IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Teep] TEEP breaking OTrP compatibility consensus

Jeremy O'Donoghue <jodonogh@qti.qualcomm.com> Sun, 04 August 2019 01:21 UTC

Return-Path: <jodonogh@qti.qualcomm.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 6A41F120151 for <teep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 18:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=qti.qualcomm.com
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 F2cV9mtoNlpe for <teep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 18:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alexa-out-ams-02.qualcomm.com (alexa-out-ams-02.qualcomm.com [185.23.61.163]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A076B1200F7 for <teep@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 18:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1564881710; x=1596417710; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=pst77gpGn7g/Mg9UeFui7El5k8EiBR5jsSHz8GOkuZg=; b=LwJXfh9ToPJHqauWsXKbJK9Spg8TxX1D9bKqUcBGQXSuVP7xFvuyFOCc sZgiDaCyCvkrFMHYTkrZXoO455udcYwuFkORXMTjRtDIMEz6oT0qp8y5D /0gMN4HlYxun+lM1kCENj4TAFEvB/bGvScMcyK2Znc4DpDDogk17aTQxL 4=;
Received: from ironmsg01-ams.qualcomm.com ([10.251.56.2]) by alexa-out-ams-02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 04 Aug 2019 03:21:48 +0200
Received: from euamsexm01a.eu.qualcomm.com ([10.251.127.40]) by ironmsg01-ams.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 04 Aug 2019 03:21:45 +0200
Received: from euamsexm01a.eu.qualcomm.com (10.251.127.40) by euamsexm01a.eu.qualcomm.com (10.251.127.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Sun, 4 Aug 2019 03:21:43 +0200
Received: from euamsexm01a.eu.qualcomm.com ([10.251.127.40]) by euamsexm01a.eu.qualcomm.com ([10.251.127.40]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.003; Sun, 4 Aug 2019 03:21:43 +0200
From: Jeremy O'Donoghue <jodonogh@qti.qualcomm.com>
To: "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <ncamwing@cisco.com>
CC: "teep@ietf.org" <teep@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teep] TEEP breaking OTrP compatibility consensus
Thread-Index: AQHVSmL41L+Wp7yydEqd0X4UqPvP0g==
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2019 01:21:41 +0000
Message-ID: <814AA3C4-F4F3-4867-9274-DB18C05A5983@qti.qualcomm.com>
References: <5FDD8324-4F4E-4486-A086-C4E778B8AE39@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5FDD8324-4F4E-4486-A086-C4E778B8AE39@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_814AA3C4F4F348679274DB18C05A5983qtiqualcommcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/9GMYdqZiZDzj0p96lkm-r5VAA78>
Subject: Re: [Teep] TEEP breaking OTrP compatibility consensus
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: Sun, 04 Aug 2019 01:21:53 -0000

No objection provided that the OTrP name and references are dropped. I believe there has been at least some indication on mailing list that this would be acceptable.

I would otherwise object on the basis of published specifications compatible with the original OTrP contribution and based on the SD concept, such as https://globalplatform.org/specs-library/tee-management-framework-open-trust-protocol/ I believe there would be a risk of confusion caused by lack of interoperability between similarly named protocols.

Best regards
Jeremy

On 4 Aug 2019, at 08:48, Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) <ncamwing@cisco.com<mailto:ncamwing@cisco.com>> wrote:


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.
All,

At IETF 105, there was consensus to the question: Is the (TEEP working) group willing to break backwards compatibility with OTrP 1.0?

If there are objections to this decision, please respond by Aug 16th to this email with the rationale for why TEEP should continue OTrP compatibility.

Thanks,
                Nancy

_______________________________________________
TEEP mailing list
TEEP@ietf.org<mailto:TEEP@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teep

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email