Minutes IETF109: teep
minutes-109-teep-00
| Meeting Minutes | Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning (teep) WG | |
|---|---|---|
| Title | Minutes IETF109: teep | |
| State | Active | |
| Other versions | plain text | |
| Last updated | 2021-02-19 |
minutes-109-teep-00
IETF 109 TEEP
Wednesday Nov. 18, 2020 Session II
Chairs: Nancy Cam-Winget, Tiru Reddy
Note takers: Tiru Reddy
Agenda bashing, Logistics
Nancy will schedule TEEP interim soon to resolve dependencies with TEEP
protocol.
Architecture – Dave Thaler
• Draft: draft-ietf-teep-architecture
• Issues: https://github.com/ietf-teep/architecture/issues
Brendan agreed with PR#215 change (remove parapraph related to security domain).
Dave: GSMA and OTrP specs are domain-specific, they are already a deployed
protocol and no incentive to switch. It looks a lot like TEEP architecture.
TEEP has more extensibility and its need to be discussed in the presense of
ortp. Hannes: no need to discuss the prior domain-specific work in ortp.
TEEP over HTTP update – Dave Thaler
• Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http/
• Issues: https://github.com/ietf-teep/otrp-over-http/issues
Hackathon Report – Akira Tsukamoto
Akira presented hackathon report.
TEEP Protocol – Dave Thaler (25 min)
• Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teep-protocol/
• Issues: https://github.com/ietf-teep/teep-protocol/issues
Dave: Is token needed for install/delete or can we rely on SUIT report?
Hannes: The need to associate a request to response because of multiple TEEP
Agents. Dave to have a follow-up discussion in SUIT WG. Cipher suites (1 and 2)
+1 for both on TAM, and (2) mandatory to challenged entity. 2 is suitable for
constrained devices. Actually, both are useful for constrained devices but 2 is
frequently implemented in hardware. Conclusion not to use TEEP specific claims.
Ben suggested to go with a side meeting in the RATS slot.