Re: [Rats] New Version Notification for draft-voit-rats-trusted-path-routing-02

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Mon, 15 June 2020 23:12 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 634843A0EDE for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 16:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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 3q5mg4dobUWz for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 16:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD6443A0EDA for <rats@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 16:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 05FNBxlB012813 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 15 Jun 2020 19:12:02 -0400
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 16:11:59 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
Cc: "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20200615231159.GQ11992@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <BL0PR11MB31228B04A94499F2A2C64BBDA1830@BL0PR11MB3122.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <20200614213006.GZ11992@kduck.mit.edu> <BL0PR11MB31223F4734793B7C5A1CF849A19C0@BL0PR11MB3122.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR11MB31223F4734793B7C5A1CF849A19C0@BL0PR11MB3122.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/zXgMDXcOaeZ4RFv-gsYLc2aXSrM>
Subject: Re: [Rats] New Version Notification for draft-voit-rats-trusted-path-routing-02
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: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 23:12:07 -0000

Hi Eric,

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:26:36PM +0000, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> 
> > From: Benjamin Kaduk. June 14, 2020 5:30 PM
> > 
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 08:13:15PM +0000, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote:
> > > Of general interest in this draft the definition of a Trustworthiness
> > > Vector
> > > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-voit-rats-trusted-path-routing-02#s
> > > ection-3.2> which contains a ordered list of Trustworthiness Levels.
> > > This vector is returned within Attestation Results, and is actionable
> > > by a Relying Party.
> > 
> > I wonder if this usage could be syncrhonized with the RFC 8485 "Vector of
> > Trust".
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out, I had not seen it. And it is interesting.  A
> few initial thoughts...
> 
> (1) The universe of RFC8485 Component Dimensions does have a partial overlap
> with my draft beyond the reuse of the 'vector'.   For example Identity
> proofing and assertion presentation are things RATS cares about.  RATS also
> cares about 'credential' lifecycle.  
> 
> (2) There are many significant domain of claims related to attestation which
> are not covered in RFC8485.    E.g.:
> (a) whole categories of appraisal assertions such as 'hw-authentic',
> 'boot-verified' or 'file-blacklisted' would need brand new 'component
> dimensions'.   (Note: RFC8485 does allow other RFCs to grow additional
> contexts, so perhaps this would be ok, this is of assuming someone is
> willing to steward this language across many domains.)

>From memory, I think it even encourages such growth, not just allowing them.

> (b) The lifecycle of Attestation Results beyond credentials quite important
> with RATS.
> 
> (3) RFC8485 suggests formal codes for the level of assurance of assertions
> being made.  This would mean that the language of Attestation Results should
> be very rich.  In fact it should be far richer that the small handful of
> simple human-understandable identities which I proposed in my draft.
> 
> With this in mind, I have generalized your question to be: how formal should
> the language of Attestation Results be?   In the end, it wouldn't be too
> hard to map my draft's YANG identities into *new/extended* RFC8485 vector
> constructs.   But I am not yet able to see lots of immediate value.  

That's fair.  I certainly don't have an answer in mind, myself :)

> The first question I need to look at from the perspective of
> routers/switches is how useful it would be to have an expandable standard
> taxonomy and encoding for Appraisal Results.  An early guess would be that
> someone who has open source code/expertise in formally expressing Appraisal
> Results would be better positioned to see if this might be worthy of a draft
> submission.  
> 
> Or said another way: if somebody has the expertise and desire to drive an
> IETF-wide appraisal results language beyond the RFC8485 starting point, I
> would happily map my very simple constructs into that language.

Understood.  Thanks for reading and thinking about it!

-Ben