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

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

On 2019-11-13 2:35 a.m., Laurence Lundblade wrote:
> An EAT would show up as a single statement in the RATS YANG module.
> The EAT would be opaque in the RATS YANG module. The RATS work group
> would not author any YANG to describe the claims described in the EAT
> document. 
>
> The attester side implementation of this would:
>
>   * Have code that creates CWT/COSE/CBOR formatted EAT tokens. This
>     would probably be new code. Could also be JWT/JOSE/JSON.
>   * Not need a TPM
>   * Probably re use some existing libraries (JSON or XML or such) to
>     implement what is described in the RATS YANG Module. That would
>     not be anything to do with claims, so this part would exist
>     primarily transport the opaque EAT.
>

And the Attester would then use RESTCONF to ....

Please fill this sentence, because that's what having EATs in a YANG
(RPC, data-in-motion) module means.