Subject: [Teep] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on charter-ietf-teep-00-02: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 17:07:23 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-teep-00-02: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-teep/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm a Yes with comments, but I'm a Yes whether anything changes or not. ...

I wasn't parsing this text well:

"This working group aims to develop an application layer protocol providing TEEs
with a lifecycle management for trusted applications and security domain
management."

Does

"This working group aims to develop an application layer protocol providing TEEs
providing lifecycle management and security domain management for trusted
applications."

make sense?

Honest question - would anybody ever expose this kind of API?

"A security domain allows a service provider's applications to be isolated so
that one security domain cannot be influenced by another, unless it exposes an
API to allow it."

If the answer is "yes", is there any work on advice about this that would be
worth mentioning in the charter?

I may be misremembering, but is Global Platform going to remain in the picture
after TEEP is chartered?

---

From: Jeremy O'Donoghue <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 15:11:07 +0000

> worth mentioning in the charter?

GlobalPlatform supports this use case in other management frameworks, but not under OTrP/TEEP.

It makes the most sense in the presence of a hierarchical tree of Security Domains which typically resembles the PKI which backs it (so a parent has privileges over children, for example). I cannot think of a use case in OTrP/TEEP as currently specified in which there is essentially a single level of Security Domains.

> I may be misremembering, but is Global Platform going to remain in the picture

Yes. This is an active work item at GlobalPlatform and it is unlikely that this situation will change.

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 10:51:31 -0500

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-teep/

Thank you, Spencer.  This change has been made in the current revision
of the charter.

> Honest question - would anybody ever expose this kind of API?

Jeremy already answered the other questions.  Thank you, Jeremy!

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen