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

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

On 2019-11-12 6:10 p.m., Henk Birkholz wrote:
>
>
> On 12.11.19 10:44, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>>> on one hand, we have to address the overlap between YANG and EAT
>>>>> information elements (statements & Claims) and how to deal with them
>>>>> (one obvious issue, for example, would be potential redundant
>>>>> information model content in two different drafts).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Examples of the same information elements that are used in different
>>> data models via Claims or statements:
>>>
>>> * EAT Time stamp / YANG clock info
>>> * EAT Origination / YANG attestation key cert, or
>>> * EAT Uptime / YANG tpm ticks
>>
>> Those aren't EATs, those are attributes of claims that an EAT could
>> include.
>> If you are saying that we could write a YANG module describing those
>> claims, and that they could be used to describe both claims of an EAT,
>> but also results from a TPM 1.2/2.0 call, then I understand finally.
>
> Yes, that is basically a way to phrase the question, I think.
>
> Specialized questions are: do we need to do that? Do we want to do
> that? Is it technically okay to instead convey opaque EAT blobs via a
> YANG statement?

Sorry to be more pendantic.
Do you mean: Is it okay to convey attributes of claims that an EAT could
include as blobs in a YANG model?
Or you mean: Is it okay to convey a binary serialization (say to CWT) of
an EAT in a binary blog in a YANG model?

(The answer to both is yes.  I don't know if it's useful)