Re: [Rats] Call for adoption (after draft rename) for Yang module draft

[Dave Thaler <[e-mail]>]

If all you do is log, then there is no enforcement, and since the device doesn’t talk to the log, you can’t call the log a “Relying Party”.
I didn’t say there was never a Relying Party (if you do enforcement and kick the device off the network or something then yes there’s a Relying Party), I said “might be no”.
So I disagree with “Attestation always has a relying party” based on my discussion with Nancy.
Before the hackathon I would have agreed with that statement ☺

From: Laurence Lundblade <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 4:59 PM
To: Dave Thaler <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Schönwälder, Jürgen" <[e-mail]>; Smith, Ned <[e-mail]>; Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>; Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) <[e-mail]>; Oliver, Ian (Nokia - FI/Espoo) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Rats] Call for adoption (after draft rename) for Yang module draft


On Nov 18, 2019, at 4:52 PM, Dave Thaler <dthaler=[e-mail]<mailto:dthaler=[e-mail]>> wrote:

Case 1) The network notices anomalous traffic coming from a device already on the network, which triggers a verifier to ask the device to attest to its health (which may have changed since it was last attested).  Here there might even be no Relying Party involved per se.
Case 2) The network has not noticed anything odd, but wants to proactively query a device anyway, e.g., because the network's appraisal policy of what is considered trustworthy has just changed.  Again there might even be no Relying Party involved.

I would call the network the relying party. Attestation always has a relying party because there would be no point if no one cared (if a tree falls in a forest…)

LL