[Rats] RATS Use case edits

Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 07 May 2019 20:18 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.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 66533120121 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2019 13:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 HSFWyURLnrbj for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2019 13:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x332.google.com (mail-ot1-x332.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::332]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC574120114 for <rats@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 May 2019 13:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x332.google.com with SMTP id b1so16256978otp.5 for <rats@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 May 2019 13:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=hw3OwW2J9Wsr05aTd15tIXQthVAdkGSrS3xtz05mygE=; b=VI/QcnQ8It7i9016LGqsTmRBOeuqKvwedxOyKHc4HxD1yRGiZXnQIIwVlOtELaiSiy BinBy0BldQHw6esfuix2sEiMNahmdX4LDV0DCS51b4fEWfRaYd8Y+OwTW9bhVM30M6M/ OTWYhtTYYNkQFOUfnng11QZq34w6udIUXF/jShgxb8FBQi7CXCRHEYYp8TWVIpQxd079 4GALEK+pqAhTuf114gEB4Pxtn75TxuNbi5RLqNJbSJDGkazbPjqO9HpwTK9OBHigLn06 dc1+RLRLZr6OK6LED6J9qLrMBnXNo3PiHGXO4ThlxdRjSGZyHNEWYGmTKVSrDHN2zdnp lnSg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=hw3OwW2J9Wsr05aTd15tIXQthVAdkGSrS3xtz05mygE=; b=m7IBJgb4I9kM5UEuL5CW2ptkH9djUzGWe04D8R9e1ACgA3n4JWVmIw6KZYjieXh6Nl 08CWgQF74neHbTponi5V1r79uY6ENyfE6SA7iPSguZUDQcRgmrPeszmR2OmiB2TprnLw J6v2TJRplX/6hxHTBORRyVje1aTSbQIrxKNKkADzlKGKeWD2d9sD8xib/YfghTXqjd67 rm3mY/wQyvFmJj1mCs3y4JwG/qQbpUKKMkz/HdTbD32llZe15vDA5ut71jbc8QhcMGIp oUtqN9Q5MiVtktLj8OmunwDIUDgBa+ytwTtWybs5Zx2JDNo9hsPtqQw0by9pVG9dk4TR VYhw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAURDTV0B5m2ROsQ/WdeRMIed8oj6rx4aEC03goFWgaUqw2lQz6v 3SEgIGGD4RrAesuJ2ICLZIgENVhIdcgaRglrY6Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxTzbIZxWfpRwQD179RlXa2jsxHy333fmu2RyIMbBnNEbuWZFsz9xIrs0ZFMjplpq9siZ26QE91ulwDn63BJ2E=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:119:: with SMTP id i25mr21672231otp.158.1557260328237; Tue, 07 May 2019 13:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2019 16:18:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbuEH6q9P9KNu4nU2DroEiyrP6cNz8ioOKwgSotWmJ+xLV+pg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>, rats@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b00063058851ec30"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/oflgvx86OyCotLvZzhYMMCFPGL0>
Subject: [Rats] RATS Use case edits
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: Tue, 07 May 2019 20:18:50 -0000

Hi Michael,

I was reading through your document, so I figured I'd provide the edits I
see...

1. Abstract: 2nd paragraph:
OLD:

   The document (aspires) goes on to go on to describe possible future
   use cases that would be enabled by common formats.
NEW:

   The document aspires to describe possible future
   use cases that would be enabled by common formats.

It's not going to be published, I think it's fine to say aspires...

2. Section 4:
Will other use cases be covered or just those 2?

3. Section 5.1 1st paragraph:
OLD:
   The TCG is trying to solve the problem of knowing if a networking
   device should be part a network.  If it belongs to the operator, and
   if it running approriate software.
NEW:
   The TCG is trying to solve the problem of knowing if a networking
   device should be part of a network, if it belongs to the operator, and
   if it is running appropriate software.

4. Section 5.3:

I see this text:
   The FIDO use case involves a relying party that wants to have the HW/
   SW implementation does a biometric check on the human to be strongly
   attested.

If a biometric is being used to identify the human, don't you mean identity
proofing of the manager?  How is that attestation?

Thanks for your work on this draft!  I had some other nits, but some were
style preference and I left them out :-)

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen