[SCITT] Scope question: independently derived CWT sub across SCITT Issuers

[Thanh Le <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

I posted an individual Internet-Draft that may be relevant to SCITT:

draft-le-scitt-derived-subjects-00
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-le-scitt-derived-subjects/>
SCITT Profile for Independently Derived Subjects

The question is narrow: when distinct Issuers intend to identify the same
Subject using the same protected CWT sub, which inputs belong inside the
deterministic derivation boundary?

The draft starts from an application-defined structured comparison value
for the Subject and derives a reproducible sub from that value. Statement
content, iss, signatures, Registration, Receipts, and Transparency Service
state remain outside the derivation input.

I have a revised working copy beyond -00, but this boundary question
remains open. I am therefore not asking for line-by-line review of -00. The
WG-level question I would value now is:

For the Subject identity itself, does SCITT require any SCITT-specific
state to participate in deriving the same protected CWT sub across Issuers,
or is keeping that state outside the derivation input the right boundary?

If that boundary is wrong, a concrete counterexample would be especially
useful. I will post the revised text and its normative dependency before
asking for detailed technical review.

Thanks,

Thanh Le
--------------------------------------------