Re: [Rats] Call for Adoption: EAT draft

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

Greetings!

A month later, my assessment of the status of this last call is as follows:

The EAT draft is adopted with identified issues that need to be resolved
through the WG consensus process.  I am listing the identified issues in
this message.  If any issues have been left out, please do correct me and
we'll make sure the WG runs through the full list.  Additional decision
points can be added at any time for WG discussion, as with any WG adopted
draft.  If details within any of the identified issues require
clarification, we can figure that out in an issue tracking format and
ensure we have consensus on each identified item.


   1. Clearly define EAT (token, structured format, protocol message, etc.)
   2. CWT or CWT-like?  My take from the thread is that we move to CWT and
   we use the CWT or JWT registry as appropriate with updated instructions.
   Instructions should account for unused or barely used claims.
   3. Process for review of claims entered into CWT/JWT registry
   4. A basic set of attestation related claims and what makes a good claim
   for use within EAT. Define claims profile for network equipment. Determine
   which other profiles (if any) should be considered.
   5. Limits to what can be populated in an EAT claim

Related work in other drafts may influence this draft in time as well, such
as an information model.  Additional questions came up that I trust will be
addressed in the draft update, such as the ability to create a custom claim
to carry the entire TPM attestation as a payload and relationships to
FIDO/Webauthn.  Examples may be helpful.  Ensuring clean interoperation
with other drafts will be important as well.

If the authors could post a new version with the name formatted as a WG
draft, that can serve as a next step.  If they have felt there is agreement
on some of the items discussed, this new version can include their proposed
text to address those points for WG review.  If the draft is in github,
then a pull request may be used to suggest corrections, but proposed text
should also go to the list.

draft-ietf-rats-eat-00.txt

Thank you,
Kathleen

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:06 AM Kathleen Moriarty <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Greetings!
>
> At IETF 104, a poll was taken to determine interest in the RATS WG
> adopting:
>
> The Entity Attestation Token (EAT)
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mandyam-rats-eat/
>
> This begins a 2 week period to determine interest in adopting this draft
> as a working group item.  The poll will close on May 24th EOD PDT.
>
> Minutes from IETF 104:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-104-rats/
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
>


-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen