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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 11 November 2019 11:37 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: rats@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rats@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54475120100 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 03:37:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.865
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.865 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7lYveJZnWOGt for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 03:37:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFC651200DB for <rats@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 03:37:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.42.250] (unknown [209.52.88.123]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CFD463897B for <rats@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 06:34:02 -0500 (EST)
To: "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
References: <8B173958-FC2A-4D1D-A81C-F324AB632CD7@cisco.com> <147F9159-6055-4E55-ABDC-43DFE3498BF1@island-resort.com> <ce5f8206-74dc-36bb-0093-a93045d5c67f@sit.fraunhofer.de> <0A7E3A4F-8534-4E98-BCB7-1454E07699F4@island-resort.com> <C3AE2645-49C8-4313-BCED-02FEB576B614@cisco.com> <1C8A1884-A37D-45E3-8C11-2FC5A083B245@island-resort.com> <ba12a686-1b34-21a3-388c-bbe01c01a408@sandelman.ca> <1DFA7D52-7294-4705-9407-C34F5BC82EA6@cisco.com> <5f57dd25-f561-e07d-4b24-fef05627bac9@sit.fraunhofer.de>
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <c61b3ccd-6427-5801-c149-4e93af5c9fb1@sandelman.ca>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 19:37:01 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5f57dd25-f561-e07d-4b24-fef05627bac9@sit.fraunhofer.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/U8El7oIH4TmINN0mibsLh8aZlF4>
Subject: Re: [Rats] Call for adoption (after draft rename) for Yang module draft
X-BeenThere: rats@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Remote Attestation Procedures <rats.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rats>, <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rats/>
List-Post: <mailto:rats@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats>, <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:37:09 -0000


On 2019-11-11 5:57 p.m., Henk Birkholz wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> 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).

Can you give me an example, but I'm not getting the issue.
I think that we will be the first to attempt to use JOSE to sign a JSON
serialized YANG object, resulting in a JWT.  Well, technically, it's
probably not a JWT, because we aren't going to base64url it and put
periods between the pieces, I think.  It's just JOSE, but I don't mind
if we call it a JWT.

draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher does CBOR serialized YANG which is
signed with COSE.


> On the other hand, Laurence's original point was the payload of
> conveyance protocols used by RATS. Specializations of this topic are
> apparently:
>
> * Web Tokens via YANG Interfaces, and
> * YANG modeled data via other conveyance protocols (other than *CONF)
> that can transport Web Tokens.
>
> There are examples of how YANG modeled data is used outside of *CONF
> protocols, for example MUD. We have to understand and agree about:
>
> * this is possible on a technical level, and
> * this is useful wrt to protocol scope, intent & semantics, I think.
>

MUD (RFC8520) does it, but so does ANIMA vouchers (RFC8366).
Again, data-at-REST described by YANG.

But the document in question does not seem to be data-at-rest, but RPC
access via *CONF protocols to TPM 2.0 objects, so I feel that you are
further muddying this thread by asking the above question.