Subject: [Teep] Comments on draft-ietf-teep-architecture-00

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 19:30:57 +0000

[speaking as an individual participant]

I have reviewed draft-ietf-teep-architecture-00 and have comments for the authors and WG to consider.
A marked up copy with my comments is at
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/uploads/prod/2017/05/draft-ietf-teep-architecture-00.pdf

The majority are editorial, but a couple example ones to highlight beyond things covered in other threads, are summarized below:

1) If the Device Admin is responsible for controlling what apps run in the TEE on an IoT class device (e.g., in a factory), is the Device Administrator just another type of SP, or are those terms disjoint?

2) The document seems to assume that every rich app that needs a TA, also needs to have code to talk to a TAM.  I agree that's one possible implementation but the architecture should not require that.  An alternative implementation would be where the REE OS (e.g., the app store installer) contains code for communicating with TAM(s) using data in (for example) the rich app's manifest, and the rich app has no need to run until the TA is already installed.   The installer/communicator is a rich app of a sort, but it's a different one from the client app that depends on the TA.   In my opinion, the arch doc should not require that it's the same app, but should certainly allow it to be.

Dave