[01:54:41] Roman Danyliw joins the room
[01:55:12] Ned Smith joins the room
[01:55:13] guy fedorkow joins the room
[01:55:13] Lorenzo Miniero joins the room
[01:55:13] Jim Schaad joins the room
[01:55:13] William Bellingrath joins the room
[01:55:13] Thomas Hardjono joins the room
[01:55:14] Kathleen Moriarty joins the room
[01:55:28] Roman Danyliw has set the subject to: RATS Meeting - IETF 105 - https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/agenda-105-rats-02
[01:55:33] jimsch1 joins the room
[01:57:36] <Meetecho> Can you hear Guy in the room?
[01:57:41] <Meetecho> Yep, I am
[01:57:46] <Kathleen Moriarty> Yes
[01:58:03] <Kathleen Moriarty> He sounds great on meetecho
[01:58:09] <Meetecho> (y)
[01:58:36] Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay joins the room
[01:59:12] Ned Smith leaves the room
[01:59:21] Ned Smith joins the room
[01:59:43] Subramanian Swaminathan joins the room
[02:00:42] Monty Wiseman joins the room
[02:01:20] Rich Salz joins the room
[02:01:38] <Rich Salz> 106 ?
[02:02:56] Seth Ross joins the room
[02:05:42] Giridhar Mandyam joins the room
[02:05:47] Dorothy Cooley joins the room
[02:06:01] Roman Danyliw has set the subject to: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/agenda-106-rats-02
[02:06:11] <Roman Danyliw> Oops.  Thanks Rich
[02:06:23] <Roman Danyliw> I did it twice
[02:06:49] Kohei Isobe joins the room
[02:08:55] Dorothy Cooley leaves the room
[02:10:49] <Rich Salz> @chairs — can you dismiss the Chrome notice at lower right-hand corner?
[02:11:16] <Rich Salz> ty
[02:12:26] Monty Wiseman leaves the room
[02:12:31] Monty Wiseman joins the room
[02:13:33] Shwetha Bhandari joins the room
[02:14:33] Jaime Jiménez joins the room
[02:28:51] <Thomas Hardjono> Yes, this should be kept aroiund for the RATS WG. Either standards track or Informational.
[02:28:58] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> I agree with Guy. This doesn't seem like a normative doc for RATS, but informational is a good place for it
[02:30:34] <Thomas Hardjono> MIC: This should be a separate document. Can't be part of Architecture.
[02:32:26] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> MIC: I think we need the architecture, but we also need the protocol. I am not sure, ultimately, how RIV could fit with EAT, which might make it difficult for this to be standards track
[02:35:17] <Kathleen Moriarty> Jess, I don't think it needs to fit with EAT.
[02:35:57] <Thomas Hardjono> A Router-security Use Case?
[02:36:08] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> I guess there isn't a jabber scribe here today?
[02:36:35] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> But, Kathleen, if that is the case, we should probably look to the group for their guidence
[02:37:04] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> If there is interest in this being a standards-track document, we would take that into consideration
[02:37:08] Shwetha Bhandari leaves the room
[02:37:09] Shwetha Bhandari joins the room
[02:37:21] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> if it's more "helpful, but not a standard", we can keep it at informational
[02:38:21] <Kathleen Moriarty> I guess not, but Ned and I can interject if needed, so I can be the relay for future comments.
[02:38:40] <Ned Smith> (hat off) I think the RIV authors should consider Michael's observation that a RIV profile would be helpful.
[02:38:56] <Kathleen Moriarty> I think informational is right for now, unless you tie a TCG format into it and specify use to the point where it is really standards track.  Does that make sense?
[02:39:24] <Ned Smith> @Kathleen - last comment aimed at RIV or arch?
[02:39:26] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> Ned, are profiles usually informational? or standards-track?
[02:39:27] Thomas Hardjono leaves the room
[02:39:33] <Kathleen Moriarty> Ned, by profile, what do you mean?  Profile of EAT?
[02:39:36] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> sorry for my ignorance here. . . .  
[02:39:42] <Kathleen Moriarty> RIV on my second to last comment
[02:40:13] <Kathleen Moriarty> Profile using TCG standard format?
[02:40:40] <Ned Smith> Profile - a way to apply arch, eat or other drafts to achieve the RIV objectives.
[02:41:07] Thomas Hardjono joins the room
[02:41:39] <Kathleen Moriarty> I think they hit the architecture already, so the only addition along those lines I could see would be a format (EAT or whatever they are using)
[02:42:27] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> So, TPM format is TPM format (until they do TPM 3.0, by which time we will likely all be retired)
[02:42:29] <Thomas Hardjono> Router-Security Profile (under Arch)
[02:42:39] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> I don't think we can fit an EAT profile into our doc
[02:42:42] <Kathleen Moriarty> Ha
[02:42:52] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> Yes, Thomas, I think that is right
[02:43:04] <Kathleen Moriarty> Thank you
[02:43:17] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> or "Things with TPMs that don't sleep" profile, as Guy would say ;)
[02:43:35] <Kathleen Moriarty> :)
[02:43:54] <Thomas Hardjono> The router in my basement goes to sleep all the time. Its NOT a Juniper brand :-)
[02:44:16] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> Ha!
[02:46:35] <Kathleen Moriarty> Publishing drafts is cheap and they are accessible
[02:47:23] <Jim Schaad> People like me are more likely to find published drafts from the datatracker than looking at the github document
[02:47:29] <Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay> I'm off to bed. Goodnight, all!
[02:47:36] <Kathleen Moriarty> Goodnight!
[02:47:53] <Thomas Hardjono> Good night
[02:48:38] <Kathleen Moriarty> Agree Jim, accessible is important IMO
[02:49:03] Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay leaves the room
[02:49:37] Rich Salz leaves the room
[02:49:42] Rich Salz joins the room
[02:50:39] <Thomas Hardjono> MIC: Yes need to state Trust Relationship (e.g. business & legal relationship), without stating solutiions
[02:50:53] <Rich Salz> If the arch doc isn't normative, then what is the reason for putting the samples in the appendix?  (We don't need to say "non-normative appendix"), so leave them where they are for the reasons Henk said.
[02:51:32] <Ned Smith> Considerations that benefit from discussion are benefitted from GitHub and mail list IMO.
[02:51:57] mcr joins the room
[02:52:12] Simon Pietro Romano joins the room
[02:52:29] <Kathleen Moriarty> Agree, Ned.  Jim and I also like to see drafts pushed often with those accepted changes.
[02:53:18] akira.tsukamoto joins the room
[02:54:12] <akira.tsukamoto> test typing
[02:56:28] <akira.tsukamoto> p8 and p9
[02:58:24] <Thomas Hardjono> NIC:  can Attester dump signed-evidence at local storage, to be pulled in later by Verifier.
[02:58:37] roman joins the room
[02:59:15] <Thomas Hardjono> So its OOB
[03:00:23] <Thomas Hardjono> Thx
[03:00:45] <Monty Wiseman> Would need some form of anti-replay
[03:01:47] <Thomas Hardjono> @Monty: yup. I'm thinking of IoT cases where the Verifier may not have cycles to deal with thousands of Attester devices.
[03:02:27] <akira.tsukamoto> p10
[03:02:29] <Monty Wiseman> Agree, and that's a great use case -- we are agreeing
[03:02:49] <mcr> Hardjono, so in that case, assuming that the IoT devices have been onboarded, then the Verifier is just underprovisioned.
[03:02:50] Do you know that my name is Henk Birkholz? joins the room
[03:03:31] <Thomas Hardjono> @mcr:  yeah, Verifier "underpowered" :-)
[03:03:32] <mcr> On the other hand, if you are describing an attestation that needs to occur before onboarding, then that could well be an interesting way to attack a network.  Make attestation too expensive, and get them to turn it off temporarily.
[03:04:01] <akira.tsukamoto> p11
[03:04:30] <Thomas Hardjono> Onboarding will have to be slow, one device at a time.
[03:05:30] <mcr> (as time goes on, the world looks more and more like a William Gibson novel/  Mission-Impossible plot)
[03:05:40] <Thomas Hardjono> Ha!
[03:05:44] <Monty Wiseman> on-boarding has 2 phases: proof that the "static" hardware is valid. That's done with a Platform Cert / iDevID using an already provisined key.
[03:05:50] <Ned Smith> Attestation may need to be a subpart of a security protocol; security protocols are often stateful.
[03:06:39] <mcr> @Monty Wisemen, sure.  But that still involves signing Evidence to send to a Verifier, who compares to Endorsements.
[03:06:49] <Monty Wiseman> The 2nd phase (optional) would be "ok, now I trust the hardwre, now let me check your fw/sw and then do attestation
[03:07:47] <mcr> I'm not sure that everyone can/wants-to split things up that way.
[03:08:14] <mcr> (I'm not sure that I agree with what Henk just said.  I didn't think your phase 1/phase 2 was about WG process, but about protocols)
[03:08:37] <Monty Wiseman> I was having an informative discussion... Wasn't actually making a formal proposal
[03:09:00] <Monty Wiseman> Just some ideas we need to consider.
[03:09:30] <akira.tsukamoto> p12
[03:10:09] Jaime Jiménez leaves the room
[03:10:58] <akira.tsukamoto> p13
[03:11:23] <Thomas Hardjono> MIC: Also need to alloe Verifier to ask for only subsets of Claims.
[03:11:49] <Thomas Hardjono> So verifier is asking only a subtree for the full tree.
[03:12:25] <Thomas Hardjono> subtree of full tree
[03:12:54] <Kathleen Moriarty> allow
[03:13:37] <Thomas Hardjono> Thanks Kathleen. Double espresso losing effect at 10pm :-)
[03:13:48] <Kathleen Moriarty> Ha, you are brave!
[03:13:50] <Monty Wiseman> Agree, this is especally needed for IMA. I presented a TCG proposal for this called CEL (Canonical Event Log) at Linux Security Summit 2018
[03:14:13] Roman Danyliw leaves the room: Disconnected: Broken pipe
[03:14:20] Jaime Jiménez joins the room
[03:14:24] <Kathleen Moriarty> Monty, do you want something said at the mic?
[03:15:07] <Kathleen Moriarty> I have ACME after this and need to be live (draft), but holding off on coffee.
[03:15:25] <akira.tsukamoto> draft-birkholz-rats-basic-yang-module
[03:15:37] Shwetha Bhandari leaves the room
[03:15:38] Shwetha Bhandari joins the room
[03:15:55] <Monty Wiseman> Thanks, we are moving on. I'll contribute to the mailing list
[03:16:06] <Kathleen Moriarty> (Y)
[03:17:22] Jaime Jiménez leaves the room
[03:18:38] <akira.tsukamoto> p3
[03:20:14] Giridhar Mandyam leaves the room
[03:20:34] Giridhar Mandyam joins the room
[03:23:13] Kohei Isobe leaves the room
[03:25:14] <Shwetha Bhandari> Having EATS and TPMs in separate yang models will make more sense. As devices supporting TPM based only or EATS based assertions only will support only specific models
[03:25:32] <Shwetha Bhandari> and that can be discovered by yang model support advertisement
[03:34:06] <Thomas Hardjono> MIC: Yes adopt YANG
[03:34:11] <Kathleen Moriarty> hmm
[03:34:22] <Kathleen Moriarty> (no hat)
[03:34:26] <Giridhar Mandyam> Hmm
[03:34:28] <Shwetha Bhandari> hummm
[03:34:36] <Monty Wiseman> Hum
[03:34:37] <Thomas Hardjono> humm
[03:34:39] <Ned Smith> (no hat) humm
[03:34:50] <Kathleen Moriarty> 6
[03:34:51] <William Bellingrath> Hum
[03:35:16] <Kathleen Moriarty> William was in the positive, correct?
[03:35:24] <William Bellingrath> Yes, Hum for adoption
[03:35:31] <Kathleen Moriarty> 8?
[03:36:19] <akira.tsukamoto> 7
[03:38:37] <akira.tsukamoto> Using Netconf Pub/Sub Model for RATS Interaction Procedure
[03:53:13] Rich Salz leaves the room
[03:53:18] Shwetha Bhandari leaves the room
[03:53:22] <Thomas Hardjono> Thanks all. Safe travels.
[03:53:24] <Giridhar Mandyam> There's a FIDO Plenary at the beginning of February in Lisbon. That would be 2 trips to Europe if the virtual is colocated in Berlin
[03:53:32] Simon Pietro Romano leaves the room
[03:53:32] Thomas Hardjono leaves the room
[03:53:32] Ned Smith leaves the room
[03:53:32] Jim Schaad leaves the room
[03:53:32] Monty Wiseman leaves the room
[03:53:32] William Bellingrath leaves the room
[03:53:32] guy fedorkow leaves the room
[03:53:32] Giridhar Mandyam leaves the room
[03:53:32] Subramanian Swaminathan leaves the room
[03:53:32] Seth Ross leaves the room
[03:53:32] Kathleen Moriarty leaves the room
[03:53:32] Do you know that my name is Henk Birkholz? leaves the room
[03:53:33] Lorenzo Miniero leaves the room
[03:53:50] Meetecho leaves the room
[03:58:51] akira.tsukamoto leaves the room
[04:14:34] roman leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[04:21:07] jimsch1 leaves the room
[04:21:42] mcr leaves the room
[04:38:34] roman joins the room
[05:31:03] roman leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[05:36:43] Rich Salz joins the room
[08:24:55] Rich Salz leaves the room
[08:27:27] Rich Salz joins the room
[09:40:05] Rich Salz leaves the room