Re: [VoT] Clause 7 edgy on scope? (RE: Vectors of Trust I-D)

Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> Tue, 30 June 2015 00:49 UTC

Return-Path: <jricher@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: vot@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vot@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F3EA1A1A51 for <vot@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 17:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 44e8C3J1Km-X for <vot@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 17:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu [18.9.25.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 650561A1A4E for <vot@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 17:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 1209190c-f79296d000000622-26-5591e7833418
Received: from mailhub-auth-4.mit.edu ( [18.7.62.39]) (using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id CE.6B.01570.387E1955; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:49:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-4.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id t5U0n7Uh024869; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:49:07 -0400
Received: from artemisia.richer.local (static-96-237-195-53.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [96.237.195.53]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as jricher@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id t5U0n53S017384 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:49:06 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CBE12F76-DB82-4CD7-8E49-369950E7EBB4"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
From: Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <147EE18440E5AF44834B220ED35BA530014AB1AEC1@WLGPRDMBX02.dia.govt.nz>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:49:04 -0400
Message-Id: <F54072E0-5653-49B2-A370-E1C6318E7985@mit.edu>
References: <147EE18440E5AF44834B220ED35BA530014AB1AEC1@WLGPRDMBX02.dia.govt.nz>
To: Colin Wallis <Colin.Wallis@dia.govt.nz>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupjleLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42IRYrdT1215PjHU4MxFRos9Ew+zWTT8fMDq wORxZFKBx5IlP5kCmKK4bFJSczLLUov07RK4Mq5sOcta0B9ZsXVLL1MD4znfLkZODgkBE4kp r9awQ9hiEhfurWcDsYUEFjNJbPku2MXIBWRvZJRoOfWBDcJ5yCTx88RbsCpmgQSJd6/bwLp5 BfQkHj19DGYLC7hK7GlbwgpiswmoSkxf08IEYnMKBEpMer0RLM4CFF/5ppcFYo6ixLlp5xgh 5lhJbL2/iRXiigCJ39tugtWICGhLnJ1yirmLkQPoUlmJr1vlJjAKzEJyxSwkV0DEtSWWLXzN DGFrSuzvXs6CKa4h0fltIusCRrZVjLIpuVW6uYmZOcWpybrFyYl5ealFuoZ6uZkleqkppZsY QcHOKcmzg/HNQaVDjAIcjEo8vAlPJ4YKsSaWFVfmHmKU5GBSEuU1uwsU4kvKT6nMSCzOiC8q zUktPsQowcGsJMLLFAuU401JrKxKLcqHSUlzsCiJ8276wRciJJCeWJKanZpakFoEk5Xh4FCS 4BV6BtQoWJSanlqRlplTgpBm4uAEGc4DNPwpyC28xQWJucWZ6RD5U4yKUuK8PiDNAiCJjNI8 uF5YMnrFKA70ijBvDUgVDzCRwXW/AhrMBDR4lXcfyOCSRISUVANjX37jrQUlIjsXnJUM27Zm MnfG+5/lz/o/2IXfe5VR0vb53F8FzcqkiS9XXbQ7trzZXDI64L/8jlaFwg0Pk+s85xqUOrLt uC++bNHt6ZYTnq/xOj9HJCO17dJOxh8S8ziEou3eR//6H/trexNzVNWfP3fWujLM/rf++srD 4benLr6VpS3mPbdxlRJLcUaioRZzUXEiAIG87oAhAwAA
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/vot/oVKPWE74kNUcO-C5RfV981Ij3Co>
Cc: "vot@ietf.org" <vot@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [VoT] Clause 7 edgy on scope? (RE: Vectors of Trust I-D)
X-BeenThere: vot@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Vectors of Trust discussion list <vot.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/vot>, <mailto:vot-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/vot/>
List-Post: <mailto:vot@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vot-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vot>, <mailto:vot-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 00:49:12 -0000

Colin, that’s a great question, because I’m honestly not sure what the answer is yet. I think that the vectors only make sense in the context of some kind of trust framework setup, but that sometimes those policies will be hard-coded at configuration time and won’t need to be dynamically bound or discovered. That said, I think the real value of this is going to be cross-domain where an RP could subscribe to (and understand) multiple trust marks and be able to validate them at runtime. Still, that piece might be separable enough, and perhaps substantive enough, to be its own draft. 

That said, I figured I’d write it down down and figure out where it’s actually supposed to go later. :)

 — Justin

> On Jun 29, 2015, at 7:14 PM, Colin Wallis <Colin.Wallis@dia.govt.nz> wrote:
> 
> Many thanks Justin and Leif
>  
> I’ve done a first pass/light read, and from that, I think it is a terrific first cut that gets us on the path to normalizing the discussions over the past 9 months.
>  
> Aside from a few tidy ups, I just have this slight concern whether all of Clause 7 (Discovery and Verification) is in scope for normative text?
> I certainly appreciate that in most implementations and deployments, there would be a dependency on an operational trust framework and trustmark.
> But is it too big a stretch to make that normative for this work?
> Just a thought.. and more than happy to be proven wrong.. J.
>  
> Cheers
> Colin
>  
>  
> From: vot [mailto:vot-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Justin Richer
> Sent: Saturday, 27 June 2015 3:15 p.m.
> To: vot@ietf.org
> Subject: [VoT] Vectors of Trust I-D
>  
> Hi Everyone,
>  
> I have taken the initial strawman proposal along with a substantial number of edits and inputs from several folks and have created an initial I-D of the document:
>  
> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-richer-vectors-of-trust-00 <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-richer-vectors-of-trust-00>
>  
> It’s still a very drafty draft, but hopefully it’s starting to make this a concrete thing. Please read it over and discuss it here on the list.
>  
> I would like to propose a bar-BoF in Prague for VoT for anyone who would like to discuss this. If you’re interested (and will be there in person), let me know!
>  
>  — Justin