Re: [Rats] New RATS

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

Simon,
A couple of comments. The RATS Arch doesn’t use the term ‘Attestee’. Would it be appropriate to use ‘Attester’ or possibly ‘Target Environment’ if the objective is to refer to the environment (object) from which claims are collected by an ‘Attesting Environment’?

I didn’t see a reference to DEB objects. Could that be included?


Should a $$EAT-CBOR-Tagged-Token or $$EAT-CBOR-Untagged-Token be signed for integrity protection – for example using COSE/JOSE?



Thanks,

Ned


From: RATS <[e-mail]> on behalf of Simon Frost <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, May 30, 2022 at 4:34 AM
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Cc: Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Rats] New RATS

FYI. I’ve just submitted a new draft for a proposed extension to the top level object in EAT.

There’s a full justification in the doc, but as a quick summary, there are difficulties in creating a top level ‘envelope’ object for a multi-token system while remaining compatible with EAT. Given the recent move to fix the list of top level objects but embrace extensions, this approach seems to be an appropriate proposal.

See: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-frost-rats-eat-collection/ & https://github.com/SimonFrost-Arm/draft-frost-rats-eat-collection

Thanks
Simon

Simon Frost
Senior Principal Systems Solution Architect, ATG, Arm
Mob: [phone]

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.