Trustworthiness Claim enumeration for configuration, needs to be extended

[yogeshbdeshpande]

As per the latest draft of AR4SI, specific Trustworthiness Claim enumeration for configuration is as under:

0: No assertion
1: Verifier cannot parse unexpected Evidence.
-1: Verifier malfunction
2: The configuration is a known and approved config.
3: The configuration includes or exposes no known vulnerabilities.
32: The configuration includes or exposes known vulnerabilities.
96: The configuration is unsupportable as it exposes unacceptable security vulnerabilities.
99: Cryptographic validation of the Evidence has failed.

However, there could be a use case where the Verifier is not aware of
a specific Attester Configuration. So it cannot say anything concrete about the
specific configuration.

Hence we propose, we add another enumeration example below:
36: The configuration is unknown to the Verifier

[ericvoit]

Hi Yogesh, Thanks very much for the proposal. What do you think about the following tweak?: 36: Elements of the configuration relevant to security are unavailable to the Verifier Eric From: Yogesh Deshpande ***@***.***> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 5:16 AM To: ietf-rats-wg/draft-ietf-rats-ar4si ***@***.***> Cc: Subscribed ***@***.***> Subject: [ietf-rats-wg/draft-ietf-rats-ar4si] Trustworthiness Claim enumeration for configuration, needs to be extended (Issue #17) As per the latest draft of AR4SI, specific Trustworthiness Claim for configuration is as under: 0: No assertion 1: Verifier cannot parse unexpected Evidence. -1: Verifier malfunction 2: The configuration is a known and approved config. 3: The configuration includes or exposes no known vulnerabilities. 32: The configuration includes or exposes known vulnerabilities. 96: The configuration is unsupportable as it exposes unacceptable security vulnerabilities. 99: Cryptographic validation of the Evidence has failed. However, there could be a use case where the Verifier is not aware of a specific Attester Configuration. So it cannot say anything concrete about the specific configuration. Hence we propose, we add another enumeration example below: 36: The configuration is unknown to the Verifier — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#17> , or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADPW7IHMARDRK44CBHVND5TWT6TULANCNFSM6AAAAAAUE4OCOU> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. <https://github.com/notifications/beacon/ADPW7IHKOT2WOELX27MQVVTWT6TULA5CNFSM6AAAAAAUE4OCOWWGG33NNVSW45C7OR4XAZNFJFZXG5LFVJRW63LNMVXHIX3JMTHFZKVOCI.gif> Message ID: ***@***.*** ***@***.***> >

[yogeshbdeshpande]

@ericvoit Thanks for a quick reply. I am happy with your proposal.

36: Elements of the configuration relevant to security are unavailable to the Verifier

is perfectly fine!