Re: [Rats] CoTS and CoRIM

[[e-mail]]

Thanks for the quick response, Yogesh. 

 

Two points:

 

*	The reason why I believe that the trust anchor functionality should be part of CoRIM is that it is a core feature rather than an extension. I understand that there is some history about how these documents came into existence but this should not prevent us from doing the “right” thing.

 

*	Using trust anchors under the umbrella of endorsements makes sense to me. This needs to be more clearly articulated in the documents though.

 

A word about the process: Decisions about the directions the document take should be made on the mailing list rather than in private meetings. The chairs should be more strict about this. 

 

Ciao

Hannes

 

From: RATS <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Yogesh Deshpande
Sent: Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2023 12:31
To: muhammad_usama.sardar <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Rats] CoTS and CoRIM

 

Hi Hannes,

 

To your question:

 

I am wondering why the two documents <draft-ietf-rats-corim> and <draft-ietf-rats-concise-ta-stores> aren’t merged.

 

The work on Cots started at different point in time (by different authors) and hence the CoRIM base document does refer Cots but is not fully integrated.

 

We will discuss the possibility and implications of such in our regular CoRIM meetings.

 

Regarding Trust Anchors as per RATS document (RFC 9334) to the best of my knowledge it comes under the heading of Endorsements.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9334#name-endorsements

 

RATS treats Trust Anchors as a type of Endorsements.

 

Hope this information is helpful.

 

Regards,

Yogesh

 

From: RATS <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > On Behalf Of Muhammad Usama Sardar
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 8:21 AM
To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
Subject: Re: [Rats] CoTS and CoRIM

 

Hi Hannes,

On 13.12.23 21:24, hannes.tschofenig=[e-mail] <mailto:hannes.tschofenig=[e-mail]>  wrote:

I am wondering why the two documents <draft-ietf-rats-corim> and <draft-ietf-rats-concise-ta-stores> aren’t merged. Reading through the RATS drafts I often get the impression that trust anchors have somehow been forgotten and were added later, as an afterthought. The RATS architecture RFC does not list trust anchors as an item in Figure 1. In some other document trust anchors are then portrait as belonging to reference values – somehow. That does not feel right to me either.

I think it is completely wrong to consider trust anchors as Reference Values. Can you name the document which presents this view? 

 

Ciao

Hannes

Cheers,

Usama

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.