Re: [Cwt-reg-review] [IANA #1222304] Early allocation for Entity Attestation Token claims in the CWT registry (was Re: Registration of Entity Attestation Token claims in the CWT registry)

[Giridhar Mandyam <[e-mail]>]

Hi All,

Please take note of the new draft that came out last week with requested early allocations as per Mike J.'s guidance:  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rats-eat#section-9.3.1.  Please advise on next steps.

-Giri


-----Original Message-----
From: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 5:47 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Giridhar Mandyam <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Jeremy O'Donoghue <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [IANA #1222304] Early allocation for Entity Attestation Token claims in the CWT registry (was Re: Registration of Entity Attestation Token claims in the CWT registry)

WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.

Sorry, belay that last email.  I'm reading my email FCFS and didn't see that the document authors responded with a request for more review time.  Let me check in with them and let me follow-up with you.

Thanks,
Roman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roman Danyliw
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 8:46 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; lgl@island- 
> resort.com; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: [IANA #1222304] Early allocation for Entity Attestation 
> Token claims in the CWT registry (was Re: Registration of Entity 
> Attestation Token claims in the CWT registry)
>
> Yes, please. After review, the WG can live with these allocations 
> despite them not being the original plan.
>
> Thanks for double checking.
>
> Roman
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Amanda Baber via RT <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 8:37 PM
> > To: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; lgl@island- 
> > resort.com; [e-mail]; 
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: [IANA #1222304] Early allocation for Entity Attestation 
> > Token claims in the CWT registry (was Re: Registration of Entity 
> > Attestation Token claims in the CWT registry)
> >
> > Hi Roman,
> >
> > Should we go ahead with the values proposed by Mike?
> >
> > thanks,
> > Amanda
> >
> > On Fri Jan 14 15:24:39 2022, [e-mail] wrote:
> > > Hi Amanda!
> > >
> > > Could we please have another day before making this allocation 
> > > plan the way ahead.  I'd like to give the document authors who 
> > > best understand the potentially consequences of these identifiers 
> > > a chance to look at them.  Until I think a day or two ago there 
> > > was the expectation in the WG that these would all be one-byte 
> > > identifiers with those specific numeric code points (which have 
> > > been communicated to outside SDOs).  Mike has talked us through it 
> > > but we need a chance to internalize it.
> > >
> > > Roman
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Amanda Baber via RT <[e-mail]>
> > > > Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 9:57 AM
> > > > To: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>
> > > > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> > > > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> > > > [e-mail];
> lgl@island-
> > > > resort.com; [e-mail]; 
> > > > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > Subject: [IANA #1222304] Early allocation for Entity Attestation 
> > > > Token claims in the CWT registry (was Re: Registration of Entity 
> > > > Attestation Token claims in the CWT registry)
> > > >
> > > > Hi Roman,
> > > >
> > > > Can you confirm that we can move ahead with the values listed below?
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > > Amanda
> > > >
> > > > On Fri Jan 14 04:01:33 2022, [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > > As a designated expert for the CWT Claims registry, I approve 
> > > > > of the early registration of the CWT Claims defined in
> > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rats-eat-
> > > > > 11#section-
> > > > > 9.3.1 with the following assignments.  The registrations 
> > > > > should occur on Friday, February 4, 2022 (after the three-week 
> > > > > review period specified by RFC 8392).
> > > > >
> > > > > o  Claim Name: Nonce
> > > > > o  Claim Description: Nonce
> > > > > o  JWT Claim Name: "nonce" (already registered for JWT) o  
> > > > > Claim
> > > > > Key:
> > > > > 10 o  Claim Value Type(s): byte string o  Change Controller:
> > > > > IESG o Specification Document(s): [OpenIDConnectCore], *this
> > > > > document*
> > > > >
> > > > > o  Claim Name: UEID
> > > > > o  Claim Description: The Universal Entity ID o  JWT Claim Name:
> > > > > "ueid"
> > > > > o  CWT Claim Key: 256
> > > > > o  Claim Value Type(s): byte string o  Change Controller: IESG 
> > > > > o Specification Document(s): *this document*
> > > > >
> > > > > o  Claim Name: OEMID
> > > > > o  Claim Description: IEEE-based OEM ID o  JWT Claim Name: "oemid"
> > > > > o  Claim Key: 257
> > > > > o  Claim Value Type(s): byte string o  Change Controller: IESG 
> > > > > o Specification Document(s): *this document*
> > > > >
> > > > > o  Claim Name: Security Level
> > > > > o  Claim Description: Characterization of the security of an 
> > > > > Attester or submodule o  JWT Claim Name: "seclevel"
> > > > > o  Claim Key: 258
> > > > > o  Claim Value Type(s): integer o  Change Controller: IESG o  
> > > > > Specification Document(s): *this document*
> > > > >
> > > > > o  Claim Name: Secure Boot
> > > > > o  Claim Description: Indicate whether the boot was secure o 
> > > > > JWT Claim Name: "secboot"
> > > > > o  Claim Key: 259
> > > > > o  Claim Value Type(s): Boolean o  Change Controller: IESG o  
> > > > > Specification Document(s): *this document*
> > > > >
> > > > > o  Claim Name: Debug Status
> > > > > o  Claim Description: Indicate status of debug facilities o  
> > > > > JWT Claim
> > > > > Name: "dbgstat"
> > > > > o  Claim Key: 260
> > > > > o  Claim Value Type(s): integer o  Change Controller: IESG o  
> > > > > Specification Document(s): *this document*
> > > > >
> > > > > o  Claim Name: Location
> > > > > o  Claim Description: The geographic location o  JWT Claim Name:
> > > > > "location"
> > > > > o  Claim Key: 261
> > > > > o  Claim Value Type(s): map
> > > > > o  Change Controller: IESG
> > > > > o  Specification Document(s): *this document*
> > > > >
> > > > > o  Claim Name: Profile
> > > > > o  Claim Description: Indicates the EAT profile followed o  
> > > > > JWT Claim
> > > > > Name: "eat_profile"
> > > > > o  Claim Key: 262
> > > > > o  Claim Value Type(s): map
> > > > > o  Change Controller: IESG
> > > > > o  Specification Document(s): *this document*
> > > > >
> > > > > o  Claim Name: Submodules Section o  Claim Description: The 
> > > > > section containing submodules (not actually a claim) o  JWT 
> > > > > Claim Name: "submods"
> > > > > o  Claim Key: 263
> > > > > o  Claim Value Type(s): map
> > > > > o  Change Controller: IESG
> > > > > o  Specification Document(s): *this document*
> > > > >
> > > > > Per Roman's note, I believe that chair approval of the act of 
> > > > > early registration is also needed to proceed.  These 
> > > > > registrations should hopefully satisfy the need for early 
> > > > > assignments for interop testing desired by the requestors of 
> > > > > the
> registration.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > -- Mike
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > >  From: Mike Jones
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 5:00 PM
> > > > > To: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>; 
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > Cc: [e-mail]; Ned Smith <[e-mail]>; 
> > > > > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; lgl@island-
> > > > resort.com;
> > > > > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> > > > > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > > > Subject: RE: [IANA #1222304] Early allocation for Entity 
> > > > > Attestation Token claims in the CWT registry (was Re:
> > > > > Registration of Entity Attestation Token claims in the CWT
> > > > > registry)
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for writing, Amanda.
> > > > >
> > > > > We are definitely *not* using the values currently in the 
> > > > > document, as they fail the registration criteria.  As one of 
> > > > > the designated experts, I will be proposing conforming values 
> > > > > today or tomorrow.
> > > > > The
> > > > > criteria that the current values fail are at 
> > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8392#section-9.1,
> > > > > specifically:
> > > > >
> > > > > Criteria that should be applied by the Designated Experts 
> > > > > includes ...
> > > > > Registrations for the limited set of values between -256 and 
> > > > > 255 and strings of length 1 are to be restricted to claims 
> > > > > with general applicability.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > -- Mike
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Amanda Baber via RT <[e-mail]>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 4:55 PM
> > > > > To: [e-mail]
> > > > > Cc: [e-mail]; Ned Smith <[e-mail]>; 
> > > > > [e-mail]; Mike Jones <[e-mail]>; 
> > > > > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> > > > > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> > > > > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [IANA #1222304] Early allocation for 
> > > > > Entity Attestation Token claims in the CWT registry (was Re:
> > > > > Registration of Entity Attestation Token claims in the CWT
> > > > > registry)
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Roman, all,
> > > > >
> > > > > For our records, can one of the RATS chairs confirm this request?
> > > > >
> > > > > I understand that for the CWT registrations, we'll be using 
> > > > > the numeric values requested in the document:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rats-eat-
> > > > > 11#section-
> > > > > 9.3.1
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Amanda Baber
> > > > > IANA Operations Manager
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu Jan 13 21:00:35 2022, [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > > > Hi!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Officially pulling everything together in one place for an 
> > > > > > early registration request.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > == [ Request to IANA ]==
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Per step #5 of Section 3.1 of RFC 7120, the RATS WG would 
> > > > > > like select pre-registration actions for
> > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rats-eat-11
> > > > > > described
> > > > > > in the "Pre-Registration actions" section below.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mike: Thanks so much for your help here.  Consider this an 
> > > > > > approval for early allocation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > == [ WG Coordination ]==
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Step #4 (AD Approval) Implicit in this note
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Step #3 (Discussion on the WG mailing list) 
> > > > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/FwCqNrYjbiTd0nGZ0
> > > > > > Wg
> > > > > > 9R
> > > > > > Q2uU
> > > > > > 8o
> > > > > > /
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > == [ Pre-Registration actions ]==
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See Section 9.3.1 of
> > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
> > > > > > ietf-
> > > > > > rats-eat-11#section-9.3.1
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Roman
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Mike Jones <[e-mail]>
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 2:57 PM
> > > > > >  To: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>; Giridhar Mandyam 
> > > > > > <[e-mail]>; Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island- 
> > > > > > resort.com>
> > > > > >  Cc: Jeremy O'Donoghue <[e-mail]>; cwt-reg- 
> > > > > > [e-mail]; Ned Smith <[e-mail]>; Nancy Cam- 
> > > > > > Winget
> > > > > >  (ncamwing) <[e-mail]>; Kathleen Moriarty 
> > > > > > <[e-mail]>; rats-chairs <rats- 
> > > > > > [e-mail]>
> > > > > >  Subject: Re: Registration of Entity Attestation Token 
> > > > > > claims in the CWT registry
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Roman, once you let the designated experts know that you 
> > > > > > approve of requesting early allocation per RFC 7120, then 
> > > > > > I’d be glad to consider this thread to be the request for 
> > > > > > early registration and proceed to do so.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Giri, Lawrence, etc., the registration procedures for CWT 
> > > > > > claims are defined at
> > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8392#section-
> > > > > > 9.1.
> > > > > > In particular, the following sections are particularly 
> > > > > > relevant to the current discussion:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Criteria that should be applied by the Designated Experts 
> > > > > > includes determining whether the proposed registration 
> > > > > > duplicates existing functionality, whether it is likely to 
> > > > > > be of general applicability or whether it is useful only for 
> > > > > > a single application, and whether the registration description is clear.
> > > > > > Registrations for the limited set of values between -256 and
> > > > > > 255 and strings of length
> > > > > > 1
> > > > > > are to be restricted to claims with general applicability.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IANA must only accept registry updates from the Designated 
> > > > > > Experts and should direct all requests for registration to 
> > > > > > the review mailing list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So whether early or not, the claims being proposed for 
> > > > > > registration that are not of general applicability are 
> > > > > > ineligible for registration in the range -256 to 255.  Also, 
> > > > > > any IANA registrations of CWT claims necessarily involve 
> > > > > > designated expert review.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I’m trying to help you as a designated expert to get to 
> > > > > > stable registrations soon.  Once Roman has approved the 
> > > > > > request for early registration, I’d be glad to work with 
> > > > > > IANA to do early registration of code points that meet the 
> > > > > > registration criteria above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > -- Mike
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 8:38 AM
> > > > > > To: Giridhar Mandyam
> > > > > >
> > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> > > > Mike
> > > > > > Jones
> > > > > > <[e-mail]<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.
> > > > > > co
> > > > > > m>
> > > > > > >; Laurence Lundblade
> > > > > > ><[e-mail]<mailto:lgl@island-
> > > > > > resort.com>>
> > > > > > Cc: Jeremy O'Donoghue
> > > > > >
> > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> > > > cwt-
> > > > > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Ned 
> > > > > > Smith <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> > > > > > Nancy Cam- Winget
> > > > > >  (ncamwing) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> > > > > > Kathleen  Moriarty
> > > > > >
> > <[e-mail]<mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.
> > > > > > com>> ; rats-chairs
> > > > > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Roman 
> > > > > > Danyliw <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Registration of Entity Attestation Token claims 
> > > > > > in the CWT registry
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wanted to acknowledge that I got this note, but I am not
> > > > > > up-to- speed on the issue and need to catch-up before 
> > > > > > providing a meaningful response.  A search of my mailbox 
> > > > > > also found this related thread which I attached.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Roman
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Giridhar Mandyam
> > > > > >
> > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 10:35 AM
> > > > > > To: Mike Jones
> > > > > > <[e-mail]<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.
> > > > > > co
> > > > > > m>
> > > > > > >; Laurence Lundblade
> > > > > > ><[e-mail]<mailto:lgl@island-
> > > > > > resort.com>>; Roman Danyliw
> > > > > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > > > > > Cc: Jeremy O'Donoghue
> > > > > >
> > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> > > > cwt-
> > > > > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Ned 
> > > > > > Smith <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> > > > > > Nancy Cam- Winget
> > > > > >  (ncamwing) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> > > > > > Kathleen  Moriarty
> > > > > >
> > <[e-mail]<mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.
> > > > > > com>> ; rats-chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:rats-
> > > > > > com>> [e-mail]>>
> > > > > > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Registration of Entity 
> > > > > > Attestation Token claims in the CWT registry
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + Roman D.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to escalate this to the AD.  Note that the EAT 
> > > > > > editors acted in good faith in the expectation that the RATS 
> > > > > > chairs would address early allocation, and we were assured 
> > > > > > last March that there was no issues with the requested values.
> > > > > > As a result, we put off Last Call for the draft and went 
> > > > > > forward with guidance to other SDO’s (e.g.
> > > > > > FIDO Alliance, GlobalPlatform) that these claim values were 
> > > > > > stable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now for the first time we are finding out that (a) the 
> > > > > > values called out in the spec are not acceptable as per 
> > > > > > expert review criteria, and
> > > > > > (b) the RATS chairs never initiated the process of pre- 
> > > > > > registration in the first place.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My request to the AD is simple:  allow for pre-registration 
> > > > > > of the values as called out in the current EAT draft.  If 
> > > > > > this is not possible (and it looks likely that it is not), 
> > > > > > then my additional request is that the AD directly manage 
> > > > > > shepherding of this spec to Last Call and RFC as I believe 
> > > > > > communication between the EAT editors and the RATS Chairs 
> > > > > > has broken down and the RATS Chairs are not driving 
> > > > > > consensus decisions from the Working Group with respect to this spec.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Giri
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Mike Jones
> > > > > > <[e-mail]<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.
> > > > > > co
> > > > > > m>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 2:39 AM
> > > > > > To: Laurence Lundblade
> > > > > > <[e-mail]<mailto:lgl@island-
> > > > > > resort.com>>
> > > > > > Cc: Giridhar Mandyam
> > > > > >
> > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> > > > Jeremy
> > > > > > O'Donoghue
> > > > > >
> > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> > > > cwt-
> > > > > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Ned 
> > > > > > Smith <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> > > > > > Nancy Cam- Winget
> > > > > >  (ncamwing) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> > > > > > Kathleen  Moriarty
> > > > > >
> > <[e-mail]<mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.
> > > > > > com>> ; rats-chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:rats-
> > > > > > com>> [e-mail]>>
> > > > > > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Registration of Entity 
> > > > > > Attestation Token claims in the CWT registry
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm.
> > > > > > Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.
> > > > > > Early allocation did not occur.  If it had, the numbers 
> > > > > > would be assigned in https://www.iana.org/assignments/cwt/cwt.xhtml.
> > > > > > (For an example of early allocation listings, see claims 38, 
> > > > > > 39, and 40.) Early registration, like normal registration, 
> > > > > > involves review by the designated experts, which also didn’t 
> > > > > > occur, because as far as I can tell, it wasn’t asked for.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I’m trying to help you get to stable assignments as soon as 
> > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > I know the value of having those.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, if you want stable assignments before upcoming 
> > > > > > interop events, I’d suggest making an early registration 
> > > > > > request by sending the registration request to
> > > > > > [e-mail]<mailto:cwt-
> > > > > > reg-
> > > > > > [e-mail]>.  It would be cleaner to do so by first 
> > > > > > changing the assignments in your IANA Considerations section 
> > > > > > to “TBD”, but you could also do so based on the current 
> > > > > > draft (realizing that the proposed assignments in the draft 
> > > > > > might not be the ones assigned by the designated experts and IANA).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You could have stable assignments within a few weeks if you 
> > > > > > choose to request them soon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > -- Mike
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-
> > > > > > resort.com<mailto:lgl@island- resort.com>>
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 10:31 PM
> > > > > > To: Mike Jones
> > > > > > <[e-mail]<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.
> > > > > > co
> > > > > > m>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Cc: Giridhar Mandyam
> > > > > >
> > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> > > > Jeremy
> > > > > > O'Donoghue
> > > > > >
> > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> > > > cwt-
> > > > > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Ned 
> > > > > > Smith <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> > > > > > Nancy Cam- Winget
> > > > > >  (ncamwing) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> > > > > > Kathleen  Moriarty
> > > > > >
> > <[e-mail]<mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.
> > > > > > com>> ; rats-chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:rats-
> > > > > > com>> [e-mail]>>
> > > > > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Registration of Entity Attestation 
> > > > > > Token claims in the CWT registry
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Mike,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I’m not trying grab anything here that we should not have.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The early allocation process, according to RFC 7120, is 
> > > > > > handled by the WG chairs. It is my understanding is that the 
> > > > > > RATS chairs followed this process and that number 10-18, 20 
> > > > > > have early assignment. That’s why they are in the draft without “TBD”.
> > > > > > Maybe the process wasn’t completed or there is some other 
> > > > > > confusion. I did not interact with IANA myself (but I did 
> > > > > > read 7120).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think this needs to be resolved between the RATS chairs, 
> > > > > > designated experts and IANA. I am happy to adjust the draft 
> > > > > > when this gets resolved.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LL
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Jan 12, 2022, at 9:58 PM, Mike Jones 
> > > > > > <[e-mail]<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.
> > > > > > co
> > > > > > m>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yours is not the first specification that’s tried to 
> > > > > > preallocate the rare single-byte claim numbers for claims 
> > > > > > not of general applicability.  At 
> > > > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/cwt/cwt.xhtml,
> > > > > > you’ll note that most of the claims allocated by
> > > > > > draft-ietf-ace-
> > > > > > oauth-
> > > > > > authz are in the double-byte space because they’re not 
> > > > > > applicable to a wide variety of applications.  They were 
> > > > > > originally requested to be in the single-byte range and the 
> > > > > > designated experts negotiated with the editors to move their 
> > > > > > requested assignments.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jim Schaad was always a stickler about specifications using 
> > > > > > TBD in their registration requests instead of assumed numbers.
> > > > > > At most, he would tolerate “TBD (requested assignment NNN)”.
> > > > > > Of course, he was right.  It’s up to IANA and the designated 
> > > > > > experts to make the assignments, particular of scarce 
> > > > > > resources, not the spec authors.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Therefore, please revise your specification to remove the 
> > > > > > current numbers and replace them with “TBD”.  At that point, 
> > > > > > it would be fine to make an early registration request.  The 
> > > > > > experts and IANA could likely get you permanent numbers at 
> > > > > > that point, probably within a matter of weeks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you do not want to go the early allocation route, the 
> > > > > > other option is to use numbers in the “less than -65536” 
> > > > > > space, which are designated as “Reserved for Private Use”.  
> > > > > > You can use numbers in that space however you want for as 
> > > > > > long as you want – including for facilitating interop 
> > > > > > testing until permanent numbers are assigned.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I’m sorry this appears to have come as a surprise.  The 
> > > > > > designated experts are trying to ensure that the CWT Claims 
> > > > > > numbers are efficiently allocated to do the most good for 
> > > > > > the most applications.
> > > > > > I hope you’ll take this request in that spirit and choose 
> > > > > > one of the paths outlined above to quickly resolve this issue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > -- Mike
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Giridhar Mandyam
> > > > > >
> > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 9:05 PM
> > > > > > To: Laurence Lundblade
> > > > > > <[e-mail]<mailto:lgl@island-
> > > > > > resort.com>>; Mike Jones
> > > > > > <[e-mail]<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.
> > > > > > co
> > > > > > m>
> > > > > > >;
> > > > > > Jeremy O'Donoghue
> > > > > >
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > > > > >  Cc: 
> > > > > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
> > > > > > Ned Smith <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> > > > > > Nancy Cam-Winget
> > > > > >  (ncamwing) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> > > > > > Kathleen  Moriarty
> > > > > >
> > <[e-mail]<mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.
> > > > > > com>> ; rats-chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:rats-
> > > > > > com>> [e-mail]>>
> > > > > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Registration of Entity Attestation 
> > > > > > Token claims in the CWT registry
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + @Jeremy O'Donoghue<mailto:[e-mail]>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ned, RATS Chairs,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We were assured by the RATS Chairs when we highlighted these 
> > > > > > values in Rev. -09 that they would be signed off for the 
> > > > > > registry.  This is one of the reasons why we did not try to 
> > > > > > accelerate Last Call during the first half of last year.
> > > > > > There was clearly a disconnect.
> > > > > > Can
> > > > > > you check into why this occurred?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mike,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We just put out an FDO update on the assumption that these 
> > > > > > claim values are set
> > > > > > (https://fidoalliance.org/specs/FDO/FIDO-Device-
> > > > > > Onboard-RD-v1.1-20211214/FIDO-device-onboard-spec-v1.1-rd-
> > > > > > 20211214.html).  We are planning a 2nd interop event during 
> > > > > > the next couple of months and we may have to put that off now.
> > > > > > Is this issue intractable?  Can the claims not be assigned to EAT?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jeremy can comment on any GlobalPlatform dependencies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Giri
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-
> > > > > > resort.com<mailto:lgl@island- resort.com>>
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:18 PM
> > > > > > To: Mike Jones
> > > > > > <[e-mail]<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.
> > > > > > co
> > > > > > m>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Cc: Giridhar Mandyam
> > > > > >
> > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> > > > cwt-
> > > > > > reg-
> > > > > >  [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Smith, Ned 
> > > > > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Nancy 
> > > > > > Cam- Winget
> > > > > >  (ncamwing) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> > > > > > Kathleen  Moriarty
> > > > > >
> > <[e-mail]<mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.
> > > > > > com>>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Registration of Entity Attestation Token claims 
> > > > > > in the CWT registry
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm.
> > > > > > Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.
> > > > > > A couple more comments.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know what you mean about taking the numbers <24. Not 
> > > > > > trying to be a hog or anything. It seems nobody, myself 
> > > > > > included, thought about it when this was done a year ago.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know that Arm has SW that uses these assignments (ask 
> > > > > > Hannes and Thomas F). I think FIDO does too. I think there 
> > > > > > would be objections to a re assignment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LL
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Jan 12, 2022, at 7:52 PM, Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island- 
> > > > > > resort.com<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + RATS chairs
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Mike,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The claims key numbers 10-18, 20 are early assignments by IANA.
> > > > > > I didn’t handle the interaction with IANA, but I understand 
> > > > > > this to be true.  Changing them now would undermine some 
> > > > > > implementations that are using them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LL
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Jan 12, 2022, at 6:11 PM, Mike Jones 
> > > > > > <[e-mail]<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.
> > > > > > co
> > > > > > m>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please change the proposed CWT claim values for claims UEID 
> > > > > > through Submodules Section from 11 through 20 to 41 through 
> > > > > > 50 so that they are not using up most of the rare 
> > > > > > single-byte claim numbers.
> > > > > > Only
> > > > > > claims that are of general applicability across multiple 
> > > > > > kinds of applications should be allocated in that space.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The one exception I would consider is the Location claim, 
> > > > > > which could be of general applicability.  If you believe 
> > > > > > that this location representation will be used by multiple 
> > > > > > kinds of applications, I would be willing to consider 
> > > > > > registering it in the single-byte claim space.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -- Mike
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Cwt-reg-review
> > > > > > <[e-mail]<mailto:cwt-reg-
> > > > > > [e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Giridhar Mandyam
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2021 4:11 PM
> > > > > > To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> > > > > > Cc: Laurence Lundblade
> > > > > > <[e-mail]<mailto:lgl@island-
> > > > > > resort.com>>
> > > > > >  Subject: [Cwt-reg-review] Registration of Entity 
> > > > > > Attestation Token claims in the CWT registry
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To the CWT claims registry designated experts:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am contacting you on behalf of the editors of the Entity 
> > > > > > Attestation Token specification (latest draft available 
> > > > > > athttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rats-eat-10).
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > is a standards-track document in the IETF Remote Attestation 
> > > > > > Procedures (RATS) Working Group.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please note the requests for CWT registry of the claims 
> > > > > > outlined in
> > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rats-eat-
> > > > > > 10#section
> > > > > > -  7.3.1.  We would like these claim values reflected in the 
> > > > > > IANA CWT registry as soon as possible.  Would this be possible?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please contact myself Giri Mandyam or Laurence Lundblade
> > > > > > (cc’ed) for further information if required.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Giri Mandyam
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >