Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Attestation work #44

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Feb 4, 2019
Merged

Attestation work #44

merged 10 commits into from
Feb 4, 2019

Conversation

dmwheel1
Copy link
Collaborator

@dmwheel1 dmwheel1 commented Feb 1, 2019

Created a paragraph to describe attestation capabilities,
This answers issue #17, but it requires additional work to describe some additional elements.
Please review and approve this change, and if OK, then other paragraphs will be written.

Dave W and others added 8 commits October 24, 2018 08:46
Rebase to latest on ietf-teep
Changed to use capitalized words across the entire file for a defined terminology.
Detailed explanation of attestation and outline the things needed by TEEP.
Copy link
Collaborator

@dthaler dthaler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Minor nits, except for the bit about the attestation format being "TEEP-defined"

draft-ietf-teep-architecture.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
draft-ietf-teep-architecture.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
draft-ietf-teep-architecture.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
draft-ietf-teep-architecture.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Some TAMs or SPs may require additional claims in order to properly authorize a device or TEE. These
additional claims may help clear up any assumptions for which the TAM/SP wants to alleviate. The specific
format for these additional claims are outside the scope of this specification, but the OTrP protocol
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree the format is outside the scope of this spec. But line 970 and 979 imply it will be specified by the TEEP WG. I don't think we should assume that. If RATS or EAT ever become a WG, that would be a more natural place for it.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I modified the wording to make it more clear (hopefully) that the extensions are not defined in TEEP, but the format allows the inclusion of other groups or standard's extensions. See what you think. OK?

draft-ietf-teep-architecture.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
David Wheeler and others added 2 commits February 1, 2019 17:22
Requested changes to attestation section and Crypto agility section included
@dmwheel1 dmwheel1 merged commit 8fed081 into ietf-teep:master Feb 4, 2019
@dmwheel1 dmwheel1 deleted the AttestationWork branch February 4, 2019 18:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants