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)

[Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>]

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/FwCqNrYjbiTd0nGZ0Wg
> > > > > > 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:[e-mail]
> > > > > > 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:[e-mail]
> > > > > > 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:[e-mail]
> > > > > > 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:[e-mail]
> > > > > > 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:[e-mail]
> > > > > > 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:[e-mail]
> > > > > > 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:[e-mail]
> > > > > > 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:[e-mail]
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >