Remote Attestation Procedures Architecture
draft-ietf-rats-architecture-15
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2022-05-03
|
15 | Roman Danyliw | AD Review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/-gzXtqv_eUWUkNo1kpdMVNbvJ7s/ |
|
2022-05-03
|
15 | (System) | Changed action holders to Dave Thaler, Ned Smith, Michael Richardson, Roman Danyliw, Henk Birkholz, Wei Pan (IESG state changed) |
|
2022-05-03
|
15 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested |
|
2022-03-15
|
15 | Ned Smith | Added to session: IETF-113: rats Tue-1000 |
|
2022-02-18
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational. The document describes the architecture for Remote Attestation Procedures, providing foundational information for developers and implementors. Yes, informational is appropriately indicated. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: In Remote Attestation Procedures (RATS), one peer (the "Attester") produces believable information about itself - Evidence - to enable a remote peer (the "Relying Party") to decide whether to consider that Attester a trustworthy peer or not. RATS are facilitated by an additional vital party, the Verifier. This document describes the supporting architecture for RATS. In network protocol exchanges it is often useful for one end of a communication to know whether the other end is in an intended operating state. This document provides an architectural overview of the entities involved that make such tests possible through the process of generating, conveying, and evaluating evidentiary claims. An attempt is made to provide for a model that is neutral toward processor architectures, the content of claims, and protocols. Working Group Summary: This document represents a unification of the working group on architectural considerations. While earlier versions did come with some disagreement, this version has had very good cross working group participation and the editor team did a nice job of incorporating feedback as appropriate. The working group also reviewed IPR submitted and ultimately determined to go ahead with this informational document (see response to question #8 below). Document Quality: There are existing implementations of the RATS architecture and supporting documents. Industry points to RATS when discussing remote attestations to follow the standards being developed. The approach encompasses other existing formats and protocols that are well excepted for conveying, signing, and validating evidence. This document is an important one to explain the overall architecture and considerations for remote attestation, a very important capability for information security assurance. With industry's push for increased use of encryption, the endpoint must be more secure and there must be a way to detect variances from what is expected on a system. Attestation provides a simplified way to do this over previous posture assessment technologies. This particular document is very important toward the goal of understanding this simple, but complex set of standards. The editors have done a nice job of working through the identified issues. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Kathleen Moriarty Responsible Area Director: Roman Danyliw (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd has followed the progress of this document from its inception and the merger of two prior documents. The shepherd has provided multiple reviews and all comments were addressed. The shepherd, WG Chairs, and AD also followed the IPR review process and documented WG agreement to proceed. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No Concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes, each author has confirmed all IPR disclosures appropriate have been submitted. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There was an extended review process of the working group on submitted IPR for this informational document. The outcome of this process was to proceed with publication. The summary of this agreement is noted in the responsible Area Director's message to the list with references to input from working group participants. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/3nCTOkNYW8ydEo0zHZlQoY8F92A/ (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is strong consensus among the working group. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No extra reviews were required (or appropriate). (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. There are no downrefs. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). There are no IANA considerations in this document. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. N/A (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. N/A, reviews of diagrams and tables only. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? N/A |
|
2022-02-18
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2022-02-18
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
|
2022-02-18
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2022-02-08
|
15 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-15.txt |
|
2022-02-08
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2022-02-08
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Ned Smith … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Ned Smith <ned.smith@intel.com>, Wei Pan <william.panwei@huawei.com> |
|
2022-02-08
|
15 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2022-01-27
|
14 | Roman Danyliw | Document returned to WG pending resolution of WGLC comments -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/zWHRyC8x5yClzvmiua4W8KXbBjY/. |
|
2022-01-27
|
14 | (System) | Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed) |
|
2022-01-27
|
14 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to I-D Exists from Publication Requested |
|
2022-01-27
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | Tag Author or Editor Needed set. |
|
2022-01-27
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Submitted to IESG for Publication |
|
2022-01-27
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational. The document describes the architecture for Remote Attestation Procedures, providing foundational information for developers and implementors. Yes, informational is appropriately indicated. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: In Remote Attestation Procedures (RATS), one peer (the "Attester") produces believable information about itself - Evidence - to enable a remote peer (the "Relying Party") to decide whether to consider that Attester a trustworthy peer or not. RATS are facilitated by an additional vital party, the Verifier. This document describes the supporting architecture for RATS. In network protocol exchanges it is often useful for one end of a communication to know whether the other end is in an intended operating state. This document provides an architectural overview of the entities involved that make such tests possible through the process of generating, conveying, and evaluating evidentiary claims. An attempt is made to provide for a model that is neutral toward processor architectures, the content of claims, and protocols. Working Group Summary: This document represents a unification of the working group on architectural considerations. While earlier versions did come with some disagreement, this version has had very good cross working group participation and the editor team did a nice job of incorporating feedback as appropriate. The working group also reviewed IPR submitted and ultimately determined to go ahead with this informational document (see response to question #8 below). Document Quality: There are existing implementations of the RATS architecture and supporting documents. Industry points to RATS when discussing remote attestations to follow the standards being developed. The approach encompasses other existing formats and protocols that are well excepted for conveying, signing, and validating evidence. This document is an important one to explain the overall architecture and considerations for remote attestation, a very important capability for information security assurance. With industry's push for increased use of encryption, the endpoint must be more secure and there must be a way to detect variances from what is expected on a system. Attestation provides a simplified way to do this over previous posture assessment technologies. This particular document is very important toward the goal of understanding this simple, but complex set of standards. The editors have done a nice job of working through the identified issues. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Kathleen Moriarty Responsible Area Director: Roman Danyliw (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd has followed the progress of this document from its inception and the merger of two prior documents. The shepherd has provided multiple reviews and all comments were addressed. The shepherd, WG Chairs, and AD also followed the IPR review process and documented WG agreement to proceed. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No Concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes, each author has confirmed all IPR disclosures appropriate have been submitted. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There was an extended review process of the working group on submitted IPR for this informational document. The outcome of this process was to proceed with publication. The summary of this agreement is noted in the responsible Area Director's message to the list with references to input from working group participants. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/3nCTOkNYW8ydEo0zHZlQoY8F92A/ (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is strong consensus among the working group. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No extra reviews were required (or appropriate). (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. There are no downrefs. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). There are no IANA considerations in this document. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. N/A (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. N/A, reviews of diagrams and tables only. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? N/A |
|
2022-01-27
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | Responsible AD changed to Roman Danyliw |
|
2022-01-27
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
|
2022-01-27
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
|
2022-01-27
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2022-01-27
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | Tag Author or Editor Needed cleared. |
|
2022-01-27
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2022-01-26
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational. The document describes the architecture for Remote Attestation Procedures, providing foundational information for developers and implementors. Yes, informational is appropriately indicated. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: In Remote Attestation Procedures (RATS), one peer (the "Attester") produces believable information about itself - Evidence - to enable a remote peer (the "Relying Party") to decide whether to consider that Attester a trustworthy peer or not. RATS are facilitated by an additional vital party, the Verifier. This document describes the supporting architecture for RATS. In network protocol exchanges it is often useful for one end of a communication to know whether the other end is in an intended operating state. This document provides an architectural overview of the entities involved that make such tests possible through the process of generating, conveying, and evaluating evidentiary claims. An attempt is made to provide for a model that is neutral toward processor architectures, the content of claims, and protocols. Working Group Summary: This document represents a unification of the working group on architectural considerations. While earlier versions did come with some disagreement, this version has had very good cross working group participation and the editor team did a nice job of incorporating feedback as appropriate. The working group also reviewed IPR submitted and ultimately determined to go ahead with this informational document (see response to question #8 below). Document Quality: There are existing implementations of the RATS architecture and supporting documents. Industry points to RATS when discussing remote attestations to follow the standards being developed. The approach encompasses other existing formats and protocols that are well excepted for conveying, signing, and validating evidence. This document is an important one to explain the overall architecture and considerations for remote attestation, a very important capability for information security assurance. With industry's push for increased use of encryption, the endpoint must be more secure and there must be a way to detect variances from what is expected on a system. Attestation provides a simplified way to do this over previous posture assessment technologies. This particular document is very important toward the goal of understanding this simple, but complex set of standards. The editors have done a nice job of working through the identified issues. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Kathleen Moriarty Responsible Area Director: Roman Danyliw (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd has followed the progress of this document from its inception and the merger of two prior documents. The shepherd has provided multiple reviews and all comments were addressed. The shepherd, WG Chairs, and AD also followed the IPR review process and documented WG agreement to proceed. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No Concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes, each author has confirmed all IPR disclosures appropriate have been submitted. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There was an extended review process of the working group on submitted IPR for this informational document. The outcome of this process was to proceed with publication. The summary of this agreement is noted in the responsible Area Director's message to the list with references to input from working group participants. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/3nCTOkNYW8ydEo0zHZlQoY8F92A/ (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is strong consensus among the working group. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No extra reviews were required (or appropriate). (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. There are no downrefs. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). There are no IANA considerations in this document. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. N/A (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. N/A, reviews of diagrams and tables only. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? N/A |
|
2022-01-25
|
14 | Roman Danyliw | IPR consensus check closure -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/3nCTOkNYW8ydEo0zHZlQoY8F92A/ |
|
2021-12-09
|
14 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-14.txt |
|
2021-12-09
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-12-09
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Ned Smith … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Ned Smith <ned.smith@intel.com>, Wei Pan <william.panwei@huawei.com> |
|
2021-12-09
|
14 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-12-08
|
13 | Roman Danyliw | Inconclusive IPR discussion: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/gQTHfVOeV7BYKqqcB0Nx-oFbg1g/ |
|
2021-11-15
|
13 | Roman Danyliw | Waiting for WG feedback on IPR disclosure (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/dDiFQfrM-9J_M16IKYw9LeGXBGo/); Call ends Nov-19-2021 |
|
2021-11-12
|
13 | Roman Danyliw | Early AD Review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/V0tee4ohWoSzR6xGqu92GXuZneA/ |
|
2021-11-08
|
13 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-13.txt |
|
2021-11-08
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-11-08
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Ned Smith … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Ned Smith <ned.smith@intel.com>, Wei Pan <william.panwei@huawei.com> |
|
2021-11-08
|
13 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-10-25
|
12 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2021-10-19
|
12 | Roman Danyliw | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
|
2021-08-13
|
Jenny Bui | Posted related IPR disclosure Intel Corporation's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-rats-architecture | |
|
2021-07-30
|
12 | Kathleen Moriarty | Tag Author or Editor Needed set. |
|
2021-07-30
|
12 | Kathleen Moriarty | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from WG Document |
|
2021-07-23
|
12 | Kathleen Moriarty | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational. The document describes the architecture for Remote Attestation Procedures, providing foundational information for developers and implementors. Yes, informational is appropriately indicated. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: In Remote Attestation Procedures (RATS), one peer (the "Attester") produces believable information about itself - Evidence - to enable a remote peer (the "Relying Party") to decide whether to consider that Attester a trustworthy peer or not. RATS are facilitated by an additional vital party, the Verifier. This document describes the supporting architecture for RATS. In network protocol exchanges it is often useful for one end of a communication to know whether the other end is in an intended operating state. This document provides an architectural overview of the entities involved that make such tests possible through the process of generating, conveying, and evaluating evidentiary claims. An attempt is made to provide for a model that is neutral toward processor architectures, the content of claims, and protocols. Working Group Summary: This document represents a unification of the working group on architectural considerations. While earlier versions did come with some disagreement, this version has had very good cross working group participation and the editor team did a nice job of incorporating feedback as appropriate. Document Quality: There are existing implementations of the RATS architecture and supporting documents. Industry points to RATS when discussing remote attestations to follow the standards being developed. The approach encompasses other existing formats and protocols that are well excepted for conveying, signing, and validating evidence. This document is an important one to explain the overall architecture and considerations for remote attestation, a very important capability for information security assurance. With industry's push for increased use of encryption, the endpoint must be more secure and there must be a way to detect variances from what is expected on a system. Attestation provides a simplified way to do this over previous posture assessment technologies. This particular document is very important toward the goal of understanding this simple, but complex set of standards. The editors have done a nice job of working through the identified issues. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Kathleen Moriarty Responsible Area Director: Roman Danyliw (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd has followed the progress of this document from its inception and the merger of two prior documents. The shepherd has provided multiple reviews and all comments were addressed. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No Concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is strong consensus among the working group. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No extra reviews were required (or appropriate). (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. There are no downrefs. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). There are no IANA considerations in this document. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. N/A (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. N/A, reviews of diagrams and tables only. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? N/A |
|
2021-07-23
|
12 | Kathleen Moriarty | Notification list changed to Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set |
|
2021-07-23
|
12 | Kathleen Moriarty | Document shepherd changed to Kathleen Moriarty |
|
2021-07-14
|
12 | Ned Smith | Added to session: IETF-111: rats Mon-1430 |
|
2021-04-23
|
12 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-12.txt |
|
2021-04-23
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-04-23
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Ned Smith … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Ned Smith <ned.smith@intel.com>, Wei Pan <william.panwei@huawei.com> |
|
2021-04-23
|
12 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-03-30
|
11 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-11.txt |
|
2021-03-30
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-03-30
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Ned Smith … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Ned Smith <ned.smith@intel.com>, Wei Pan <william.panwei@huawei.com> |
|
2021-03-30
|
11 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-03-08
|
10 | Ned Smith | Added to session: IETF-110: rats Tue-1300 |
|
2021-03-08
|
10 | Ned Smith | Removed from session: IETF-110: rats Wed-1530 |
|
2021-03-08
|
10 | Ned Smith | Added to session: IETF-110: rats Wed-1530 |
|
2021-02-09
|
10 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-10.txt |
|
2021-02-09
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-02-09
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Ned Smith … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Ned Smith <ned.smith@intel.com>, Wei Pan <william.panwei@huawei.com> |
|
2021-02-09
|
10 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-02-05
|
09 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-09.txt |
|
2021-02-05
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-02-05
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Ned Smith … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Ned Smith <ned.smith@intel.com>, Wei Pan <william.panwei@huawei.com> |
|
2021-02-05
|
09 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-12-08
|
08 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-08.txt |
|
2020-12-08
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-12-08
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Wei Pan <william.panwei@huawei.com>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Michael Richardson … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Wei Pan <william.panwei@huawei.com>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Ned Smith <ned.smith@intel.com> |
|
2020-12-08
|
08 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-12-08
|
08 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-12-08
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Wei Pan <william.panwei@huawei.com>, Ned Smith … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Wei Pan <william.panwei@huawei.com>, Ned Smith <ned.smith@intel.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> |
|
2020-12-08
|
08 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-12-08
|
08 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-10-16
|
07 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-07.txt |
|
2020-10-16
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-10-16
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Wei Pan <william.panwei@huawei.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Ned Smith <ned.smith@intel.com>, Henk Birkholz … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Wei Pan <william.panwei@huawei.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Ned Smith <ned.smith@intel.com>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> |
|
2020-10-16
|
07 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-10-16
|
07 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-09-01
|
06 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-06.txt |
|
2020-09-01
|
06 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Michael Richardson) |
|
2020-09-01
|
06 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-09-01
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Wei Pan <william.panwei@huawei.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Dave Thaler … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Wei Pan <william.panwei@huawei.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Ned Smith <ned.smith@intel.com> |
|
2020-09-01
|
06 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-09-01
|
06 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-07-10
|
05 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-05.txt |
|
2020-07-10
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-07-10
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Wei Pan … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Wei Pan <william.panwei@huawei.com>, Ned Smith <ned.smith@intel.com> |
|
2020-07-10
|
05 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-07-10
|
05 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-05-21
|
04 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-04.txt |
|
2020-05-21
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-05-21
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Wei Pan <william.panwei@huawei.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Ned Smith <ned.smith@intel.com>, Michael Richardson … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Wei Pan <william.panwei@huawei.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Ned Smith <ned.smith@intel.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de> |
|
2020-05-21
|
04 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-05-21
|
04 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-05-21
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Wei Pan <william.panwei@huawei.com>, Michael Richardson … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Wei Pan <william.panwei@huawei.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Ned Smith <ned.smith@intel.com> |
|
2020-05-21
|
04 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-05-21
|
04 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-05-21
|
03 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-03.txt |
|
2020-05-21
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-05-21
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Ned Smith <ned.smith@intel.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Henk Birkholz … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Ned Smith <ned.smith@intel.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Wei Pan <william.panwei@huawei.com> |
|
2020-05-21
|
03 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-05-21
|
03 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-04-20
|
Jenny Bui | Posted related IPR disclosure Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-rats-architecture | |
|
2020-03-07
|
02 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-02.txt |
|
2020-03-07
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-03-07
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Ned Smith <ned.smith@intel.com>, rats-chairs@ietf.org, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Ned Smith <ned.smith@intel.com>, rats-chairs@ietf.org, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> |
|
2020-03-07
|
02 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-03-07
|
02 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-02-04
|
01 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-01.txt |
|
2020-02-04
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-02-04
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Ned Smith <ned.smith@intel.com>, Dave Thaler … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Ned Smith <ned.smith@intel.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> |
|
2020-02-04
|
01 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-02-04
|
01 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-12-17
|
00 | Michael Richardson | New version available: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-00.txt |
|
2019-12-17
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
|
2019-12-17
|
00 | Michael Richardson | Set submitter to "Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>" and sent approval email to group chairs: rats-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2019-12-17
|
00 | Michael Richardson | Uploaded new revision |