Re: [Secret] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on charter-ietf-tigress-00-01: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>]

Hi Murray!

Thanks for the feedback.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Murray Kucherawy via
> Datatracker
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 3:52 PM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on charter-ietf-tigress-00-01: (with
> COMMENT)
> 
> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-tigress-00-01: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
> paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-tigress/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The second paragraph reads like a bunch of decisions have already been made.
> I suggest this should be rewritten to specify requirements (if that's appropriate
> at this stage) rather than enumerating things that appear to be properties of an
> already preferred solution.

My understanding from the BoF discussions is that there are certain baseline assumption planned for the solution and this paragraph tries to capture them.

Sentence by sentence from the charter:

(Sentence 1) A The WG charter includes the definition and standardization of a protocol that
will facilitate such credential transfers from one person's device to
another person's device. 

Comment: largely a restatement of the WG's goal

(Sentence 2) The protocol will leverage a "relay server" to transfer data from sender to recipient. 

Comment: a fundamental architecture assumption that the devices won't directly talk to each other

(Sentence 3) The scope of the transfer is limited to a single origin device and a single destination device.

Comment: another fundamental assumption about the scope.

(Sentence 4) Note that neither private keys nor secret symmetric keys present on the sender's device are exchanged during the transfer operation. In the
transfer protocol, the "credential" being transferred from sender to recipient comprises data both necessary and sufficient for the recipient to exchange with the credential authority for new digital key material granting the recipient a subset of the sender's capabilities or entitlements.

Comment: clarifying language requested from the BoF and subsequent mailing list discussion that the solution space is not about a sending passing a recipient a "key."

Roman