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

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

On 2019-11-12 4:28 p.m., Henk Birkholz wrote:
> Hi Laurence,
>
> maybe I lack the required background knowledge about YANG here. My
> question is the following: Is it in-scope for a YANG modules (which
> typically have a well-defined semantic scope for each statement) to
> convey opaque EATs via a single statement. Or is it necessary to
> create YANG statements for each well-defined EAT Claim?

Mostly, i want to answer that: It's not a well formed question.
Yes, we can have a YANG leaf called "eat" that is of type binary, and
returns some serialization of a EAT.
But, I don't think it does anything at all useful.

Yes, we can define each claim type in terms of YANG (describing the data
in YANG types, so "uptime" would have some kind of interval value, and
boottime would have a date type), and then we could use YANG groupings
to build composite sets of claims that when serialized as a group, would
represent a single token.  We have to do this for each use case I
think.  So users of each use case would wind up with their own profile
document, and we'd probably share no code at all.
With care and a lot of fore-thought the result could be less destructive
than the disaster that
X500->509->509v3->PKIX->six-broken-profiles-for-specific-applications
has given us.  Less destructive in the way that hurricanes tend to be
less destructive than asteroid strikes.

I have no interest in going that way.