IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Teep] My BoF impression

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 05 April 2017 13:03 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 E0074128616 for <teep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 Fv3juKQAt3_a for <teep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:03:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 079B5127076 for <teep@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:03:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B089F203AF for <teep@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:28:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E98B1636BB for <teep@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:03:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: teep <teep@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CB221FB1-18D2-4F7B-88D9-1E9F9828D468@qti.qualcomm.com>
References: <HE1PR0802MB2475515770704882F9CFBDBCFA080@HE1PR0802MB2475.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <22755.33183.740819.743679@fireball.acr.fi> <CB221FB1-18D2-4F7B-88D9-1E9F9828D468@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:03:43 -0400
Message-ID: <2345.1491397423@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/H9qiAGt-_JjtN0y1EYr1KCDDAyY>
Subject: Re: [Teep] My BoF impression
X-BeenThere: teep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:03:47 -0000

Jeremy O'Donoghue <jodonogh@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
    > There is one group - essentially those sponsoring the creation of this
    > group - which has a very clear understanding of what it would like
    > TEEP to be, which is essentially three things:

...

    > There is a second group which is starting from a more abstract
    > position of what a TEE should look like and what security services it
    > might then provide to a system and how the control of these could be
    > structured. This is a completely different problem, and likely a much
    > broader one which is difficult to encapsulate in a small scope.


Do you think the second group, which I perceive as being more of the core
IETF security types, is interested/willing to engage with the first group?

Is the first group actually willing to turn editorial control over to the
IETF?   Can we kill both birds with one protocol?


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email