Re: [Teep] [Rats] RATS Virtual meeting (1st hour with TEEP)

Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com> Fri, 23 August 2019 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <lgl@island-resort.com>
X-Original-To: teep@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teep@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30C411201E3 for <teep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 sQOumSXBEz1R for <teep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plsmtpa11-01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa11-01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [68.178.252.102]) (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 1C615120122 for <teep@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.17.0.50] ([45.56.150.72]) by :SMTPAUTH: with ESMTPA id 1Eq7imoKocB8Z1Eq7iUe7f; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:03:11 -0700
From: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>
Message-Id: <8CF426EA-B2E7-44FA-A5C6-888E54DE641B@island-resort.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F42E20FD-20FA-4726-865A-310F79624C8D"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:03:10 -0700
In-Reply-To: <79E5AD05-85F9-47F6-936F-E5BB5762DB83@cisco.com>
Cc: "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>, "teep@ietf.org" <teep@ietf.org>
To: "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <ncamwing@cisco.com>
References: <79E5AD05-85F9-47F6-936F-E5BB5762DB83@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfAR3NvG0G7MkAv5ZpTilb21eIRCheRZ0GfjMTdzVCKymDdhyb6dABDzFz7a2tuaBpj1erT3xLDuzUBlycq+fvxwBrhXLU2NMRAQFkCoXhkYzx0rYrwxO /jcOi5fUUxbgJcCezVK2GpR2XehtklxaZF+yugG0X1BcXmJ0zV+z5OTbw5if6DBfjGva7mPwvsIfvKpv+FHLL7FLsHO7bi8vKSQ=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/7sddjDU2LcSDAlln_DiEF2pbqaI>
Subject: Re: [Teep] [Rats] RATS Virtual meeting (1st hour with TEEP)
X-BeenThere: teep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A Protocol for Dynamic Trusted Execution Environment Enablement <teep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teep>, <mailto:teep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teep/>
List-Post: <mailto:teep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teep>, <mailto:teep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 19:03:14 -0000

Hi Nancy


I’d like to see consensus on what we are doing about data model and information model. I’ve written some proposal and have seen no response. I would be happy to present my proposal on that. I did a little of that in Montreal, but wasn’t very well prepared.

I’d like to see us get to consensus on end-end trust is establishment, use of the term “attester” and the role for roots of trust. It sort of seems we have consensus around what I’ve most recently proposed for that (use the term “attester” widely; an attester may optionally be or contain a root of trust), because no one has written any objections, but that seems presumptuous.

I think there might be some over focus on TEEP in this agenda. 

I think getting consensus on data/info model is important because it has an effect on claims definition work.

I think getting consensus on the end-end trust model, attester and roots of trust is important because it is about the fundamentals of how RATS works and getting clear on will reduce general confusion.

I think the FIDO and Android Key Store use cases need to be as important and prominent as the TEEP use case. FIDO and Android are clear successes and deployed in millions of devices. Similarly network function (router) attestation is pretty important.

So I’d prefer:

30 minutes on data / info model

30 minutes on end-end trust, “attester" and root of trust

30 minutes on TEEP

LL





> On Aug 23, 2019, at 10:52 AM, Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) <ncamwing@cisco.com>; wrote:
> 
> RATs and TEEP participants,
> We will be holding a Virtual Interim on Sept 10, 2019 7-8:30am PST.  
>  
> The first hour is to hold a joint discussion on the TEEP use cases and requirements.
> Please provide other suggested agenda items by responding
>  
> Information about remote participation:
> JOIN WEBEX MEETING https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=mefed41895b6dc942bf92a1b4c121d907 <https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=mefed41895b6dc942bf92a1b4c121d907>
> Meeting number (access code): 646 390 311   
> Meeting password: hPrEtxQc    
> JOIN BY PHONE 1-650-479-3208 Call-in toll number (US/Canada) 
> Tap here to call (mobile phones only, hosts not supported): tel:%2B1-650-479-3208,,*01*646390311%23%23*01* <tel:%2B1-650-479-3208,,*01*646390311%23%23*01*>
>  
> Warm regards
>   The RATs and TEEP chairs.
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> RATS@ietf.org <mailto:RATS@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats>