Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning
charter-ietf-teep-01
Yes
(Kathleen Moriarty)
No Objection
(Adam Roach)
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alia Atlas)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Ben Campbell)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Suresh Krishnan)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-04 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-04)
Unknown
Adam Roach Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-05)
Unknown
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-05)
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-05)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-03-07 for -00-04)
Unknown
"providing TEEs providing lifecycle management" --> something is wrong there "The group will produce the following deliverables. The first draft is" --> kind of implies that the deliverable is a draft rather than an RFC s/other relevant standards/other relevant standards groups/
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-04)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-05)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-03-08 for -00-05)
Unknown
No objection to the charter, but we should clarify two points. 1. I scratched my head: What does an "application layer protocol" mean in this context? This working group aims to develop an application layer protocol providing TEEs with lifecycle management and security domain management for trusted applications. What would the difference with? This working group aims to develop a management protocol providing TEEs with lifecycle management and security domain management for trusted applications. Or even? This working group aims to develop a protocol providing TEEs with lifecycle management and security domain management for trusted applications. 2. Second, a solution document that describes the above-described functionality that will be developed. A solution document? I believe it's too vague. I understand you want to specify a new protocol. You should clarify and adapt the milestones. Editorial: - Confused by the comma in the following sentence: For example, implementations of the TEE concept have been developed by ARM, and Intel using the TrustZone and the SGX technology, respectively. Do you want to say? For example, implementations of the TEE concept have been developed by ARM and Intel, using the TrustZone and the SGX technology, respectively. Or maybe better? For example, implementations of the TEE concept have been developed by ARM using the TrustZone and by Intel using the SGX technology.
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-04)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-03-07 for -00-04)
Unknown
No objection to this charter, but do the milestones for the Solutions draft make sense? I'm reading Date Milestone Jul 2019 Begin WGLC for Solution document Jan 2019 Progress Architecture document to the IESG for publication Dec 2018 Begin WGLC for Architecture document Aug 2018 Progress Solution document to the IESG for publication Mar 2018 Adopt a solution document Mar 2018 Adopt an Architecture document as saying the draft goes to the IESG in Aug 2018 and enters WGLC in July 2019 ...
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-05)
Unknown
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-04)
Unknown