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

[Schönwälder, Jürgen <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:07:02AM -0800, Laurence Lundblade wrote:
> 
> I see EAT as applicable to all these worlds, where the YANG module is just for the smallish router world. So I mostly agree with Dave about proportions, however this is the IETF where YANG modules are created.  (Maybe I should go join the W3C world and work on attestations APIs for browsers after RATS is done).
>

If EAT is the common format for "token", then it does not make sense
to me to define a YANG version of it. It may make sense to carry EAT
token over protocols such as NETCONF or RESTCONF and to have a YANG
module defining this may make sense for the networking device world.
This is then a definition of an interaction protocol, but not the
token format itself.

If EAT is the common format for "token", then it may make sense to be
able to include "claims" that are YANG defined data. That may be an
extension of the core EAT definition (but EAT would have to allow for
such an extension to work). There is a lot of formally defined data in
YANG modules that would be convenient to reuse as claims in a
networking world.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>