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

[Hackathon] How does Agent get unneeded TA list #213

Closed
dthaler opened this issue Nov 11, 2020 · 2 comments
Closed

[Hackathon] How does Agent get unneeded TA list #213

dthaler opened this issue Nov 11, 2020 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels
ready to close Ready for WG chairs to verify and close

Comments

@dthaler
Copy link
Collaborator

dthaler commented Nov 11, 2020

This issue was found during the Hackathon while implementing the TEEP protocol.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teep-architecture-13#section-6.2.1 has:

6.2.1.  TEEP Broker APIs

   The following conceptual APIs exist from a TEEP Broker to a TEEP
   Agent:

   1.  RequestTA: A notification from an REE application (e.g., an
       installer, or an Untrusted Application) that it depends on a
       given Trusted Component, which may or may not already be
       installed in the TEE.

However there is no "UnrequestTA" conceptual API, so the TEEP Agent would have no way to know when any such dependencies from Untrusted Applications were removed (e.g., due to the Untrusted Apps being uninstalled).

Per IETF 108 discussion, the TEEP protocol has a way to tell the TAM which TA's are no longer needed so the TAM can choose whether to remove them. But there's no way specified for the Agent to get such information without a conceptual API like this.

Corresponding issues on the other specs:

dthaler added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 11, 2020
Addresses #213

Signed-off-by: Dave Thaler <dthaler@ntdev.microsoft.com>
@dthaler dthaler added the have proposed text Ready for other editors to review and merge if ok label Nov 11, 2020
@mcd500
Copy link
Contributor

mcd500 commented Jan 5, 2021

@mingpeiwk Can we merge the PR #216 addresses this issue?

@dthaler dthaler added fixed in editors copy and removed have proposed text Ready for other editors to review and merge if ok labels Jan 8, 2021
@dthaler
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dthaler commented Feb 22, 2021

Fixed in draft -14

@dthaler dthaler added ready to close Ready for WG chairs to verify and close and removed fixed in editors copy labels Feb 22, 2021
@tireddy2 tireddy2 closed this as completed Mar 7, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ready to close Ready for WG chairs to verify and close
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants