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

[Schönwälder, Jürgen <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 07:04:40PM +0800, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2019-11-13 1:56 a.m., Laurence Lundblade wrote:
> >
> > Got that one totally wrong. I even knew everything you describe about YANG.
> >
> > I still think it is better if we just stick to EAT / CWT / JWT claims described with CDDL as the way we define claims in RATS, except for a few TPM-specific claims. 
> 
> Nothing I've said is opposed to that.
> I rather agree.  I don't think that EAT is complex enough to require a
> definition in YANG.
> 
> But, that also has nothing to do with whether we'd need a YANG signing
> standard if we defined them in YANG.
> We wouldn't, because we'd be signing JSON, CBOR (or XML if someone
> insisted) using JSOE and COSE.
>

I am still confused but so far for me it may make sense to have the
following:

- A YANG defined transport for "tokens" which likely treats tokens as
  opaque objects.

- A way to include arbitrary YANG defined data as claims in some form
  of "tokens" that can carry YANG defined data. There is lots of stuff
  defined in YANG models that may be reused as claims.

- Whether we need a YANG defined "token" format is unclear to me. It
  is also unclear to me why we would need it specifically for TPMs.

While there is a lot of talk here about different kinds of "token"
recently, I note that this term is not defined in
draft-birkholz-rats-architecture-03.txt nor in
draft-thaler-rats-architecture-01.txt.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>