eR/gyj73?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?PWoElA8SJ+763PrR6VDkKInoAOInWY7cCdbcIM8ANTN0f5b5g7c+eJ1g?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?R8jlSkbUavxosF1S05Om/RdY0Qi1AGIemzL5F410xGj04hlgIYTxyRTA?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?U34Fnd5dI5Vd7HBU5zbuFE1zccUFmXq77uDnmPFrxkA+JjnuUyCliaGI?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?caBqnGBSEJwZsc11KJUBIh/A5ZmpXIqRha538YIbLh2GL0T05HJBHEra?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?NPQFQqmRBfVrT/hlhKNV/FhK7Ur5p4SJofqnBCV1DTjFINL8PT3Q4/9M?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?jk171vSvsMjWpJgFC6iYnG4ZwZPP4JeFl2y5UOcEzYWYXUkh3FUKXetG?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?XEBvi5BkKuDyIc2u6GFlPzZ1Z1MrHfJ+ul1Pzq39lUL09/K+VUVXNQ?=
 =?Windows-1252?Q?=3D=3D?=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="_000_CO1PR11MB51692C07E2BBB55B6BBF9BA0E5382CO1PR11MB5169namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CO1PR11MB5169.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 
 e86ef339-6ab4-4561-e644-08dd1bcf9f67
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 Dec 2024 23:41:10.2815
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 46c98d88-e344-4ed4-8496-4ed7712e255d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 
 ciKkVwTGeU6EPkY6TR1eSUFWCQs7QM/7Axn5C/7zHtfKYjMMlmBVKDHTKa0dbLsyQ2ucA+XygKKMmF6TIBMUUw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY8PR11MB7845
X-OriginatorOrg: intel.com
Message-ID-Hash: HTRDH5RE2XVA6RDQEWECZPHMKUN5MMCB
X-Message-ID-Hash: HTRDH5RE2XVA6RDQEWECZPHMKUN5MMCB
X-MailFrom: ned.smith@intel.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency;
 loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-rats.ietf.org-0;
 nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size;
 news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BRats=5D_Re=3A_Security_considerations_of_remote_attestation_=28?=
 =?utf-8?q?RFC9334=29?=
List-Id: Remote ATtestation procedureS <rats.ietf.org>
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/mZkfLqw2DjXmKvRL3sJaqToIrqY>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rats>
List-Help: <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:rats-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:rats@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:rats-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rats-leave@ietf.org>

--_000_CO1PR11MB51692C07E2BBB55B6BBF9BA0E5382CO1PR11MB5169namp_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>Pointing to specific text that is =93wong=94 would be helpful
I meant to say =93wrong=94

From: Smith, Ned <ned.smith@intel.com>
Date: Friday, December 13, 2024 at 13:23
To: Muhammad Usama Sardar <muhammad_usama.sardar@tu-dresden.de>, Michael Ri=
chardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Thomas Fossati <thomas.fossati@linaro.org=
>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact>, junzhang <junzhang1@huawei.c=
om>, Giridhar Mandyam <giridhar.mandyam@gmail.com>, lgl island-resort.com <=
lgl@island-resort.com>, rats@ietf.org <rats@ietf.org>
Subject: [Rats] Re: Security considerations of remote attestation (RFC9334)
>I believe the following statement in RFC9334 (Sec. 7.4) is wrong.
Pointing to specific text that is =93wong=94 would be helpful since there i=
s general consensus that the section as a whole is reasonable.

From: Muhammad Usama Sardar <muhammad_usama.sardar@tu-dresden.de>
Date: Friday, December 13, 2024 at 06:34
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Thomas Fossati <thomas.foss=
ati@linaro.org>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact>, junzhang <junz=
hang1@huawei.com>, Giridhar Mandyam <giridhar.mandyam@gmail.com>, lgl islan=
d-resort.com <lgl@island-resort.com>, rats@ietf.org <rats@ietf.org>
Subject: [Rats] Re: Security considerations of remote attestation (RFC9334)

Hi Michael,

On 28.11.24 22:22, Michael Richardson wrote:

You can write ten documents, one every 4 months if you like, that *Update* =
9334.
I don't think that's a very optimal solution. Also, from the reader perspec=
tive, reading RFC9334 first and then finding, "oh wait, what I just read in=
 RFC9334 has been updated in these 10 documents."

They will be very much as legitimate as 9334.

I just don't see a reason to re-open the rest of the document to

second-system effect today.  The WG could disagree

I believe some things can be better fixed in RFC9334bis itself rather than =
opening a number of new different documents updating RFC9334. For example, =
I believe the following statement in RFC9334 (Sec. 7.4) is wrong. Would som=
eone disagree? Does WG think I should write a new I-D just to say why this =
is wrong?

> "A conveyance protocol that provides authentication and integrity protect=
ion can be used to convey Evidence that is otherwise unprotected (e.g., not=
 signed)."

Usama

--_000_CO1PR11MB51692C07E2BBB55B6BBF9BA0E5382CO1PR11MB5169namp_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:sc=
hemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/of=
fice/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3DWindows-1=
252">
<meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:"Cambria Math";
	panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Aptos;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Consolas;
	panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:"Noto Sans";
	panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 5 4 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}
pre
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
	margin:0in;
	font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:"Courier New";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
	{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
	mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
	font-family:Consolas;}
span.moz-txt-tag
	{mso-style-name:moz-txt-tag;}
span.EmailStyle25
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
	color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;
	font-size:10.0pt;
	mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"#467886" vlink=3D"#96607D" style=3D"word-wrap:=
break-word">
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt">&gt;</span><span st=
yle=3D"color:#212121">Pointing to specific text that is =93wong=94 would be=
 helpful<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#212121">I meant to say =93wron=
g=94</span><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></=
span></p>
<div id=3D"mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div>
<div>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in =
0in 0in">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style=3D"col=
or:black">From:
</span></b><span style=3D"color:black">Smith, Ned &lt;ned.smith@intel.com&g=
t;<br>
<b>Date: </b>Friday, December 13, 2024 at 13:23<br>
<b>To: </b>Muhammad Usama Sardar &lt;muhammad_usama.sardar@tu-dresden.de&gt=
;, Michael Richardson &lt;mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca&gt;, Thomas Fossati &lt;tho=
mas.fossati@linaro.org&gt;, Henk Birkholz &lt;henk.birkholz@ietf.contact&gt=
;, junzhang &lt;junzhang1@huawei.com&gt;, Giridhar Mandyam &lt;giridhar.man=
dyam@gmail.com&gt;,
 lgl island-resort.com &lt;lgl@island-resort.com&gt;, rats@ietf.org &lt;rat=
s@ietf.org&gt;<br>
<b>Subject: </b>[Rats] Re: Security considerations of remote attestation (R=
FC9334)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt">&gt;</span><span st=
yle=3D"color:#212121">I believe the following statement in RFC9334 (Sec. 7.=
4) is wrong.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:#212121">Pointing to specific t=
ext that is =93wong=94 would be helpful since there is general consensus th=
at the section as a whole is reasonable.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt">&nbsp;</span><o:p><=
/o:p></p>
<div id=3D"mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div>
<div>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in =
0in 0in">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style=3D"col=
or:black">From:
</span></b><span style=3D"color:black">Muhammad Usama Sardar &lt;muhammad_u=
sama.sardar@tu-dresden.de&gt;<br>
<b>Date: </b>Friday, December 13, 2024 at 06:34<br>
<b>To: </b>Michael Richardson &lt;mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca&gt;, Thomas Fossati=
 &lt;thomas.fossati@linaro.org&gt;, Henk Birkholz &lt;henk.birkholz@ietf.co=
ntact&gt;, junzhang &lt;junzhang1@huawei.com&gt;, Giridhar Mandyam &lt;giri=
dhar.mandyam@gmail.com&gt;, lgl island-resort.com &lt;lgl@island-resort.com=
&gt;,
 rats@ietf.org &lt;rats@ietf.org&gt;<br>
<b>Subject: </b>[Rats] Re: Security considerations of remote attestation (R=
FC9334)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p>Hi Michael,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>On 28.11.24 22:22, Michael Richardson wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style=3D"margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>You can write ten documents, one every 4 months if you like, that <spa=
n class=3D"moz-txt-tag"><b>*</b></span><b>Update<span class=3D"moz-txt-tag"=
>*</span></b> 9334.<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">I don't think that's =
a very optimal solution. Also, from the reader perspective, reading RFC9334=
 first and then finding, &quot;oh wait, what I just read in RFC9334 has bee=
n updated in these 10 documents.&quot;
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style=3D"margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>They will be very much as legitimate as 9334.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>I just don't see a reason to re-open the rest of the document to<o:p><=
/o:p></pre>
<pre>second-system effect today.&nbsp; The WG could disagree<o:p></o:p></pr=
e>
</blockquote>
<p>I believe some things can be better fixed in RFC9334bis itself rather th=
an opening a number of new different documents updating RFC9334. For exampl=
e, I believe the following statement in RFC9334 (Sec. 7.4) is wrong. Would =
someone disagree? Does WG think
 I should write a new I-D just to say why this is wrong?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-size:10.5pt;font-family:&quot;Noto Sans&quot;,sans-s=
erif;color:#222222;background:white">&gt; &quot;A conveyance protocol that =
provides authentication and integrity protection can be used to convey Evid=
ence that is otherwise unprotected (e.g., not signed).&quot;</span><o:p></o=
:p></p>
<p>Usama<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--_000_CO1PR11MB51692C07E2BBB55B6BBF9BA0E5382CO1PR11MB5169namp_--