[saag] Re: [nasr] Re: Re: Re: Re: NASR BOF Follo w-Up

Hi Watson,
I'm confused about "nontrivial semantic claims", can you give an example to explain?

For example, if the operator's customer requires every node to support TEE, then only need to choose from nodes that have TEE functionality. It is not necessary to determine whether the router supports TEE from each configuration and operation directive, and to ensure the authenticity of the claims supporting TEE functionality, that's in the scope of RATS.

Best,
Meiling

From: Watson Ladd
Date: 2025-04-19 02:22
To: Henk Birkholz
CC: Liuchunchi(Peter); Eric Rescorla; Toerless Eckert; [email protected]; IETF SAAG; Luigi Iannone
Subject: [nasr] Re: [saag] Re: Re: Re: NASR BOF Follow-Up
Dear Henk,
 
Your response was very detailed I think helped me at least, understand
the core issue of our disagreement. If I might take some liberties in
summarizing, it sounds like what you want is to provide additional
scaffolding from NASR to enable collection of evidence, and maybe some
standardized ways to represent the evidence, from a chain of routers
that it can be proved some packets transit. The evidence attests to
syntactic properties of the code and configuration at a point in time,
maybe with some kind of history mechanism to understand it.
 
However, the properties being claimed are nontrivial semantic claims
dependent on the configuration and the software that uses this
configuration to route packets. There's a big gap here, and I don't
believe it has been solved. To the extent that NASR needs these to be
solved to provide certain things, it won't be able to provide them,
and I think that undermines a lot of the presented rationale.
 
Sincerely,
Watson Ladd

_______________________________________________
saag mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]