Re: [Rats] FW: New Version Notification for draft-shaw-rats-rear-00.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 08 July 2020 21:03 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 52B873A07F8 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 14:03:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 vDQn775l7L2Z for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 14:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6DD33A07F7 for <rats@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 14:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC808389A0; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 17:00:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Arm7Sweeg4PE; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 17:00:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C76443899F; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 17:00:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032E2A8; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 17:03:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, "rats\@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <0FCAA0DF-1EBA-4883-81FB-FB468CCE5CD4@arm.com>
References: <9CB821D0-26D5-499C-9F60-CFF066AE6A87@arm.com> <D66A2E01-D604-405C-94D5-47E1502794CC@gmail.com> <0FCAA0DF-1EBA-4883-81FB-FB468CCE5CD4@arm.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 17:03:28 -0400
Message-ID: <25325.1594242208@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/soOH0RnCJe6N_l0ZP34W9hiviic>
Subject: Re: [Rats] FW: New Version Notification for draft-shaw-rats-rear-00.txt
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, 08 Jul 2020 21:03:37 -0000

Thomas Fossati <Thomas.Fossati@arm.com> wrote:
    > I hadn't come across SCAP before.  This looks interesting and certainly
    > relevant, so thanks for pointing out the potential relation with our
    > draft.

    > On 06/07/2020, 15:41, "Kathleen Moriarty" <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> Since we have a number of RESTful protocols in use to exchange
    >> formatted data, it would be good to explicitly state support for these
    >> protocols.  SCAPv2.0 has adopted ROLIE [RFC8322].  Since SCAP is how
    >> posture assessment is performed, it would be good to include this
    >> capability to enable a smooth transition to the use of remote
    >> attestation for simplified posture assessment as this work evolves.

    > Clarifying question.  In principle, the mechanics specified in the draft
    > can be used to bind attestation data to *any* resource.  So, ROLIE feeds
    > are certainly in scope.  However, it seems to me that in the SCAP
    > architecture the "natural" attestors are the Endpoints.  And, on the
    > Endpoint, posture collection is pulled using one of NEA/SWIMA, or
    > NETCONF, or some other specific MDM protocol, depending on the
    > Endpoint's type/class.  So, wouldn't NETCONF be a more suitable target
    > than ROLIE in this case?

However, we did do:

https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/architecture/commit/87561f0cf9e65fcdda18291123367f6500c92ceb

 In this diagram, the protocol between Attester and a Relying Party
 can be any new or existing protocol (e.g., HTTP(S), COAP(S),
+ROLIE {{RFC8322}},
 802.1x, OPC UA, etc.), depending on the use case.  Such
 protocols typically already have mechanisms for passing security
 information for purposes of authentication and authorization.  Common

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-