Subject: Re: [Rats] WGLC for draft-ietf-rats-tpm-based-network-device-attest

From: Shwetha <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 20:45:19 +0530

I have reviewed -04 of the document and support progressing it IESG. Some
nits:

1. Relook: It's an informational draft - section 2.3/2.4 and section 3 have
RFC 2119 MUST/SHOULD
2. Section 2.4.2 Attestation logs : charra model represents the other event
log formats listed for export, it does not define a event log format. Hence
charra can be removed from the list. Run time integrity is mentioned as
deferred / out of scope but then there is a reference to IMA event logs
here, is it needed?

Thanks
Shwetha

"Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <[email-masked]> Mon, 21 September 2020
02:06 UTC

RATs participants,

This is a WGLC for draft-ietf-rats-tpm-based-network-device-attest,
please provide comments and feedback by October 12, 2020.
The draft can be found
in:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-tpm-based-network-device-attest/

Best, Nancy (on behalf of the RATs chairs)

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 11:07:50 -0700

> 1. Relook: It's an informational draft - section 2.3/2.4 and section 3 have

There is no requirement that BCP 14 keywords are only used in
standards-track documents; it is perfectly fine for them to appear in an
informational document.

-Ben