Re: [Rats] Adoption call for draft-lundblade-rats-eat-media-type

[Anders Rundgren <[e-mail]>]

On 2022-08-24 15:59, Dave Thaler wrote:
> Anders Rundgren <[e-mail]> writes:
>>> And FYI to respond to Anders, the TEEP use definitely cannot use an in-object
>> tag, and I expect some other uses outlined in the RATS architecture cannot
>> either for the same reason.  Specifically, the TEEP use is to distinguish between
>> (among other things) an EAT using the TEEP Profile, vs existing proprietary
>> formats (such as SGX reports) that do not use CBOR.
>>
>> Hi David,
>> As we all know there are usually multiple ways to address a problem and this
>> case is no exception :)
>>
>> The established way dealing with different objects in an HTTP world is using
>> different paths.  This has native support in most server frameworks while the
>> support for media types is practically non-existent.
>>
>> If for some reason SGX reports and EAT attestation must invoke the same
>> application, wrapping SGX reports with with a tag ("wrapped EAT") seems like
>> a reasonable alternative.
>>
>> In short: EAT/TEEP/RATS would (IMO...) gain by sticking to de-facto standards.
>> Media types are great but their primary use are in REEs.
> 
> The TEEP use of this draft is not in HTTP per se, but in TEEP messages.
> HTTP carries TEEP messages.  TEEP messages carry attestation payloads.
> Attestation payload formats are denoted with a media type carried in the TEEP message.
> 
> Separately, for use in HTTP, see RFC 9205's discussion of media types.  This was recently published by the HTTPbis working group.   It's possible (I don't know)
> that it could be a useful Informative reference from the eat-media-type draft.

David et al, feel free to go ahead standardizing a multi-dimensional typing system.  Personally, I consider FIDO's one-dimensional in-object attestation typing scheme a better mousetrap.

Anders

> 
> Dave
>