Re: [Teep] [Rats] EAT claims needed by TEEP

Hi,

+1 to Brendan's point about why "human-readable" strings are a *bad* idea
for
hardware type identifiers.

+1 to Thomas and Jeremy's observations.

Cheers,
- Ira

*Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)*

*Chair - SAE Trust Anchors and Authentication TF*
*Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG*

*Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG*

*Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WGSecretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer
Working GroupCo-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WGIETF
Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIBBlue Roof Music / High North
Inchttp://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
<http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>mailto: blueroofmusic@gmail.com
<blueroofmusic@gmail.com>(permanent) PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434*

On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 8:43 AM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

>
> Thomas Fossati <tho.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>     > Besides, it looks like we'd be creating a bad precedent because then
> one
>     > could easily argue that *every* claim is possibly just a byte string
> or,
>     > pushing this line of reasoning just a bit further, the whole
> claims-set
>     > could be seen as one single gigantic opaque claim.
>
> ! make me think about the multiple levels of "comment" that occured in the
> JCL days, where commands were comments...
>
> Brendan Moran <Brendan.Moran@arm.com> wrote:
>     > Strings are not the right choice for machine readable fields. There
> are
>     > extremely good reasons not to use them. Please do not use strings for
>     > model IDs.
>
>     > When you have a string, it is inevitable that someone in marketing
> will
>     > realise that it’s human-readable. The next step is that it must be
>     > controlled to preserve brand image. When this happens, it is also
>     > inevitable that *wildly incompatible hardware* with *the same
> function*
>     > will be forced into the same “model number.”
>
> This has happened multiple times out there.
> Same box, same case, entirely different CPU inside.
>
>     > By making model identification explicitly non-parseable by humans, we
>     > prohibit its use as a controllable, human facing identifier. This
>     > ensures that it has a better chance of being used correctly as a
> means
>     > to distinguish between mutually incompatible versions.
>
> !
>
> mcr suggested>
>
>   "There is no global scheme or format for this claim."
>     ->
>   "The format for this scheme will need to be specified within profiles
> that use it."
>
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> RATS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
>