Subject: [WIMSE] Re: [Seat] Re: [Rats] Re: Re: Re: Re: Follow-up of meeting 122 presentation (Formal proof of insecurity of Intel's RA-TLS and draft-fossati-tls-attestation)
From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
To: Muhammad Usama Sardar <[email-masked]>
Cc: John Kemp <[email-masked]>, Joseph Salowey <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>, Manu Fontaine <[email-masked]>, Nathanael Ritz <[email-masked]>, Henk Birkholz <[email-masked]>, Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>, Justin Richer <[email-masked]>, Pieter Kasselman <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], Sorin Dumitru <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 23:48:22
List-Id: WIMSE Workload Identity in Multi-Service Environment <wimse.ietf.org>

On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 6:12 PM Muhammad Usama Sardar <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Could WIMSE clarify which one of the following is intended in its
> attestation?
>
>    1. Software-based attestation *only*
>    2. Any of software-based attestation or hardware-based attestation
>
> This is a false dichotomy. Wimse is trying to keep it generic, without
locking in to anything. Perhaps someone wants to do attestation via the
Horn of Valere, and deem something attested when the horn is blown. It does
not matter. As others also tried to convey, there is no interest to blow
this up with massive amounts of attestation details. It is the wrong place
for that. WIMSE is not SEAT.

Paul