Re: [Cwt-reg-review] Registration of Entity Attestation Token claims in the CWT registry

[Laurence Lundblade <[e-mail]>]

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 <[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:[e-mail]>> 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:[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]>
>> 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 <https://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 <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
>