search

ietf-satp / draft-ietf-satp-architecture

Other
1 stars 0 forks source link

Attestation out of scope? #12

Open yaronf opened 1 year ago

yaronf commented 1 year ago

Sec. 6: Why is attestation even in scope? We are setting up a secure channel, and this may include (per policy on both gateways) authentication of both sides, and possibly attestation. But ideally, this should all be done at the TLS layer.

And then there's the question whether it is even expected. Typically in a cross-domain setting, authentication is much more relevant than attestation.

findthomas commented 1 year ago

Hi Yaron,

Using one example, the Lock-Attestations (set of asset-related claims) is above the TLS layer.

It has to be a standalone blob & signed by G1, so that it can be stored by both gateways for future legal disputes.

When we use the word "Attestation" or "Receipt" we are using it in a legal sense, similar to signing a Word/PDF doc or JSON which in the US is covered under thew Clinton's eSignature ACT of 2000.

The "Attestation" is more like a legal/financial assurance and the willingness of the Owner/Operator of a Gateway G1 to take-on financial liabilities if G1 lies or makes a mistake.

ps. I think the word "Attestation" maybe confusing here. We did look at the word "Claim" (as in signed claims or assertion).

yaronf commented 1 year ago

I'm confused: Sec. 6 talks about device attestation, and points to the RATS working group. In the context of RATS attestation is the guarantee that a certain piece of software is running on a device that has some properties. It is nothing to do with legal assurances.

findthomas commented 1 year ago

Apologies Yaron,

I was looking at the wrong text :-)

Mutual device attestations: In cases where device attestation [RATS] is required, each gateway must yield attestation evidence to the other regarding its configuration. A gateway may take on the role as a attestation verifier, or it may rely on an external verifier to appraise the received evidence.

RATS device-attestation is mentioned as a possible future capability that is not currently out-of-scope for the SATP WG.

If RATS WG could pick-up this item (e.g. define SBOM etc for gateways), that would be great.

yaronf commented 1 year ago

It's not clear from the document that this is out of scope and pending a potential RATS action.