IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 07 October 2019 13:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@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 69E7D1200CD; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 06:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.435
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 q1FMhpwGHGak; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 06:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [IPv6:2a01:7e00::f03c:91ff:feae:de77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABE4E1200CC; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 06:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (unknown [80.233.32.253]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12D721F456; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 13:55:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 34EC11BBA; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 15:56:39 +0200 (CEST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>
cc: "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <ncamwing@cisco.com>, "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>, "teep@ietf.org" <teep@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <8CF426EA-B2E7-44FA-A5C6-888E54DE641B@island-resort.com>
References: <79E5AD05-85F9-47F6-936F-E5BB5762DB83@cisco.com> <8CF426EA-B2E7-44FA-A5C6-888E54DE641B@island-resort.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com> message dated "Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:03:10 -0700."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 15:56:39 +0200
Message-ID: <6181.1570456599@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/TDOKdsHiChXSSY6Lnnjm5CtFvE0>
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: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 13:55:57 -0000

Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com> wrote:
    > 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

This was a request for the first virtual interim, I think.
I don't have the link handy for tomorrow, but I don't think we are doing
this.

I think that the need to go over this is still open.

How can we improve the FIDO and Android Key Store use case explanations?

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email