Re: [Rats] EAT claims needed by TEEP

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Laurence Lundblade <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > I’d like to articulate the larger frame up for identifying HW in
    > EAT. The applicability is all HW, not just TEEs.

That's true and false.

The claim should have broad applicability to all sorts of HW, yes/true.

But, what are valid values for TEEs should be up to TEEP.
EAT will never be used without some kind of industry profile like TEEP, so false.

    > I think it is the concatenation of these three:
    > - OEM ID
    > - Model/Class
    > - Version

I don't think this is a useful thing to do.

    > Another very useful thing here is to re use identifiers that already
    > exist. In EAT the OEM is identified by existing OEM databases (PEN
    > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Enterprise_Number> or IEEE OUI
    > <https://standards.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-standards/standards/web/documents/tutorials/eui.pdf>,
    > aka MAC address) or a 16-byte random number (which can be a UUID). We
    > want OEMs to be able to re-use their extant internal model and version
    > number schemes, so they are both strings (and can also be UUIDs).

    > Here’s real examples:

    > OEM: 49279 (PEN actually assigned to Tesla)
    > Model: “X"
    > Version “2.3.2” (CoSWID type 1, multipartnumeric)

This actually isn't very useful, because you've used a marketing term.
You need to know the model + year/month + factory, to know what's inside.
That's why we shouldn't split out model/version.  Let the OEM do that.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide