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

["Smith, Ned" <[e-mail]>]

You’re saying YANG fills a gap that is similar to what OpenAPI/RAML fills?

It could be doing more than this as well, such as defining claims (as was suggested in a previous email by I think Michael). If RATS determined that the way to specify a Claim in the information model was via CDDL (only) and there is a YANG expression of it, then that implies a CDDL to YANG mapping is required. (Is that reasonable?).

Or RATS says that it is reasonable to use either/both CDDL and YANG for Claims expressions. This suggests there are CDDL and YANG mappings to whatever are the target DMLs (JOSE, COSE, DER, something else?). Does YANG support DML mappings to JOSE, COSE and DER or just to YANG? Does CDDL support mappings to DER and YANG (something else)?

Ideally CDDL can be mapped to other information modelling languages (e.g. YANG) so that only one normative expression needs to be canonized. However, that implies extra work on behalf of the YANG drafts to come up with the CDDL equivalent. Maybe that is unnecessary extra work for consistency sake? That would force the conversations around whether ‘time’ and ‘ticks’ are the same information model expression (for example).

-Ned

On 11/11/19, 11:52 AM, "RATS on behalf of Laurence Lundblade" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

One more note on this. It seems wrong-headed to try express claims in YANG. To do that we’d need to invent a YANG signing standard (YOSE?). Seems like YANG should be thought of as RPC / conveyance / transport here, not as a way to format a signed attestation token.

LL



On Nov 11, 2019, at 11:47 AM, Laurence Lundblade <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

On Nov 10, 2019, at 9:20 PM, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


I think the value add to the larger RATS effort of adding EAT support
to this YANG protocol is really high. It a core thing to do that helps
bring together the two attestation worlds and make the TPM and EAT
work here less like ships in the night.

Can you explain what it would mean to add EAT support for a YANG module?

The EAT is an opaque chunk of data in YANG. I’m not a YANG expert, but maybe like this:

Server                               Device
GetAttestationTypes —>
                                <- TYPE_TPM, TYPE_CWT /* bit flags */

GetAttestation(TYPE_CWT , nonce) —>
                                <— CWT Token /* a full signed token */

I assume YANG can carry opaque binary data of moderate size.

The yang module information model would have an element for a nonce and for an opaque EAT. It would not describe any internals of the EAT. The information model for the EAT is separate in the EAT document.

LL