Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-01 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
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?
Once the text is added in for the relationship with SUIT, this charter is ready for external review.
I support this and the charter looks good, but the milestones looked kind of science fictional.
The milestones seem, um, aspirational. I personally think that architecture (and similar) documents should be published as RFCs, as they are really useful for newcomers to the field (or people wanting to deploy) to understand how things fit together - this is just an editorial comment, no change neeeded, etc.
> The group will produce the following deliverables. The first draft is an > architecture document describing the involved entities, their relationships, > assumptions, the keying framework and relevant use cases. Given the guidance at <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/support-documents-in-ietf-wgs.html>, I would like to see the charter specifically indicate whether this deliverable will be sent to the IESG for publication, or simply produced for the working group's internal use.