[Cwt-reg-review] [IANA #1278408] expert review for draft-ietf-rats-eat (cwt)

[Sabrina Tanamal via RT <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mike, Hannes, Ludwig,

Resending this message (please see below). Could one of you approve these changes to the "Claim Value Type" field?

Thanks,
Sabrina

On Fri Jan 05 19:36:37 2024, sabrina.tanamal wrote:
> Hi Mike, Hannes, Ludwig,
> 
> The authors of draft-ietf-rats-eat would like to make the following
> changes to the Claim Value Type field:
> 
> I’m replying on behalf of the EAT authors.
> 
> All is good for all 4 actions, except we have found minor issues with
> the “Claim Value Type” in the CWT registry.  IANA copied exactly from
> EAT and did what was asked correctly. EAT (and perhaps others) should
> have been more careful about “Claim Value Type”.
> 
> We’ve realized that there isn’t an agreed upon convention for what
> goes in the “Claim Value Type” column. We’ve initiated discussion for
> this in the CBOR WG. See
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/qMs19DfPFSOrQ-e0tRHk-
> 3Zaer4/. We don’t expect there to be much discussion or objection to
> what we propose, partly because “Claim Value Type” is only extra info,
> not anything normative. The normative text used by implementors is in
> the referenced documents.
> 
> We’d like to make the following changes. We’re working on a pull
> request in GitHub that will make these changes to the EAT document. We
> are not concerned that what is in CWT registry now will cause
> confusion. No need to hurry and update.
> 
> a) Debug status (dbgstat):  the type should be "uint" only in the CWT
> registry.
> b) Intended Use (intuse):  the type should be "uint" only in the CWT
> registry.
> c) Boot Seed (bootseed):  the type should be 'bstr" in the CWT
> registry.
> Note:  we also notice that 'bstr' and 'byte string' are used in the
> CWT registry in general to designate the same type.  We would like to
> stay consistent with the EAT claims and only use "bstr".
> d) Boot Count (bootcount):  The type should be "uint" in the CWT
> registry.
> e)  OEM Authorised Boot (oemboot):  In the CWT registry, please change
> "Authorised" with an 's' to "Authorized" with a 'z'.  We will make a
> similar spelling adjustment in the final RFC. The type should be
> “bool” in the CWT registry.
> f) Software Name (swname):  In the CWT registry, the type should be
> "tstr"
> g) Software Version (swversion):  In the CWT registry the type should
> be "array"
> h) Nonce (eat_nonce):  In the CWT registry, the type should be "bstr
> or array".  Note that this claim index was pre-registered, but the
> definition was adjusted after WGLC initiated.
> i) EAT Profile (eat_profile): in the CWT registry, the type should be
> “uri or oid”.
> j) Hardware OEM ID (oemid): in the CWT registry, the type should be
> “bstr or int”.
> k) Uptime (uptime):in the CWT registry the type should be “uint”.
> 
> ====
> 
> Registry: https://www.iana.org/assignments/cwt
> 
> Could one of you approve these changes? Please note that these
> registrations have already been added to the registry, but we'll make
> these changes as soon as we receive your approval.
> 
> Thanks,
> Sabrina
> 
> On Wed Aug 16 00:57:59 2023, [e-mail] wrote:
> > I approve of these CWT Claim registrations.
> >
> > I suggest these CWT claim number assignments:
> >
> > Uptime - 261
> > Boot Count - 267
> > Boot Seed - 268
> > DLOAs - 269
> > Software Name - 270
> > Software Version - 271
> > Software Manifests - 272
> > Measurements - 273
> > Software Measurement Results - 274
> > Intended Use - 275
> >
> > -- Mike
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Dong via RT <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 9:35 AM
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: [IANA #1278408] expert review for draft-ietf-rats-eat (cwt)
> >
> > Dear Mike, Hannes, Ludwig (cc: rats WG),
> >
> > As the designated experts for the CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims
> > registry, can you review the proposed registration in draft-ietf-
> > rats-
> > eat-21 for us? Please see
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-eat/
> >
> > The due date is August 29th.
> >
> > If this is OK, when the IESG approves the document for publication,
> > we'll make the registration at:
> >
> > https://www.iana.org/assignments/cwt/
> >
> > Unless you ask us to wait for the other reviewers, we'll act on the
> > first response we receive.
> >
> > With thanks,
> >
> > David Dong
> > IANA Services Sr. Specialist
> >
> > On Tue Aug 08 23:03:09 2023, david.dong wrote:
> > > Dear Mike, Hannes, Ludwig (cc: rats WG),
> > >
> > > As the designated experts for the CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims
> > > registry, can you review the proposed registration in draft-ietf-
> > > rats-
> > > eat-21 for us? Please see
> > >
> > > https://datat/
> > > racker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-rats-
> > > eat%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C494d7
> > > 6a188ab4c05733508db9dada172%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0
> > > %7C638277141289267925%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ
> > > IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bMHht
> > > pJb6McbnJ9v%2F8dKs9lcg2nCNzKLAOxIG1UgDq8%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > > The due date is August 29th.
> > >
> > > If this is OK, when the IESG approves the document for publication,
> > > we'll make the registration at:
> > >
> > > https://www.i/
> > > ana.org%2Fassignments%2Fcwt%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C494d76a188ab4c0573350
> > > 8db9dada172%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C6382771412892
> > > 67925%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJB
> > > TiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PyPYIU9%2B7fHHm4TEuFz
> > > lIhGaNHG8EQoX1gbyfpqWRgo%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > > Unless you ask us to wait for the other reviewers, we'll act on the
> > > first response we receive.
> > >
> > > With thanks,
> > >
> > > David Dong
> > > IANA Services Sr. Specialist