[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)

[Amanda Baber via RT <[e-mail]>]

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/FwCqNrYjbiTd0nGZ0Wg9RQ2uU8o/
> 
> 
> 
> ==[ 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 <[e-mail]>
> 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 <[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:[e-mail]>>;
> 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:[e-mail]>>;
> 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:[e-mail]>>;
> 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:[e-mail]>>;
> rats-chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[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:[e-mail]>>
> 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:[e-mail]>>;
> rats-chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[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 <[e-mail]<mailto:lgl@island-
> resort.com>>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 10:31 PM
> To: Mike Jones
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 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:[e-mail]>>;
> rats-chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[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:[e-mail]>>
> 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:[e-mail]>>;
> 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:[e-mail]>>;
> rats-chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[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 <[e-mail]<mailto:lgl@island-
> resort.com>>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:18 PM
> To: Mike Jones
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 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:[e-mail]>>
> 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:[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: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
>