MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Thanh Le <vnlemanhthanh@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 12:21:50 +0700
Message-ID: 
 <CA+zd+J5mT+gr_s0bVscGhNOydtFegu4tMxicAsuhFj1KCsmeGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: scitt@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e9e684065a50fcff"
Message-ID-Hash: EYMIPE3YMYF6AQSSWMB42SR5CDC2HWE5
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BSCITT=5D_Scope_question=3A_independently_derived_CWT_sub_across?=
	=?utf-8?q?_SCITT_Issuers?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/scitt/ebfoLg_qlYOHlxkWzWMtp8g8UXY>

--000000000000e9e684065a50fcff
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

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
--------------------------------------------

--000000000000e9e684065a50fcff
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi all,<br><br>I posted an individual Internet-Draft =
that may be relevant to SCITT:<br><br><a href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.o=
rg/doc/draft-le-scitt-derived-subjects/" target=3D"_blank">draft-le-scitt-d=
erived-subjects-00</a><br>SCITT Profile for Independently Derived Subjects<=
br><br>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?<br><br>The draft starts from an appl=
ication-defined structured comparison value for the Subject and derives a r=
eproducible sub from that value. Statement content, iss, signatures, Regist=
ration, Receipts, and Transparency Service state remain outside the derivat=
ion input.<br><br>I have a revised working copy beyond -00, but this bounda=
ry question remains open. I am therefore not asking for line-by-line review=
 of -00. The WG-level question I would value now is:<br><br>For the Subject=
 identity itself, does SCITT require any SCITT-specific state to participat=
e in deriving the same protected CWT sub across Issuers, or is keeping that=
 state outside the derivation input the right boundary?<br><br>If that boun=
dary is wrong, a concrete counterexample would be especially useful. I will=
 post the revised text and its normative dependency before asking for detai=
led technical review.<br><br>Thanks,<br><br></div><div><div dir=3D"ltr" cla=
ss=3D"gmail_signature" data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr">=
<div style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:9pt">=
<span style=3D"color:rgb(136,136,136);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-seri=
f;font-size:small">Thanh Le<br>--------------------------------------------=
</span></div></div></div></div></div>

--000000000000e9e684065a50fcff--