[Rats] Re: what/where to work o geographic/positional remote attestation

[Ramki Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Michael. Dear WG Chairs and All,

We have posted -02 of our draft, substantially updated since IETF 125:

*draft-lkspa-rats-verifiable-geo-fence-02* "Verifiable Proof of Environment
Attestation Profile (V-PEA)"

*Repositioning*

The draft has been reframed from a narrow "geofencing profile" to a
broader *Verifiable
Proof of Environment* — hardware-rooted proof that a workload executes in
its approved environment across two co-required Evidence dimensions:

   - *WHAT* — hardware provenance (manufacturer-endorsed TPM AK), platform
   integrity (PCRs vs. Reference Values), and workload agent software
   integrity (binary digest)
   - *WHERE* — physical residency within an approved geographic boundary,
   optionally privacy-preserving via Transparent ZKP (Plonky2)

A single TPM quote seal binds WHAT and WHERE into one unforgeable lah-bundle:
neither dimension can be forged or transplanted without invalidating the
other.

*IETF 125 comments addressed*

   - *SovCert*: Added explicit treatment — SovCert anchors are structurally
   compatible as composable Claim sources alongside GNSS, MNO/CAMARA, and
   timing-based methods. Formal integration deferred pending standards-body
   participation.
   - *Composable geolocation*: All geolocation methods (GNSS, MNO/CAMARA,
   timing-based, SovCert, quantum-derived) now explicitly framed as
   independently appraised Claim sources feeding a common Evidence structure.
   - *RFC 9334 alignment*: Systematic terminology alignment throughout.

*Running code*

   - Open source implementation:
   https://github.com/lfedgeai/AegisSovereignAI
   - Presented at *Red Hat Summit 2025* (Boston) as "Silicon-Rooted
   Attestation for Verifiable AI Governance Across Regulated Industries":
   https://events.experiences.redhat.com/widget/redhat/sum26/SessionCatalog2026/session/1762981272401001FebB

We welcome WG feedback and look forward to adoption.

Thanks, Ramki (on behalf of co-authors)

Thanks,
Ramki

On Fri, May 8, 2026 at 10:51 AM Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> EXECSUM: This email is asking about how the RATS WG thinks a set of
> documents should
>          be handled.  Here or there?
>
> A number of people have been working on a series of documents that lead to
> Attestation Results as to the physical location of a computation (of an
> Attested Environment).  There are needs for this in Confidential Computing,
> Secured foRarding, and other soverign data situations [%].  The documents
> have lots of motivation words already.
>
> 1. Privacy Preserving Verifiable Geofencing with Residency Proofs for
>    Sovereign Workloads
>    draft-lkspa-rats-verifiable-geo-fence
>    (previously: draft-lkspa-wimse-verifiable-geo-fence )
>
> 2. Geographic Attestation Results
>    draft-richardson-rats-geographic-results-latest
>         (includes previous draft-richardson-rats-pop-endorsement
>                 Proof of Position for Auditor managed Endorsements)
>
> 3. Hardware-Rooted Attestation for Precision Time Protocol: Scalable
>    Workload Identity and Phased PQC Readiness
>    draft-ramki-ptp-hardware-rooted-attestation-01
>
> There is also a running-code project
> https://github.com/lfedgeai/AegisSovereignAI
>
> (I feel like I have missed a document)
>
> The documents were organized this way because we thought that WIMSE WG
> would
> want #1, that #2 was a natural small EAR extension, and that NTP WG would
> want #3.  NTP WG is still thinking, but my understanding is that WIMSE WG
> is
> not that interested in #1.
>
> Discussions among the design team member this morning was around the
> question
> about how many documenets, how big.
>
> More documents create more coordination work, can confuse reviewers who do
> not read them all, and require more management cycles to advance.
> OTH, documents become increasingly (exponentially?) harder to review and
> advance as they grow beyond O(100) pages { O(2^6)! }
>
> So we are seeking the WG member advice on how to proceed.
> Assume two alternate situations: documents all come to RATS vs other WGs
> want
> the documents there.  Does RATS want to fight to own the documents, or does
> RATS prefer to voluntell other WGs?
>
>
> % - While there are many ways to mis-uses location information, and such
>   things which upset me greatly, I personally prefer it be done well, in
>   a way that is trustworthy to all.  Ubitiquous CCTV is a scrouge, but it
> can
>   also confirm an alibi, provided it can't be faked.
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>
> **       My working hours and your working hours may be different.
>  **
> ** Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours
> **
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>


-- 
Thanks,
Ramki