Re: [Teep] TEEP Architecture Last Call Review

[Ines Robles <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ming,

Thank you for addressing my comments, I am Ok with them

BR,
Ines.

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 12:11 PM Mingliang Pei <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Ines,
>
> Thank you very much for your review
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teep-architecture-18-iotdir-telechat-robles-2022-09-04/>
> of our TEEP Architecture draft
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teep-architecture/>. We have
> created an issue tracker in github for TEEP as #250
> <https://github.com/ietf-teep/architecture/issues/250>. Please see below
> for our comments and a fix that we have adopted. Please also feel free to
> check out the Github issue tracker that has more details about discussions
> and fixes.
>
>
>    -
>
>    Pag 9 - Figure 1: The arrows in the diagram are unidirectional, Are
>    there
>    cases where it could be bidirectional: e.g. the communication of the
>    Agent with
>    the Broker?
>
> Ming: we consider it always unidirectional, and don't find a case where
> we need bidirectional support. A TEEP Agent inside TEE doesn't call back
> and out to a TEEP Broker inside a REE.
>
>    -
>
>    Having an IoT scenario, in your opinion which type of Classes of
>    Constrained
>    Devices (Class 0, Class 1, etc. [RFC7228
>    <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7228/>]) can participate in the
>    TEE as a
>    "Device" in Figure 1.
>
> Ming: we authors discussed and consider the following:
>
> There is no clear spec from RFC 7228 to say which classes of IoT devices
> may fit. We will not specify it and leave such recommendations to the
> adopters. And the TEEP allows any code as long as the capacity fits.
>
>
> Is this fine with you?
>
>    -
>
>    Page 27: "...In some use cases it may be sufficient to identify only
>    the
>    class of the device..." what do you mean with class of device?
>    Perphaps would
>    be nice to add between brackets some examples.
>
> Ming: good suggestion. We provided an example, and a reference to RATS DAA
> as follows:
>
> "In some use cases it may be sufficient to identify
> only the class of the device, for example, a DAA Issuer's group public key
> ID when the attestation uses DAA, see {{I-D.ietf-rats-daa}}."
>
> Is this fine?
>
> Thank you again for your suggestions and reviews. Best,
>
> Ming
>
> This electronic communication and the information and any files
> transmitted with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and
> may contain information that is confidential, legally privileged, protected
> by privacy laws, or otherwise restricted from disclosure to anyone else. If
> you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering
> the e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,
> copying, distributing, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of
> this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error,
> please return the e-mail to the sender, delete it from your computer, and
> destroy any printed copy of it.