Subject: [Rats] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-05.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 07:45:39 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Remote ATtestation ProcedureS WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Remote Attestation Procedures Architecture
        Authors         : Henk Birkholz
                          Dave Thaler
                          Michael Richardson
                          Ned Smith
                          Wei Pan
	Filename        : draft-ietf-rats-architecture-05.txt
	Pages           : 36
	Date            : 2020-07-10

Abstract:
   In network protocol exchanges, it is often the case that one entity
   (a Relying Party) requires evidence about a remote peer to assess the
   peer's trustworthiness, and a way to appraise such evidence.  The
   evidence is typically a set of claims about its software and hardware
   platform.  This document describes an architecture for such remote
   attestation procedures (RATS).

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-architecture/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rats-architecture-05
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rats-architecture-05

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rats-architecture-05

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 11:13:25 -0400

> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rats-architecture-05

Hi, this is the result of a lot of consensus building among the authors and
contributors.  (Which reminds me that I probably need to update the list of
contributors)

We noticed one nit, "HD" remains in a table: we intend to add text that
explains it, but we feel the text should reference a document which the
WG has not (yet!?) decided to adopt.

Please review the diffs.
We believe that the document is "feature complete", but that there are some
sections where some would like to say more.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-