Subject: [Rats] Call for presentations for RATS 112

From: "Smith, Ned" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 17:51:49 +0000

We have two RATS sessions scheduled for IETF 112.
    rats Session 1 (2:00 requested)
    Monday, 8 November 2021, Session I 1200-1400 (2 hrs)
    Room Name: Room 7 size: 507
    ---------------------------------------------
    rats Session 2 (1:00 requested)
    Friday, 12 November 2021, Session II 1430-1530 (1 hr)
    Room Name: Room 7 size: 507
    ---------------------------------------------
Draft authors please estimate time needed to provide status updates.
The chairs would like to prioritize existing adopted drafts above other drafts and calls for adoption. Please be considerate of other drafts as we would like to give time to every draft that has an update.

The https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-yang-tpm-charra/ and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-tpm-based-network-device-attest/ drafts are pending IESG review. The chairs will provide a status update for these.

Additionally, we anticipate a discussion related to Attestation Results. There are three drafts that appear to relate to this topic, namely https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-eat/, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-voit-rats-attestation-results/ , and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moriarty-attestationsets/. It might work best to schedule this topic separately from the status updates.

---

From: Laurence Lundblade <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 22:36:46 -0700

Here’s the EAT topics.

General status update: 5 minutes

CDDL for Claims-Sets: 25 minutes (10 minutes to introduce, 15 minutes for discussion)
   EAT needs CDDL for a Claims-Set that applies both to JSON/JWT and CBOR/CWT. 
   It will be in the next EAT draft.
   Does it get moved to the UCCS draft?
   Do we create a UJCS (the JSON version of UCCS)?

Nesting CWT in JWT and vice versa: 15 minutes
   EAT’s plan for allowing the nesting of CBOR tokens in JSON tokens and vice versa.

Detached digests and Detached EAT Bundles: 10 minutes
   EAT protocol elements for a very small Attester (e.g., one in a HW block)

Discuss whether EAT is ready for last call: 10 minutes
   The soon-to-be-published of EAT might be a candidate for last call

Thanks!

LL

> On Oct 18, 2021, at 10:51 AM, Smith, Ned <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> The https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-yang-tpm-charra/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-yang-tpm-charra/> and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-tpm-based-network-device-attest/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-tpm-based-network-device-attest/> drafts are pending IESG review. The chairs will provide a status update for these.
>  
> Additionally, we anticipate a discussion related to Attestation Results. There are three drafts that appear to relate to this topic, namely https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-eat/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-eat/>,https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-voit-rats-attestation-results/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-voit-rats-attestation-results/> , andhttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moriarty-attestationsets/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moriarty-attestationsets/>. It might work best to schedule this topic separately from the status updates.
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats>

---

From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 20:02:30 +0000

To progress on the topic of Attestation Results spanning the drafts listed at 
the bottom, it would be good if we adopted some design principles for the 
discussion.   Such design principles are important to keep the number of 
Verifier generated claims low, and to retain the complexity in the Verifier 
rather than the Relying Party.  (Note that we had some mailing list 
discussions on design principles subsequent to IETF 111.  And I have attempted 
to capture these in section 2.3.1 of draft-voit-rats-attestation-results-02.)

Also, I am wondering if draft-moriarty-attestationsets is really about 
Attestation Results. The Policy and Measurement Set Definitions reads more to 
me like specific sets Evidence which can be sent to a Verifier for specific 
use cases.  This could eventually drive specific AR object definitions, but I 
don't see that included at this point.  Addressing Kathleen in this email's 
'to' so she can comment.

Thanks,
Eric

From: RATS <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Smith, Ned
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 1:52 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Rats] Call for presentations for RATS 112

The chairs would like to prioritize existing adopted drafts above other drafts 
and calls for adoption. Please be considerate of other drafts as we would like 
to give time to every draft that has an update.

The https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-yang-tpm-charra/ and 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-tpm-based-network-device-attest/ 
drafts are pending IESG review. The chairs will provide a status update for 
these.

Additionally, we anticipate a discussion related to Attestation Results. There 
are three drafts that appear to relate to this topic, namely 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rats-eat/, 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-voit-rats-attestation-results/ , and 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moriarty-attestationsets/. It might 
work best to schedule this topic separately from the status updates.

---

From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 20:02:30 +0000

Independent of the discussion related to Attestation Results, there are two 
drafts which could be discussed

Updates to draft-voit-rats-attestation-results

Eric, Thomas F, Henk, Thomas H, & Vinnie

(10 minutes)

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

Based on the feedback from IETF 111 and on this list, we have rearranged and 
updated the contents of draft-voit-rats-attestation-results.  There are now 
two major sections aligned around:

1. Generalized types of Trustworthiness Claims (and transport protocol 
independent encodings).

2. Secure Interactions Models that allow a Relying Party to interpret the 
appraisals of (1).

Hopefully we can chat about these in a RATS interim as proposed during IETF 
111.

Thanks,

Updates to draft-voit-rats-trustworthy-path-routing

Eric, Chenna, Guy, Henk

(5 minutes)

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

New YANG model based on the changes to encodings from 
draft-voit-rats-attestation-results

Feedback requested on the proper encoding of content (i.e., within EAP?)

Thanks,

Eric on behalf of the authors