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

[Michael Jones <[e-mail]>]

I approve these registry updates.

				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Sabrina Tanamal via RT <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2024 11:37 AM
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [IANA #1278408] expert review for draft-ietf-rats-eat (cwt)

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%7
> > C0 
> > %7C638277141289267925%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLC
> > JQ 
> > IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bMH
> > ht
> > 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%7C494d76a188ab4c05733
> > 50
> > 8db9dada172%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C63827714128
> > 92 
> > 67925%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLC
> > JB 
> > TiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PyPYIU9%2B7fHHm4TEu
> > Fz
> > 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