Remote ATtestation procedureS (RATS) Architecture
draft-ietf-rats-architecture-22
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2023-01-09
|
22 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2022-11-09
|
22 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 |
2022-11-07
|
22 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2022-09-28
|
22 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2022-09-28
|
22 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2022-09-28
|
22 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2022-09-28
|
22 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress |
2022-09-28
|
22 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2022-09-28
|
22 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2022-09-28
|
22 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2022-09-28
|
22 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2022-09-28
|
22 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2022-09-28
|
22 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2022-09-28
|
22 | Roman Danyliw | Second IPR check close-out: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/kmxzURwxga-HcABzQm9fnqjDSGk/ |
2022-09-28
|
22 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2022-09-28
|
22 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2022-09-28
|
22 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-22.txt |
2022-09-28
|
22 | Michael Richardson | New version approved |
2022-09-28
|
22 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler , Henk Birkholz , Michael Richardson , Ned Smith , Wei Pan |
2022-09-28
|
22 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2022-09-22
|
21 | Roman Danyliw | IPR consultation to the WG: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/MhVbUNdLF2sp2s5YR_UrhlQHnkk/ |
2022-09-16
|
Jenny Bui | Posted related IPR disclosure Qualcomm Incorporated's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-rats-architecture | |
2022-09-16
|
Jenny Bui | Posted related IPR disclosure Qualcomm Incorporated's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-rats-architecture | |
2022-09-12
|
21 | Joe Clarke | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Joe Clarke. Sent review to list. |
2022-09-12
|
21 | Magnus Westerlund | Closed request for Telechat review by TSVART with state 'Withdrawn' |
2022-09-11
|
21 | Barry Leiba | Closed request for Last Call review by ARTART with state 'Overtaken by Events': Document has finished IESG processing |
2022-09-11
|
21 | Barry Leiba | Assignment of request for Last Call review by ARTART to Darrel Miller was marked no-response |
2022-09-08
|
21 | (System) | Changed action holders to Dave Thaler, Ned Smith, Michael Richardson, Henk Birkholz, Wei Pan (IESG state changed) |
2022-09-08
|
21 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2022-09-08
|
21 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Andrew Alston |
2022-09-08
|
21 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Robert Wilton has been changed to No Objection from No Record |
2022-09-07
|
21 | Magnus Westerlund | Assignment of request for Telechat review by TSVART to Joerg Ott was withdrawn |
2022-09-07
|
21 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Telechat review by TSVART is assigned to Joerg Ott |
2022-09-07
|
21 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Telechat review by TSVART is assigned to Joerg Ott |
2022-09-07
|
21 | Roman Danyliw | This document now replaces draft-thaler-rats-architecture, draft-birkholz-rats-architecture instead of None |
2022-09-07
|
21 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot comment] Thanks for the document. A few comments only. #1 Figure 3 I cannot make sense of Figure 3. I understand the text in … [Ballot comment] Thanks for the document. A few comments only. #1 Figure 3 I cannot make sense of Figure 3. I understand the text in Section 3.2, so it might not matter. But for instance the figure does not show to me at all that the bootloader attested the kernel. #2 Dark sides Obviously, this architecture can be misused for bad things. It might be nice to have a section on this as per RFC 8280, but I am also not sure what to say other than "don't use this to restrict people based on discriminatory features". #3 IPR I am a little concerned about the IPR claims filed. Intel reserves the right to charge, and Huawei only allows free use for Section 4.3 and 6 despite that there is no Section 4.3 and it makes little sense for Section 6 ? I also believe that this document merely lists very generic concepts based on known prior art (but I am not a lawyer) |
2022-09-07
|
21 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2022-09-07
|
21 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] I have very little to add, other than noting that I find Use-Case and Architecture documents to be really helpful. They help "set … [Ballot comment] I have very little to add, other than noting that I find Use-Case and Architecture documents to be really helpful. They help "set the stage" when reading a new set of document, or deploying a new technology. Thank you! |
2022-09-07
|
21 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2022-09-07
|
21 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] Should the datatracker show that this document replaces both draft-birkholz-rats-architecture and draft-thaler-rats-architecture? |
2022-09-07
|
21 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2022-09-07
|
21 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder |
2022-09-07
|
21 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-rats-architecture-21 CC @larseggert Thanks to Gyan S. Mishra for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/weBLFxmD2doRWhcZDm-kGjv8m0A … [Ballot comment] # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-rats-architecture-21 CC @larseggert Thanks to Gyan S. Mishra for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/weBLFxmD2doRWhcZDm-kGjv8m0A). ## Comments ### Boilerplate This document uses the RFC2119 keyword ['SHOULD'], but does not contain the recommended RFC8174 boilerplate. I don't think you need to add the boilerplate, simply rephrase the sentence so it is more clear that you are in fact citing RFC4086 here? ### Inclusive language Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more guidance: * Terms `native` and `natively`; alternatives might be `built-in`, `fundamental`, `ingrained`, `intrinsic`, `original` ## Nits All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. ### Grammar/style #### Section 2.6, paragraph 2 ``` uthenticator. Relying Party: Any web site, mobile application back-end, or s ^^^^^^^^ ``` Nowadays, it's more common to write this as one word. #### Section 3, paragraph 2 ``` em component, device is often used as a illustrative synonym throughout this ^ ``` Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. "an article", "an hour". #### Section 3, paragraph 4 ``` l messages shown in Figure 1. Section Section 4 provides a more complete def ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` Possible typo: you repeated a word. #### Section 3.2, paragraph 4 ``` -entity can be called an Attester. Among all the Attesters, there may be onl ^^^^^ ``` Do not mix variants of the same word ("among" and "amongst") within a single text. (Also elsewhere.) #### Section 3.2, paragraph 5 ``` final Evidence to the Verifier. Therefore the router is a composite device, ^^^^^^^^^ ``` A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Therefore". #### Section 3.2, paragraph 6 ``` t that connects to the Verifier. Typically one router in the group is design ^^^^^^^^^ ``` A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Typically". #### Section 4.1, paragraph 9 ``` ation (e.g., birth certificate) is the the Evidence, the passport is an Attes ^^^^^^^ ``` Possible typo: you repeated a word. #### Section 5.2, paragraph 7 ``` e Verifier is an expected one by out of band establishment of key material, c ^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` Did you mean "out-of-band"? #### Section 7.4, paragraph 1 ``` e 1 illustrates the flow of a conceptual messages between various roles. This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` The plural noun "messages" cannot be used with the article "a". Did you mean "a conceptual message" or "conceptual messages"? #### Section 7.5, paragraph 1 ``` n Attester, which can include privacy sensitive information as discussed in s ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` This word is normally spelled with a hyphen. #### Section 7.5, paragraph 2 ``` ve information as discussed in section Section 11. Unlike Evidence, which is ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` Possible typo: you repeated a word. #### Section 9, paragraph 10 ``` new epoch, such as by using a counter signed by the Epoch ID Distributor as ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` This word is normally spelled as one word. #### Section 9, paragraph 10 ``` essages that might be associated with a epoch ID that the receiver has not ye ^ ``` Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. "an article", "an hour". #### Section 9, paragraph 11 ``` ID approach minimizes the state kept to be independent of the number of Att ^^^^^^^^^^ ``` The verb "kept" is used with the gerund form. #### Section 11, paragraph 7 ``` avoid attacks where an attacker is able get a key they control endorsed. To s ^^^^^^^^ ``` The preposition "to" is required before the verb "get". #### Section 11, paragraph 8 ``` authentication, * auditing, * fine grained access controls, and * logging. S ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` This word is normally spelled with a hyphen. #### Section 12.1.1, paragraph 1 ``` pants in a certain epoch of choice for ever, effectively freezing time. This ^^^^^^^^ ``` The adverb "forever" is spelled as one word. ``` station Result contains an expiry time time(RX_v) then it could explicitly ch ^^^^^^^^^ ``` Possible typo: you repeated a word. #### Section 16.2, paragraph 20 ``` it to its own clock or timestamps. Thus we use a suffix ("a" for Attester, " ^^^^ ``` A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Thus". #### "Appendix A.", paragraph 3 ``` me(EG_a)-time(VG_a) < Threshold. Similarly if, based on an Attestation Resul ^^^^^^^^^ ``` A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Similarly". ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool |
2022-09-07
|
21 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lars Eggert |
2022-09-07
|
21 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2022-09-06
|
21 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot comment] Hi, Thanks for this architecture document. I only have a few minor/nit level comments: Minor level comments: (1) p 35, sec 10.4. Discussion … [Ballot comment] Hi, Thanks for this architecture document. I only have a few minor/nit level comments: Minor level comments: (1) p 35, sec 10.4. Discussion Implicit and explicit timekeeping can be combined into hybrid mechanisms. For example, if clocks exist and are considered trustworthy but are not synchronized, a nonce-based exchange may be used to determine the (relative) time offset between the involved peers, followed by any number of timestamp based exchanges. By trustworthy, I assume that this means that it is known that the clock on the device isn't suffering from clock skew? Nit level comments: (2) p 3, sec 1. Introduction in making one's decision to trust it or not. This is subtle This is a subtle ... (3) p 22, sec 5.3. Combinations .-------------. | | Compare Evidence | Verifier | against appraisal policy | | '--------+----' ^ | Evidence | | Attestation | | Result | v .----+--------. | | Compare | Relying | Attestation Result | Party 2 | against appraisal policy '--------+----' ^ | Evidence | | Attestation | | Result | v .----+--------. .-------------. | +-------------->| | Compare Attestation | Attester | Attestation | Relying | Result against | | Result | Party 1 | appraisal policy '-------------' '-------------' As a very minor nit, I'm surprised that the numbering of the relying parties is not the other way round, since presumably the flow talks to relying party 2 before relying party 1. As alternative suggestion could be to label them something like "Main Relying Party" and "Secondary Relying Party". Regards, Rob |
2022-09-06
|
21 | Robert Wilton | Ballot comment text updated for Robert Wilton |
2022-09-04
|
21 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2022-09-01
|
21 | Roman Danyliw | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2022-09-08 |
2022-09-01
|
21 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot has been issued |
2022-09-01
|
21 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2022-09-01
|
21 | Roman Danyliw | Created "Approve" ballot |
2022-09-01
|
21 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2022-09-01
|
21 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot writeup was changed |
2022-09-01
|
21 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2022-08-30
|
21 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2022-08-30
|
21 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-rats-architecture-21, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-rats-architecture-21, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. For definitions of IANA review states, please see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Lead IANA Services Specialist |
2022-08-29
|
21 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joe Clarke |
2022-08-29
|
21 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joe Clarke |
2022-08-26
|
21 | Shawn Emery | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Shawn Emery. Sent review to list. |
2022-08-21
|
21 | Barry Leiba | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Darrel Miller |
2022-08-21
|
21 | Barry Leiba | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Darrel Miller |
2022-08-19
|
21 | Gyan Mishra | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Gyan Mishra. Sent review to list. |
2022-08-18
|
21 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery |
2022-08-18
|
21 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery |
2022-08-18
|
21 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Gyan Mishra |
2022-08-18
|
21 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Gyan Mishra |
2022-08-18
|
21 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2022-08-18
|
21 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-09-01): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-rats-architecture@ietf.org, rats-chairs@ietf.org, rats@ietf.org, rdd@cert.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-09-01): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-rats-architecture@ietf.org, rats-chairs@ietf.org, rats@ietf.org, rdd@cert.org Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Remote Attestation Procedures Architecture) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Remote ATtestation ProcedureS WG (rats) to consider the following document: - 'Remote Attestation Procedures Architecture' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-09-01. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract In network protocol exchanges it is often useful for one end of a communication to know whether the other end is in an intended operating state. This document provides an architectural overview of the entities involved that make such tests possible through the process of generating, conveying, and evaluating evidentiary claims. An attempt is made to provide for a model that is neutral toward processor architectures, the content of claims, and protocols. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-architecture/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5042/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4106/ |
2022-08-18
|
21 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2022-08-18
|
21 | Roman Danyliw | Last call was requested |
2022-08-18
|
21 | Roman Danyliw | Last call announcement was generated |
2022-08-18
|
21 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot approval text was generated |
2022-08-18
|
21 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot writeup was generated |
2022-08-18
|
21 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2022-08-16
|
21 | (System) | Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed) |
2022-08-16
|
21 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2022-08-16
|
21 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-21.txt |
2022-08-16
|
21 | Michael Richardson | New version approved |
2022-08-16
|
21 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler , Henk Birkholz , Michael Richardson , Ned Smith , Wei Pan |
2022-08-16
|
21 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2022-08-15
|
20 | Roman Danyliw | See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/vEKOr7v0hNUeKbnfWrz7F1fZCFI/ |
2022-08-15
|
20 | (System) | Changed action holders to Dave Thaler, Ned Smith, Michael Richardson, Roman Danyliw, Henk Birkholz, Wei Pan (IESG state changed) |
2022-08-15
|
20 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2022-07-28
|
20 | (System) | Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed) |
2022-07-28
|
20 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2022-07-28
|
20 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-20.txt |
2022-07-28
|
20 | Michael Richardson | New version approved |
2022-07-28
|
20 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler , Henk Birkholz , Michael Richardson , Ned Smith , Wei Pan |
2022-07-28
|
20 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2022-07-28
|
19 | Roman Danyliw | Per https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/OtxO601OGI8yYl7hvi6UkGQNesA/ and IETF 114 discussion, additional clarifying text was to be added in Section 4 to explain Section 5. |
2022-07-28
|
19 | (System) | Changed action holders to Dave Thaler, Ned Smith, Michael Richardson, Roman Danyliw, Henk Birkholz, Wei Pan (IESG state changed) |
2022-07-28
|
19 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2022-07-24
|
19 | (System) | Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed) |
2022-07-24
|
19 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2022-07-24
|
19 | Henk Birkholz | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-19.txt |
2022-07-24
|
19 | Michael Richardson | New version approved |
2022-07-24
|
19 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler , Henk Birkholz , Michael Richardson , Ned Smith , Wei Pan |
2022-07-24
|
19 | Henk Birkholz | Uploaded new revision |
2022-07-21
|
18 | Roman Danyliw | See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/lC_noeO-16zUI_mpztthL2GQtpI/ |
2022-07-21
|
18 | (System) | Changed action holders to Dave Thaler, Ned Smith, Michael Richardson, Roman Danyliw, Henk Birkholz, Wei Pan (IESG state changed) |
2022-07-21
|
18 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2022-07-21
|
18 | Ned Smith | Added to session: IETF-114: rats Mon-1000 |
2022-06-14
|
18 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-18.txt |
2022-06-14
|
18 | Michael Richardson | New version approved |
2022-06-14
|
18 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler , Henk Birkholz , Michael Richardson , Ned Smith , Wei Pan |
2022-06-14
|
18 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2022-06-01
|
17 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-17.txt |
2022-06-01
|
17 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-06-01
|
17 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler , Henk Birkholz , Michael Richardson , Ned Smith , Wei Pan |
2022-06-01
|
17 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2022-05-24
|
16 | (System) | Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed) |
2022-05-24
|
16 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2022-05-24
|
16 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-16.txt |
2022-05-24
|
16 | Michael Richardson | New version approved |
2022-05-24
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler , Henk Birkholz , Michael Richardson , Ned Smith , Wei Pan |
2022-05-24
|
16 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2022-05-03
|
15 | Roman Danyliw | AD Review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/-gzXtqv_eUWUkNo1kpdMVNbvJ7s/ |
2022-05-03
|
15 | (System) | Changed action holders to Dave Thaler, Ned Smith, Michael Richardson, Roman Danyliw, Henk Birkholz, Wei Pan (IESG state changed) |
2022-05-03
|
15 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested |
2022-03-15
|
15 | Ned Smith | Added to session: IETF-113: rats Tue-1000 |
2022-02-18
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational. The document describes the architecture for Remote Attestation Procedures, providing foundational information for developers and implementors. Yes, informational is appropriately indicated. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: In Remote Attestation Procedures (RATS), one peer (the "Attester") produces believable information about itself - Evidence - to enable a remote peer (the "Relying Party") to decide whether to consider that Attester a trustworthy peer or not. RATS are facilitated by an additional vital party, the Verifier. This document describes the supporting architecture for RATS. In network protocol exchanges it is often useful for one end of a communication to know whether the other end is in an intended operating state. This document provides an architectural overview of the entities involved that make such tests possible through the process of generating, conveying, and evaluating evidentiary claims. An attempt is made to provide for a model that is neutral toward processor architectures, the content of claims, and protocols. Working Group Summary: This document represents a unification of the working group on architectural considerations. While earlier versions did come with some disagreement, this version has had very good cross working group participation and the editor team did a nice job of incorporating feedback as appropriate. The working group also reviewed IPR submitted and ultimately determined to go ahead with this informational document (see response to question #8 below). Document Quality: There are existing implementations of the RATS architecture and supporting documents. Industry points to RATS when discussing remote attestations to follow the standards being developed. The approach encompasses other existing formats and protocols that are well excepted for conveying, signing, and validating evidence. This document is an important one to explain the overall architecture and considerations for remote attestation, a very important capability for information security assurance. With industry's push for increased use of encryption, the endpoint must be more secure and there must be a way to detect variances from what is expected on a system. Attestation provides a simplified way to do this over previous posture assessment technologies. This particular document is very important toward the goal of understanding this simple, but complex set of standards. The editors have done a nice job of working through the identified issues. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Kathleen Moriarty Responsible Area Director: Roman Danyliw (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd has followed the progress of this document from its inception and the merger of two prior documents. The shepherd has provided multiple reviews and all comments were addressed. The shepherd, WG Chairs, and AD also followed the IPR review process and documented WG agreement to proceed. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No Concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes, each author has confirmed all IPR disclosures appropriate have been submitted. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There was an extended review process of the working group on submitted IPR for this informational document. The outcome of this process was to proceed with publication. The summary of this agreement is noted in the responsible Area Director's message to the list with references to input from working group participants. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/3nCTOkNYW8ydEo0zHZlQoY8F92A/ (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is strong consensus among the working group. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No extra reviews were required (or appropriate). (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. There are no downrefs. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). There are no IANA considerations in this document. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. N/A (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. N/A, reviews of diagrams and tables only. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? N/A |
2022-02-18
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2022-02-18
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2022-02-18
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2022-02-08
|
15 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-15.txt |
2022-02-08
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-02-08
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler , Henk Birkholz , Michael Richardson , Ned Smith , Wei Pan |
2022-02-08
|
15 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2022-01-27
|
14 | Roman Danyliw | Document returned to WG pending resolution of WGLC comments -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/zWHRyC8x5yClzvmiua4W8KXbBjY/. |
2022-01-27
|
14 | (System) | Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed) |
2022-01-27
|
14 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to I-D Exists from Publication Requested |
2022-01-27
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | Tag Author or Editor Needed set. |
2022-01-27
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2022-01-27
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational. The document describes the architecture for Remote Attestation Procedures, providing foundational information for developers and implementors. Yes, informational is appropriately indicated. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: In Remote Attestation Procedures (RATS), one peer (the "Attester") produces believable information about itself - Evidence - to enable a remote peer (the "Relying Party") to decide whether to consider that Attester a trustworthy peer or not. RATS are facilitated by an additional vital party, the Verifier. This document describes the supporting architecture for RATS. In network protocol exchanges it is often useful for one end of a communication to know whether the other end is in an intended operating state. This document provides an architectural overview of the entities involved that make such tests possible through the process of generating, conveying, and evaluating evidentiary claims. An attempt is made to provide for a model that is neutral toward processor architectures, the content of claims, and protocols. Working Group Summary: This document represents a unification of the working group on architectural considerations. While earlier versions did come with some disagreement, this version has had very good cross working group participation and the editor team did a nice job of incorporating feedback as appropriate. The working group also reviewed IPR submitted and ultimately determined to go ahead with this informational document (see response to question #8 below). Document Quality: There are existing implementations of the RATS architecture and supporting documents. Industry points to RATS when discussing remote attestations to follow the standards being developed. The approach encompasses other existing formats and protocols that are well excepted for conveying, signing, and validating evidence. This document is an important one to explain the overall architecture and considerations for remote attestation, a very important capability for information security assurance. With industry's push for increased use of encryption, the endpoint must be more secure and there must be a way to detect variances from what is expected on a system. Attestation provides a simplified way to do this over previous posture assessment technologies. This particular document is very important toward the goal of understanding this simple, but complex set of standards. The editors have done a nice job of working through the identified issues. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Kathleen Moriarty Responsible Area Director: Roman Danyliw (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd has followed the progress of this document from its inception and the merger of two prior documents. The shepherd has provided multiple reviews and all comments were addressed. The shepherd, WG Chairs, and AD also followed the IPR review process and documented WG agreement to proceed. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No Concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes, each author has confirmed all IPR disclosures appropriate have been submitted. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There was an extended review process of the working group on submitted IPR for this informational document. The outcome of this process was to proceed with publication. The summary of this agreement is noted in the responsible Area Director's message to the list with references to input from working group participants. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/3nCTOkNYW8ydEo0zHZlQoY8F92A/ (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is strong consensus among the working group. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No extra reviews were required (or appropriate). (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. There are no downrefs. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). There are no IANA considerations in this document. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. N/A (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. N/A, reviews of diagrams and tables only. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? N/A |
2022-01-27
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | Responsible AD changed to Roman Danyliw |
2022-01-27
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2022-01-27
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2022-01-27
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2022-01-27
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | Tag Author or Editor Needed cleared. |
2022-01-27
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2022-01-26
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational. The document describes the architecture for Remote Attestation Procedures, providing foundational information for developers and implementors. Yes, informational is appropriately indicated. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: In Remote Attestation Procedures (RATS), one peer (the "Attester") produces believable information about itself - Evidence - to enable a remote peer (the "Relying Party") to decide whether to consider that Attester a trustworthy peer or not. RATS are facilitated by an additional vital party, the Verifier. This document describes the supporting architecture for RATS. In network protocol exchanges it is often useful for one end of a communication to know whether the other end is in an intended operating state. This document provides an architectural overview of the entities involved that make such tests possible through the process of generating, conveying, and evaluating evidentiary claims. An attempt is made to provide for a model that is neutral toward processor architectures, the content of claims, and protocols. Working Group Summary: This document represents a unification of the working group on architectural considerations. While earlier versions did come with some disagreement, this version has had very good cross working group participation and the editor team did a nice job of incorporating feedback as appropriate. The working group also reviewed IPR submitted and ultimately determined to go ahead with this informational document (see response to question #8 below). Document Quality: There are existing implementations of the RATS architecture and supporting documents. Industry points to RATS when discussing remote attestations to follow the standards being developed. The approach encompasses other existing formats and protocols that are well excepted for conveying, signing, and validating evidence. This document is an important one to explain the overall architecture and considerations for remote attestation, a very important capability for information security assurance. With industry's push for increased use of encryption, the endpoint must be more secure and there must be a way to detect variances from what is expected on a system. Attestation provides a simplified way to do this over previous posture assessment technologies. This particular document is very important toward the goal of understanding this simple, but complex set of standards. The editors have done a nice job of working through the identified issues. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Kathleen Moriarty Responsible Area Director: Roman Danyliw (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd has followed the progress of this document from its inception and the merger of two prior documents. The shepherd has provided multiple reviews and all comments were addressed. The shepherd, WG Chairs, and AD also followed the IPR review process and documented WG agreement to proceed. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No Concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes, each author has confirmed all IPR disclosures appropriate have been submitted. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There was an extended review process of the working group on submitted IPR for this informational document. The outcome of this process was to proceed with publication. The summary of this agreement is noted in the responsible Area Director's message to the list with references to input from working group participants. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/3nCTOkNYW8ydEo0zHZlQoY8F92A/ (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is strong consensus among the working group. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No extra reviews were required (or appropriate). (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. There are no downrefs. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). There are no IANA considerations in this document. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. N/A (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. N/A, reviews of diagrams and tables only. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? N/A |
2022-01-25
|
14 | Roman Danyliw | IPR consensus check closure -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/3nCTOkNYW8ydEo0zHZlQoY8F92A/ |
2021-12-09
|
14 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-14.txt |
2021-12-09
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-12-09
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler , Henk Birkholz , Michael Richardson , Ned Smith , Wei Pan |
2021-12-09
|
14 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2021-12-08
|
13 | Roman Danyliw | Inconclusive IPR discussion: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/gQTHfVOeV7BYKqqcB0Nx-oFbg1g/ |
2021-11-15
|
13 | Roman Danyliw | Waiting for WG feedback on IPR disclosure (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/dDiFQfrM-9J_M16IKYw9LeGXBGo/); Call ends Nov-19-2021 |
2021-11-12
|
13 | Roman Danyliw | Early AD Review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/V0tee4ohWoSzR6xGqu92GXuZneA/ |
2021-11-08
|
13 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-13.txt |
2021-11-08
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-11-08
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler , Henk Birkholz , Michael Richardson , Ned Smith , Wei Pan |
2021-11-08
|
13 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2021-10-25
|
12 | (System) | Document has expired |
2021-10-19
|
12 | Roman Danyliw | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2021-08-13
|
Jenny Bui | Posted related IPR disclosure Intel Corporation's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-rats-architecture | |
2021-07-30
|
12 | Kathleen Moriarty | Tag Author or Editor Needed set. |
2021-07-30
|
12 | Kathleen Moriarty | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from WG Document |
2021-07-23
|
12 | Kathleen Moriarty | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational. The document describes the architecture for Remote Attestation Procedures, providing foundational information for developers and implementors. Yes, informational is appropriately indicated. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: In Remote Attestation Procedures (RATS), one peer (the "Attester") produces believable information about itself - Evidence - to enable a remote peer (the "Relying Party") to decide whether to consider that Attester a trustworthy peer or not. RATS are facilitated by an additional vital party, the Verifier. This document describes the supporting architecture for RATS. In network protocol exchanges it is often useful for one end of a communication to know whether the other end is in an intended operating state. This document provides an architectural overview of the entities involved that make such tests possible through the process of generating, conveying, and evaluating evidentiary claims. An attempt is made to provide for a model that is neutral toward processor architectures, the content of claims, and protocols. Working Group Summary: This document represents a unification of the working group on architectural considerations. While earlier versions did come with some disagreement, this version has had very good cross working group participation and the editor team did a nice job of incorporating feedback as appropriate. Document Quality: There are existing implementations of the RATS architecture and supporting documents. Industry points to RATS when discussing remote attestations to follow the standards being developed. The approach encompasses other existing formats and protocols that are well excepted for conveying, signing, and validating evidence. This document is an important one to explain the overall architecture and considerations for remote attestation, a very important capability for information security assurance. With industry's push for increased use of encryption, the endpoint must be more secure and there must be a way to detect variances from what is expected on a system. Attestation provides a simplified way to do this over previous posture assessment technologies. This particular document is very important toward the goal of understanding this simple, but complex set of standards. The editors have done a nice job of working through the identified issues. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Kathleen Moriarty Responsible Area Director: Roman Danyliw (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd has followed the progress of this document from its inception and the merger of two prior documents. The shepherd has provided multiple reviews and all comments were addressed. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No Concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is strong consensus among the working group. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No extra reviews were required (or appropriate). (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. There are no downrefs. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). There are no IANA considerations in this document. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. N/A (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. N/A, reviews of diagrams and tables only. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? N/A |
2021-07-23
|
12 | Kathleen Moriarty | Notification list changed to Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set |
2021-07-23
|
12 | Kathleen Moriarty | Document shepherd changed to Kathleen Moriarty |
2021-07-14
|
12 | Ned Smith | Added to session: IETF-111: rats Mon-1430 |
2021-04-23
|
12 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-12.txt |
2021-04-23
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-04-23
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler , Henk Birkholz , Michael Richardson , Ned Smith , Wei Pan |
2021-04-23
|
12 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2021-03-30
|
11 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-11.txt |
2021-03-30
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-03-30
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler , Henk Birkholz , Michael Richardson , Ned Smith , Wei Pan |
2021-03-30
|
11 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2021-03-08
|
10 | Ned Smith | Added to session: IETF-110: rats Tue-1300 |
2021-03-08
|
10 | Ned Smith | Removed from session: IETF-110: rats Wed-1530 |
2021-03-08
|
10 | Ned Smith | Added to session: IETF-110: rats Wed-1530 |
2021-02-09
|
10 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-10.txt |
2021-02-09
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-02-09
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler , Henk Birkholz , Michael Richardson , Ned Smith , Wei Pan |
2021-02-09
|
10 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2021-02-05
|
09 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-09.txt |
2021-02-05
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-02-05
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler , Henk Birkholz , Michael Richardson , Ned Smith , Wei Pan |
2021-02-05
|
09 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2020-12-08
|
08 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-08.txt |
2020-12-08
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-12-08
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler , Wei Pan , Henk Birkholz , Michael Richardson , Ned Smith |
2020-12-08
|
08 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2020-12-08
|
08 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2020-12-08
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Richardson , Henk Birkholz , Wei Pan , Ned Smith , Dave Thaler |
2020-12-08
|
08 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2020-12-08
|
08 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2020-10-16
|
07 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-07.txt |
2020-10-16
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-10-16
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Wei Pan , Dave Thaler , Ned Smith , Henk Birkholz , Michael Richardson |
2020-10-16
|
07 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2020-10-16
|
07 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2020-09-01
|
06 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-06.txt |
2020-09-01
|
06 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Michael Richardson) |
2020-09-01
|
06 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2020-09-01
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Wei Pan , Michael Richardson , Henk Birkholz , Dave Thaler , Ned Smith |
2020-09-01
|
06 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2020-09-01
|
06 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2020-07-10
|
05 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-05.txt |
2020-07-10
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-07-10
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Richardson , Dave Thaler , Henk Birkholz , Wei Pan , Ned Smith |
2020-07-10
|
05 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2020-07-10
|
05 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2020-05-21
|
04 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-04.txt |
2020-05-21
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-05-21
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Wei Pan , Dave Thaler , Ned Smith , Michael Richardson , Henk Birkholz |
2020-05-21
|
04 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2020-05-21
|
04 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2020-05-21
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Henk Birkholz , Dave Thaler , Wei Pan , Michael Richardson , Ned Smith |
2020-05-21
|
04 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2020-05-21
|
04 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2020-05-21
|
03 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-03.txt |
2020-05-21
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-05-21
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler , Ned Smith , Michael Richardson , Henk Birkholz , Wei Pan |
2020-05-21
|
03 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2020-05-21
|
03 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2020-04-20
|
Jenny Bui | Posted related IPR disclosure Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-rats-architecture | |
2020-03-07
|
02 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-02.txt |
2020-03-07
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-03-07
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Henk Birkholz , Ned Smith , rats-chairs@ietf.org, Michael Richardson , Dave Thaler |
2020-03-07
|
02 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2020-03-07
|
02 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2020-02-04
|
01 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-01.txt |
2020-02-04
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-02-04
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Henk Birkholz , Michael Richardson , Ned Smith , Dave Thaler |
2020-02-04
|
01 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2020-02-04
|
01 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
2019-12-17
|
00 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-00.txt |
2019-12-17
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2019-12-17
|
00 | Michael Richardson | Set submitter to "Michael Richardson " and sent approval email to group chairs: rats-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-12-17
|
00 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |