[saag] Re: [nasr] Re: Re: NASR BOF Follow-Up
Eric Rescorla <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.saag |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CABcZeBNGUWxKUpOY-5YwN7Tj29YAxJvVYy=PkKhk4oLnOASYfA@mail.gmail.com> |
On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 1:17 AM Henk Birkholz <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi ekr, > > I apologize for mixing provenances... again! For me, dipping in into > this thread occasionally, it is not easy to track data origin vs. data > source without a napkin note. > > Both questions: > > "is it possible to determine that the configuration/policy of a device > is acceptable in a fashion that does not expose that > configuration/policy to a counterparty?" > > and > > "Is it practical to mechanically verify that a configuration is > acceptable?" > > sound like really good questions to me. Personally, I am under the > assumption that both of these questions are not RATS questions and maybe > not even SEC area questions. They seem to me more like OPS area > questions, right?. Yes, I agree. -Ekr > Please chime in here on the SAAG list, if you think > that was a weird thing to say! (Obviously, opsec is a thing, but I am > referring the "mechanics" of the solution providing an answer to the > questions). > > I also think that (from a RATS perspective) the answer to those > questions is really interesting (as it could inform the exposure of RATS > conceptual messages). Will these questions be worked on? > > > Viele Grüße, > > Henk > > > On 11.04.25 23:29, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 11:50 AM Henk Birkholz > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 11.04.25 19:23, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > Hi Ekr, > > > > sorry for dragging you through this convo, but I think I now have a > > better understanding of your problem statement than before. Thanks! > > > > As far as I am understanding it for now, the question is: "is it > > possible to determine that the configuration/policy of a device is > > acceptable in a fashion that does not expose that > configuration/policy > > to a counterparty?" That question would be independent from "RATS > > Evidence" which was popping up in the thread before. > > > > > > To be clear, that was *Richard's* question. My question was prior to > that, > > namely "Is it practical to mechanically verify that a configuration is > > acceptable?" > > > > -Ekr > > > _______________________________________________ saag mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]