IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rats] Question about WG Procedure -- Re: 答复: Use case -> architecture document

"Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <ncamwing@cisco.com> Wed, 16 October 2019 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ncamwing@cisco.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 83E0E120164 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 09:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=hnBnXrUq; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=KIKSdNe8
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 b7xlBn4oqKDk for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 09:00:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6858112012A for <rats@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 09:00:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10305; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1571241651; x=1572451251; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=jhE1VzlCFkyBsUXKBgLByptAWvF6UO1nmJsvw6b/44k=; b=hnBnXrUqYLQ6/jIgIEnwqs7V0bfxPh5K1Qn+rqV9iwj4k/vU2hjd8CEE G+cHUU8CohC6PU8q/uaOzlef23OHcpxE9krBRXgOjaKftblTTXJ3cLflD XFVnMLl6LowZDrMPXuhRYs1v8IpBa7dwpQ1s4qSkCDLGQEKoIOVFvHWp+ E=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:NQfwZxC826QSWiIiO1o0UyQJPHJ1sqjoPgMT9pssgq5PdaLm5Zn5IUjD/qs03kTRU9Dd7PRJw6rNvqbsVHZIwK7JsWtKMfkuHwQAld1QmgUhBMCfDkiuKvXjajM7GstqX15+9Hb9Ok9QS47z
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0C1AAAgPadd/4ENJK1mGgEBAQEBAQEBAQMBAQEBEQEBAQICAQEBAYF7gRwvKScFbFcgBAsqhCWDRwOKT4Jckx2EYYJSA1QJAQEBDAEBLQIBAYRAAheCZCQ4EwIDCQEBBAEBAQIBBQRthS0MhUsBAQEBAxIRBBkBATcBDwIBBgIOAwECAQIoAwICAjAUAwMDCAIEDgUigwABgXlNAy4Bkn6QYgKBOIhhdX8zgn0BAQWFBxiCFwmBNIwOGIF/gREnH4JMPoRkFoJYMoIKIo0cgleFOZglCoIilRsbmUKDRHWJd5k8AgQCBAUCDgEBBYFpIiqBLnAVZQGCQVAQFIFPDBcVG1QBAYJKilN0gSmQIQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.67,304,1566864000"; d="scan'208,217";a="344640888"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 16 Oct 2019 16:00:50 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-020.cisco.com (xch-aln-020.cisco.com [173.36.7.30]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x9GG0oBX025559 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 16 Oct 2019 16:00:50 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by XCH-ALN-020.cisco.com (173.36.7.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 11:00:49 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 11:00:49 -0500
Received: from NAM04-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 11:00:48 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=HlFJZot50P+mq09MMtq7nyaFPBPcRYZINCu92UJSvZIEOi3Jwv2H7PekBGVunrP627BwH6wvo5d8DGYBgbGOVaW1D3LwiVQMUpnNXYN2isrNsJcOfcoH99gW24YMmfle4N4okMRETmzxV+lwNhQBQSKesbtkReQfJ6Avq8uZoG0l0+DtKaDjZFpKzIx4i9rFvT/FqwBG7iZJZ2dSjg0ZhS0eG1Q9fbeTvYB/nv1iddoIt7xOhGzOCoA2Yv6xbb54O29Y7GNxKQhy9eaKnVHjnH5sCWhCErOY1wnj7kI0qQ7O3qBIDvdIzl9uo0AiQh90Gq5s1atT3y0ql2NZ4mlvWw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=jhE1VzlCFkyBsUXKBgLByptAWvF6UO1nmJsvw6b/44k=; b=oOZF7gnZK7wuSr+txN7H3bTRxxRuJJXpCD/GiO4atHC7Ll3LpHH5wCcyNG0lf80s8BYM8kR6eNarWl3dyPu4kOWi58CTVtg2cXrmyJr5rPWsn9u4n7dS0xXNzFWW/83lg4HMAoi6mZ5NN/qzEuGpZaTEFt4971Km8qRNeRFM0NGFZEbWGHT3otXkUlR/Iwnk+fvppYuu0qM3tm93e2DLNq2tGRX2PJjz/ceoSDEfR+2QdJMc+PwHGPGfYr3SqdOI4v/z6Dg0egDCryz6EzSGXHEThiVZ95PSykTG7xjLKJEdTESMNkU21hVscJlPPFJHTIP5az/z1alIBg+R1R3VpA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=jhE1VzlCFkyBsUXKBgLByptAWvF6UO1nmJsvw6b/44k=; b=KIKSdNe8nwQVsTceiar+s9AphJIaoRbcamNCx4S9/BOWPaYEBJl4KTcvHCmysYExixsldlt18CMevphjlnDLAhKAvR9yNZ3vN8OtvdRmJ2ZZGgVUlPRBtMJRn7LFoqXZZAPzvV7DArfMecO6vwmMV0NNClmRZdCo9dd97q2tIwo=
Received: from MWHPR11MB1791.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.175.53.138) by MWHPR11MB1871.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.175.54.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2347.16; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 16:00:48 +0000
Received: from MWHPR11MB1791.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9da4:e2c6:9050:68f7]) by MWHPR11MB1791.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9da4:e2c6:9050:68f7%5]) with mapi id 15.20.2347.023; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 16:00:47 +0000
From: "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <ncamwing@cisco.com>
To: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>, "Smith, Ned" <ned.smith@intel.com>
CC: "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>, Thomas Hardjono <hardjono@mit.edu>
Thread-Topic: [Rats] Question about WG Procedure -- Re: 答复: Use case -> architecture document
Thread-Index: AQHVhDUVjaEkizEP5kqC4HteyHktm6ddakgA//+NsYA=
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 16:00:47 +0000
Message-ID: <F31B1F51-0A3E-42C4-8C45-F6481FFF9AB4@cisco.com>
References: <CAHbuEH7f0jjquR=iZDgof4DkgpZKgxEP86NcQ0A1NQ=SP+_FHA@mail.gmail.com> <C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F13E9560C0@dggemm511-mbx.china.huawei.com> <1571169312645.46550@mit.edu> <08D3CA59-6797-47D8-86CE-3A3B1E5EEE7A@intel.com> <1DCF08C6-A75C-4725-9CED-321D288CB4D3@island-resort.com>
In-Reply-To: <1DCF08C6-A75C-4725-9CED-321D288CB4D3@island-resort.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.10.e.190909
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ncamwing@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c8:1002::3ea]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 5620625a-a4b5-49aa-a67e-08d75252028f
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MWHPR11MB1871:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MWHPR11MB18718D8BC2215404A7B98C2DD6920@MWHPR11MB1871.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:5236;
x-forefront-prvs: 0192E812EC
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(366004)(346002)(396003)(136003)(39860400002)(376002)(189003)(199004)(76116006)(91956017)(66556008)(64756008)(2616005)(478600001)(4326008)(71200400001)(36756003)(446003)(71190400001)(6436002)(256004)(11346002)(58126008)(102836004)(66946007)(476003)(6116002)(14454004)(5660300002)(66476007)(6246003)(86362001)(81166006)(486006)(316002)(46003)(9326002)(66446008)(81156014)(110136005)(7736002)(54896002)(99286004)(186003)(6512007)(76176011)(236005)(54906003)(33656002)(2906002)(229853002)(224303003)(53546011)(6506007)(6306002)(8936002)(6486002)(25786009); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MWHPR11MB1871; H:MWHPR11MB1791.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: BsTW2c7dyG6zDrKUIGCBPKUaMDCqZwQbj140ncnjMC1zFVeWHtoHnFOtoJlqGWQ/lypyvIf4Kpqn8/GtB9sET5TFXXg6V9zz8HYD9zlIT2OauKOdl7y7oVZpcWZlWcV7eV1NLsp7qUqphc9TCtPSI2OB/6ixT0T6UTc7VndErf7LXN7SLNooqgM9RCAx/e9+EgnRZJQqtCAwZ8XljwKyNZvmJSwRMCg/GIzlcxFyxWIavy5FIblYOCCl39VCN3qvYT8YiZ4PBc8l1JgwdMEOlar8Lzrh0udKQe8Av1MfPdczsK3m/0rZt0NsBb6nTpnaYCZtVYqomVHSilm725XG6QcDvokGU4RhCFopU2WyKG+OH/zzUlcMDqQi/jeNwaWsdXq9QdgDjzyUXJewtWrRaAcE0Kee+2QSsZfKi+E31rk=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F31B1F510A3E42C48C45F6481FFF9AB4ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 5620625a-a4b5-49aa-a67e-08d75252028f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 16 Oct 2019 16:00:47.6950 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: tDdWMGa9Iwu9n8czNNysXH0G2gmjslFIak7tZNxK56AQiKpsDeVP4w/f365n7hd3UA0CXE/YX6f2da7v5VUzrA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR11MB1871
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.30, xch-aln-020.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-9.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/opvtGSmX89dI-FxcIQCzvao3EJY>
Subject: Re: [Rats] Question about WG Procedure -- Re: 答复: Use case -> architecture document
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: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 16:00:54 -0000

Hi,
Comments below:

From: RATS <rats-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>
Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 08:50
To: "Smith, Ned" <ned.smith@intel.com>
Cc: "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>, Thomas Hardjono <hardjono@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [Rats] Question about WG Procedure -- Re: 答复: Use case -> architecture document


On Oct 16, 2019, at 8:13 AM, Smith, Ned <ned.smith@intel.com<mailto:ned.smith@intel.com>> wrote:
...
The original milestones suggested that the timing could lag that of other drafts (that seem to address more immediate needs.) Maybe that is no longer the case because of a need to agree on terminology, attestation workflows or connection endpoint semantics?
...
EAT is not being held up by lack of a completed architecture document. The same might be true of the yang draft.
[NCW] Fully agree….and  we did state (perhaps it was during the BoFs) that the architecture could be done in parallel as on several occasions the architecture gets “tweaked” based on the adoption of the actual schemas, protocols and interfaces adopted.

i think it is still true that architecture can lag the other documents.

Lots of use cases already know what to do about end-end flows and architecture. FIDO and Android attestation already have their flows. They could use EAT without any IETF architecture document.

Seems like the architecture effort is attempting a unified field theory of attestation across all use cases. I think this is of value, but hard to do.
[NCW] Abstractly, I think there is general agreement on most of the roles despite the naming of the roles and how they potentially fllow.  That, to me, can be the basis for the architecture, the models that Dave describes are more of the interactions that define the interfaces or communications between the roles.  I’m not convinced yet on the hardship other  than the discussions on the terminology

LL

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email