Gyan, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document. Lars > On 2022-8-20, at 0:56, Gyan Mishra via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Gyan Mishra > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-rats-architecture-?? > Reviewer: Gyan Mishra > Review Date: 2022-08-19 > IETF LC End Date: 2022-09-01 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > > 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. > > Major issues: > None > > Minor issues: > As this is a architecture specification should this be standards track. > Normative language should then be applied where applicable. As the > architecture of rats is related to security a lot of what is in the security > considerations to me seems part of the architecture and maybe should be moved > to the body of the document or appendix. Section 3 describes the environment of > an attester. Section 3.2 clearly describes a layered environment, however > section 3.3 describes a composite environment using a carrier grade router as > an example. I think here the composite should be described just as is done in > the layer environment section but not referencing an environment use case that > may not be applicable to RAT. So within a carrier grade router chassis the > backplane communication is all done vendor proprietary no external elements so > I don’t see how trust comes into play as well as the backplane communication is > hardware bus elements for backplane throughput for the LC and then as well > router OS software component for the backplane communication. I think maybe > choosing a better example that applies to RAT composite environment would be > better. > > Nits/editorial comments: > Throughout the document there are acronyms used and the acronyms have not been > expanded. Few words like ROM, BIOS, TEEP, TLS, CWT, JWT, X.509, TPM etc > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
