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

["Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Michael,
See comments below:

On 11/10/19, 9:21 PM, "RATS on behalf of Michael Richardson" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    
    
    On 2019-11-11 6:44 a.m., Laurence Lundblade wrote:
    >
    >> On Nov 10, 2019, at 2:20 PM, Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)
    >> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
    >>
    >> So, Laurence, are you still OK with the adoption of the current draft
    >> with a rename for now?
    >> Thanks, Nancy
    
    You suggested the name:
    
    “Yang Module for TPM based Remote Attestations”
    
    But, I think that it should say instead, "Yang Interface to TPM 2.0"
[NCW] That is a fair point.....my point is that it should be named to reflect core of description which is based around TPMs.
    
    >
    > I think the value add to the larger RATS effort of adding EAT support
    > to this YANG protocol is really high. It a core thing to do that helps
    > bring together the two attestation worlds and make the TPM and EAT
    > work here less like ships in the night.
    
    Can you explain what it would mean to add EAT support for a YANG module?
    Maybe I'm daft here.
[NCW]. Hmmm, I did NOT state that?  I think that was Laurence.  I view EAT as defining claims that use  JWT/CWT data structures.
If there are claims (not format) that can be represented in Yang, then yes (and I think some can).  But the "general EAT", I'm not
sure how those structures map to the TPM interfaces...but they certainly could be represented in YANG.
    
    The current document is essentially a YANG wrapper around the TPM 2.0
    specification.  It's RPC, data in motion.
    
    While EAT is primary a JWT/CWT object, which is data-at-rest.
    I think that you are looking for a way to express non-TCG defined
    evidence containers.
[NCW] I'm not sure why these object would be data-at-rest?  I view them as claims represented in specific structures, e.g. JWT/CWT
But can be transported using any transport (e.g. TLS, et al)....similar to YANG?  
While it is true that the YANG draft also exposes the TPM interface, it also contains the claims albeit that are TPM specific.
So perhaps you are referring to the interface aspect?

Best, Nancy