Proposed changes to depend on RATS for attestation #81
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Align picture with diagrams used in the TEEP WG at IETF 105 THis addresses issues #17, #31, and the part of #70 that talks about digital signature formats. Per discussion at IETF 106, the direction is that the architecture document should explain the relationship between TEEP and attestation, and leave protocol details to the TEEP protocol spec. It should NOT discuss attestation details, including anything about signing with any attestation key, seeding of attestation keys, or using specific crypto algorithms for attestation. Signed-off-by: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
dthaler
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 27, 2019
Addresses issue #69 Removal of some uses of normative language in attestation text was covered by PR #81. This PR covers all uses not already part of the other PR. Any discussion of OCSP is left to the protocol doc, since OTrPv1 directly depended on OCSP and the new TEEP protocol is still in flux. Hence removed mention of OCSP in particualr from the arch doc. Signed-off-by: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
This was referenced Nov 27, 2019
Signed-off-by: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
mingpeiwk
approved these changes
Dec 4, 2019
This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Align picture with diagrams used in the TEEP WG at IETF 105
THis addresses issues #17, #31, and the part of #70 that talks about
digital signature formats. Per discussion at IETF 106, the direction is
that the architecture document should explain the relationship between
TEEP and attestation, and leave protocol details to the TEEP protocol
spec. It should NOT discuss attestation details, including anything
about signing with any attestation key, seeding of attestation keys,
or using specific crypto algorithms for attestation.
Signed-off-by: Dave Thaler dthaler@microsoft.com