Re: [Teep] Charter strawman proposal

Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org> Fri, 31 March 2017 14:35 UTC

Return-Path: <nordmark@acm.org>
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 E22D6129962 for <teep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 07:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.935
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.935 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 IK9Wt9qmb9PQ for <teep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 07:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d.mail.sonic.net (d.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3681F12995D for <teep@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 07:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [31.133.133.70] (dhcp-8546.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.133.70]) (authenticated bits=0) by d.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id v2VEZMRq022925 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 31 Mar 2017 07:35:23 -0700
To: teep@ietf.org
References: <HE1PR0802MB2475D750A62DFFAB28F1768CFA320@HE1PR0802MB2475.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <0627F5240443D2498FAA65332EE46C84366EA50D@CRSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com>
From: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>
Message-ID: <fc368026-5beb-a283-3ad6-7c1ba0b77a0f@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:35:22 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0627F5240443D2498FAA65332EE46C84366EA50D@CRSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVaelr8fx/PdmnPsjXd38pQquY9IlfrV3mlPgEDsJbP68gEOnfRlD6UlXctEEraSHgv0zq+U3t+MFukMUkAk5F0B
X-Sonic-ID: C;CER4RR8W5xGi4bSd+VpWsw== M;PrvyRR8W5xGi4bSd+VpWsw==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/goY6UoQhWS44kKZaVENXgQdSbuo>
Subject: Re: [Teep] Charter strawman proposal
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: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 14:35:35 -0000

On 03/28/2017 02:18 PM, Wheeler, David M wrote:

>
> This working group aims to develop an application layer protocol providing TEEs with the following functionality,
>  * discovery of TEE capabilities
>  * management of trusted applications,
>  * attestation, and
>  * security domain management (which provides a logical space that contains the service provider's applications).

Hannes and Dave,

The above list of proposed work items is useful. I wish we could have 
discussed it a bit at the BoF.

Questions that come to mind is which of the above would be protocols and 
which would be data models, and then a feel for the gaps in these areas 
relative to currently existing mechanisms and standards.

For example, I assume there are protocols and data models to manage 
applications on the devices. Do we need something brand new for the 
trusted applications? Or just some minor extensions?

Is there some gap analysis which can be shared with the list?

Thanks,
    Erik