[seal] Re: Mohamed Boucadair's Yes on charter-ietf-seal-00-03: (with COMMENT)

[[e-mail]]

Hi Usama, 

 

As the new work is basically gluing techniques in two fields (authentication/attestation) to put it simple, it is not clear at this stage whether conventional operational guidance will apply or there is a need for specific SEAL guidance.

 

My suggestion is to update your scope part to have a provision for that. I suggest you add the following at the end of the scoping bullets.

 

NEW:

  Also, the WG will document associated operational guidance with respect to SEAT.

 

Cheers,

Med

 

De : Muhammad Usama Sardar <[e-mail]> 
Envoyé : mercredi 8 octobre 2025 16:37
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Objet : Re: [seal] Mohamed Boucadair's Yes on charter-ietf-seal-00-03: (with COMMENT)

 

Hi Med,

Thank you (again) for your support. A clarification question inline:

On 08.10.25 15:11, Mohamed Boucadair via Datatracker wrote:

 
The version that went for
external review, included
 
"have taken into account any Operational Considerations that apply"
 
.. which I see removed in the latest version as a side effect of wimse mention
removal.

Is your comment that the operational considerations part must have stayed independent of WIMSE part? If so, Ekr proposed the following text which I slightly updated and I thought it already captures your comment more concretely:

*	The attested D(TLS) protocol extension will also describe a minimum
subset of properties that the attested state must convey in order
to bind the Evidence and Attestation Results to the TLS connection.

"Any operational considerations that apply" seems too broad and vague to me. Do you have any specific proposed changes to above text?

-Usama