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

RequestPolicyCheck API and multiple TAMs #32

Closed
dthaler opened this issue Jan 8, 2021 · 2 comments · Fixed by #33
Closed

RequestPolicyCheck API and multiple TAMs #32

dthaler opened this issue Jan 8, 2021 · 2 comments · Fixed by #33
Assignees
Labels
ready to close Authors believe this issue has been addressed

Comments

@dthaler
Copy link
Collaborator

dthaler commented Jan 8, 2021

As shown in Figure 1 of the TEEP architecture doc, a TEEP Agent may need to talk to multiple TAMs (e.g., one to get a TA, and a second one to get personalization data).

The TEEP-over-HTTP spec currently says:

The TEEP/HTTP Client informs the TEEP Agent by invoking an appropriate "RequestPolicyCheck" API.
The TEEP Agent will either (a) pass no data back, (b) pass back a TAM URI to connect to, or (c) pass back a message buffer and TAM URI to send it to.

The question is if the API can only pass back "a" TAM URI, then how does it conduct policy checks with multiple TAMs?

@dthaler
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dthaler commented Jan 8, 2021

This will also affect the TEEP protocol spec once https://github.com/ietf-teep/teep-protocol/pull/87/files is merged.

@dthaler
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dthaler commented Feb 22, 2021

Fixed in draft -10

@dthaler dthaler added ready to close Authors believe this issue has been addressed and removed fixed in editors copy Fixed in github awaiting I-D submission 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 Authors believe this issue has been addressed
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants