Re: [Rats] Call for adoption (after draft rename) for Yang module draft

[Laurence Lundblade <[e-mail]>]

I think we have accepted that this WG will do standardization for / around the following attestation token formats (aka attestation evidence formats):
EAT (lots of detailed work in IETF to define)
JWT
CWT
(possibly also ASN.1 / X.509)
TCG (fixed years ago by the TCG)
TPM 1.2 signed Quote
TPM 2 signed Audit Session

I think any conveyance protocol we work on MUST carry all of these. I don’t think this is hard. If it were hard I wouldn’t say this.

To adopt the YANG module, I think it should be modified to carry EAT/JWT/CWT and retain its name. It can still have the other TPM-specific stuff in it for use when in TPM mode, but it should have an EAT mode too.

LL


> On Nov 5, 2019, at 2:54 PM, Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> All,
> Thanks for the feedback and responses received thus far on the https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-birkholz-rats-basic-yang-module/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-birkholz-rats-basic-yang-module/>
> draft.  
>  
> There  was consensus that the focus of the draft is more about TPM based attestations so the draft should be modified accordingly.  A suggested title would be “Yang Module for TPM based Remote Attestations”, the file, once adopted, would be renamed to draf -rats-tpm-yang-module
>  
> With this proposed update, this is a call for adoption for that draft with the modified name.  We would like to close the confirmation by the Friday of the IETF 106, e.g. Friday Nov 22 EOD (IETF time).  If you have objections on adopting the draft, please state your rationale as well.
>  
> Warm regards, 
>                 Nancy 
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats>