Re: [Rats] What's to EAT?

Seems to me that the CDDL in the EAT draft is working well to define claims that are mechanically serialized into JSON or CBOR and added to JWT and CWT.

Isn’t that the end of the story? Is there a problem with the EAT doc?

LL

> On Nov 18, 2019, at 12:30 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
> If we are going to use JWT/CWT for the security of EATs, then I am skeptical
> that CDDL (or any other Data Modeling language) brings anything to the table.
> 
> What we need are clear semantic descriptions of claims.
> Often we will need some anciliary data associated with the claim, and
> sometimes that data will be more complex than a single binary blob.  In those
> cases, a bit of CDDL will benefit us.
> 
> I don't think that a YANG model will help us at all for this.
> 
> -- 
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
> ]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [ 
> 	
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> RATS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats

Re: [Rats] What's to EAT? - terminology clarification