Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

5.2 - RP format issues #205

Closed
mcr opened this issue Dec 2, 2020 · 2 comments
Closed

5.2 - RP format issues #205

mcr opened this issue Dec 2, 2020 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels
wontfix Should respond via email but does not warrant doc changes

Comments

@mcr
Copy link
Collaborator

mcr commented Dec 2, 2020

Hence, the ability to
   let the Relying Party obtain an Attestation Result in the same
   serialization format allows minimizing the code footprint and attack
   surface area of the Relying Party, especially if the Relying Party is
   a constrained node.
  1. What should this convey to the reader? All I can think of is “get ready for 1,000 different formats”…

  2. If comparing attack surfaces is important here, should it be compared in all the other variations in this document? How do you know it’s even true?
    Or should this one be deleted?

@dthaler
Copy link
Collaborator

dthaler commented Jan 12, 2021

My opinion is this one is just an email response, no change to text:

  1. The industry already has multiple formats today. Multiple is important, expanding the set indefinitely is not intended or good, but if someone (like another SDO) does add another one, RATS can accommodate it.
  2. "should [attack surface] be compared in all the other variations in this document" -> if there's an important requirement that falls out of it yes. But I don't know of one. "how do you know it's even true" -> not sure what "it" refers to but if it is "minimizing code footprint", then it's true that 2 parsers is generally more code than 1 parser (the onus of showing otherwise would be on the person arguing that 2 parsers is less code than 1 parser). "should this one be deleted" -> no.

@mcr mcr self-assigned this Jan 12, 2021
@dthaler dthaler added wontfix Should respond via email but does not warrant doc changes and removed email only labels Feb 2, 2021
@mcr
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mcr commented Feb 5, 2021

@mcr mcr closed this as completed Feb 5, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
wontfix Should respond via email but does not warrant doc changes
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants